Sitting of 30 November 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether he will announce details of the methods by which he intends to implement his proposals for the protection of pensioners from the effects of the proposed entry to the European Economic Community.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The Government will review the rates of pensions and related benefits at the appropriate time in accordance with our undertaking in the White Paper "The United Kingdom and the European Communities" (Cmnd. 4715).
    Mr. Ewing: In view of the present situation of old-age pensioners, would not the Minister accept that there is a need to do two things—first, to grant an immediate increase to pensioners in order to protect them from the effects of the proposed entry of Britain into the Common Market, and to protect them from the present inflationary trends, and second, especially in view of the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) on 16th November, to give adequate notice to old-age pensioners' associations of the methods that are to be used by the Government to protect pensions if the worst comes
    222
    to the worst and Britain enters the European Economic Community?
    Sir K. Joseph: These are questions which we shall have the opportunity to debate this afternoon. No possible increase due to entry into the Community can come before the middle of 1973, and that is the year in which the biennial review is due to take place.

    Pensions
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the percentage increase in the purchasing power of the national insurance pension, since the last but one increase in November, 1969.
    Sir K. Joseph: As measured by the movement of the General Index of Retail Prices to October, 1971, the purchasing power of the standard rate of retirement pension for a single person is 2·4 per cent. higher than in November, 1969. For a pensioner over 80 the increase, including the new age addition, is 6·7 per cent.
    Mr. Strang: Does not that first figure highlight just how inadequate in real terms has been the last increase in pensions? Will the Secretary of State allow hundreds of thousands of pensioners to spend this Christmas on the poverty line? Would he think again and bring forward substantial increases in their pensions?
    Sir K. Joseph: That, again, is the subject of this afternoon's debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that we managed this time to do marginally better on the increase than the Labour Government did in 1969.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman now give his estimate of when the value of the pension increase will have disappeared altogether? We suspect that it will have disappeared altogether in January and that from then on pensioners will be getting steadily poorer.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, I will not make a guess. But the up-rated pension has always tended to lose value between up-ratings.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the £1 increase in retirement pensions is received by persons in receipt of supplementary benefit.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): Single supplementary pensioners received an increase of 60p in total income, comprising £1 more in retirement pension and 40p less in supplementary pension.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the absolute despair felt by old-age pensioners when they see their money buying less and less? Does he appreciate that this much-vaunted £1 increase, which the Government have vaunted on so many occasions, is nothing more than a shoddy piece of window dressing? Why does he not give pensioners their full £1?
    Mr. Dean: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a real increase in the purchasing power of the pension which was introduced in September. Supplementary pensioners have had the same increase as retirement pensioners, but they have had it in two instalments—one last year and one this year.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we shall be debating this matter for the rest of the day.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider extending the scheme of assistance with the cost of conversion of privately owned cars to hand control for disabled people, to include those who are unable to travel to their place of work on foot or by public transport in a reasonable period of time.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to announce a change in the type of motor vehicle provided for the disabled.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he can yet state when he expects to complete his review on vehicles for disabled drivers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The vehicle service review, considering the types of vehicle to be issued and the circumstances in which they may be issued, is very near completion.
    Mr. Woodnutt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I ask him to remember that there are many people, particularly in rural areas, who are not sufficiently disabled to qualify for a conversion grant—when it would cost only about £50 to adapt a clutch—which means that they cannot get to a place of work twelve miles away and, therefore, that they have to suffer the terrible indignity and thorough demoralisation of not working or they have to pay for the conversion themselves. The Government ought to consider extending these provisions considerably.
    Mr. Alison: The question of the more general provision of three-wheelers and possibly four-wheelers is included in the review.
    Mr. Eadie: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his answer may be welcomed by some of those involved? Will he accept that I am encountering now—as I am sure are many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members—inquiries being made by people who come under the ambit of the review who are wondering whether something is about to happen, because it could certainly make their lives much more pleasant if there were some amendment to the scheme?
    Mr. Alison: Certainly the main purpose of the review—I hope it will succeed in its objectives—is to increase the satisfaction of those at present using the service and to see in what way we can extend it.
    Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend say how near is "very near"? Surely he must know the approximate date? is it to be before Christmas or in the New Year? Could he give an assurance that before this new policy is announced there will be some consultation with the disabled drivers' organisations which will be so much affected by it?
    Mr. Alison: "Very near" cannot be precisely quantified, and it is always dangerous to use the future tense in politics. I am well aware of the various needs and the views expressed by many interested parties.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I am glad to hear that the result of the review will be available at an early date, but has the hon. Gentleman ever attempted to estimate

    225
    how much public money is wasted by failing adequately to help disabled people with their mobility problems? Would he agree that it is ludicrous that we should make things difficult for even severely disabled taxpayers who do not want to become supplementary pensioners?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. All these very wide ramifications of disability and the importance of providing for mobility have been included in the review.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: When the Minister has this review, will he be kind enough to consider retrospective payment of a grant? Many people receive a large bill, cannot pay it out of their accounts and need the money very quickly. Would the Minister consider trying in this matter so that the money can be paid quickly?
    Mr. Alison: I should want to consider what the hon. Gentleman said when I see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Retrospection is a dangerous wedge to include in any financial undertaking.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I ask the hon. Gentleman the simple question whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the existing criteria used by his Department for making financial provision for modifying existing vehicles so that we may try to analyse the anomoly which arises in these allocations.
    Mr. Alison: The official forms on which application is made for assistance under the vehicle scheme are already available and set out all details under which assistance is available.

    Medical Service (Complaints)
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to reduce delays, apparent in some areas, in dealing with complaints made about medical services to executive councils.
    Mr. Alison: Few complaints about avoidable delays have been made to my Department; but if my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he would let me have particulars of them.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the urban areas, particularly Greater London, considerable delays are occurring and the occasional delay is
    226
    occurring in rural areas? A delay of nine or 10 months to settle one of these complaints is distressing both to the patient who is aggrieved and to the doctor who may suffer financially, socially and professionally.
    Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point. A delay as long as that is exceptional and certainly should be queried. I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that we have to balance the advantages of rapidity with the need to preserve a proper balance in the system and, above all, fairness to the parties involved.
    Dr. Miller: When the hon. Gentleman is considering complaints about the medical services, would he take into account the fact that there are some areas of Scotland where doctors who are providing medical services finish their consulting hours before the men and women come in from their work? Will he give some instructions to executive councils that when there are complaints about this matter something will be done about it?
    Mr. Alison: I will see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland notes the hon. Gentleman's points.

    Anti-influenza Vaccinations
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people over 65 years of age received anti-influenza vaccinations last year; and if he intends to increase their numbers this year.
    Mr. Alison: I regret that the information requested is not available. It is for the patient's doctor to decide whether to offer vaccination in any particular case.
    Mr. Ashley: If there is an outbreak of influenza this year, will the Minister take steps to avoid a repetition of the deplorable situation last year, when footballers, business men and Members of Parliament were offered vaccination before old people at risk?
    Mr. Alison: We have forwarded the existing professional advice in a new note to general practitioners in Health Trends, pointing out the view taken by the professionals concerned as to the desirability and scope for special vaccination for the elderly.

    Supplementary Benefits (Strikes)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to strikers and their families since the entry into force of the Social Security Act, and the average payment per family per week; and what were the corresponding figures for similar periods in each of the preceding five years.
    Mr. Dean: Section 1(4) of the Social Security Act, 1971, which deals with payments made during strikes for strikers' dependants, did not come into force until 3rd November 1971. The total cost to public funds of larger strikes, of which special records are kept, between that date and 23rd November was £21,273 and the average payment per family £5·29.
    I will, if I may, circulate details of the other figures asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but my hon. Friend may like to know that the average yearly amount of supplementary benefit paid during November for the five years up to 1970 was about £124,000 and the average payment per family was just under £6 a week.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I will study the figures with interest. It may not be possible yet, but can my hon. Friend say whether there is evidence to establish that the estimate, given by my right hon. Friend at the time of passage of the Act, that it was likely to reduce the scale of subsidisation of strikes by the taxpayer, during their duration, by between one-third and 50 per cent. has turned out to be justified?
    Mr. Dean: It is too early to be sure, as my hon. Friend himself suggested, but the figures already show a downward trend and there is also the happy fact that during this period—the second half of this year—there have been very few strikes of a length which has brought people into the possibility of getting supplementary benefit.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the sentiments expressed in the Question? Does he recognise that, through the family income supplement, the taxpayer is subsidising employers who are not paying a living wage to many workers? Does not
    228
    he agree that families of strikers should not become involved because the fathers are fighting for a principle?
    Mr. Dean: There is nothing wrong in the Question. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) asked how an Act of Parliament was operating in practice and I have tried to give an answer. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the family income supplement. I remind him that many thousands of families are receiving substantial help which was not available previously.
    Mr. O'Malley: While it is true that the period covered by this Question is too short to determine any trend—and the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) should have known that—is the Minister not aware that in so far as the Social Security Act hits at the wives and children of men on strike, we on this side are opposed to any proposition that strikes should be broken by starving out the women and children?
    Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows that that was not the intention of the Act, which was to remove an entirely unjustified preference which strikers' families had over other families.
    Following is the information:
    1. The total amount of supplementary benefit paid out during larger trade disputes to strikers and their families, from the coming into force of the Social Security Act on 3rd November to week ended 23rd November. (No later figures are available.)

    Amount Paid

    Average Payment per Family

    £

    £

    21,273

    5·29

    2. Total amount of supplementary benefit paid out during disputes to strikers and their families during the November of each of the five years preceding the Social Security Act:

    Year

    Average Paid

    Amount Payment per Family

    £

    £

    1966

    9,829

    5·21

    1967

    69,476

    6·62

    1968

    24,775

    3·65

    1969

    199,832

    6·07

    1970

    315,715

    5·67

    3. The figures in paragraph 2 relate to the complete months of November. It is not possible without disproportionate work to isolate the three weeks represented by the figures for 1971. Direct comparison with the figures in paragraph I would not in any event be possible since the 1971 figures relate to larger strikes only, while the figures for previous years cover all strikes.

    Cancer (Cytology Tests)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women were in the greatest cancer-risk age group in the year 1970–71; and what proportion of these have had cytology tests in this time under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Alison: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind cancer of the cervix. The likelihood of developing this form of cancer increases sharply with age and women age 35 years and over are known to be most at risk. There are about 13 million women in this age group. Approximately 1,850,000 tests were made in 1970, of which about half were on women aged 35 and over.
    Mrs. Knight: Does not my hon. Friend agree that that is hardly a satisfactory answer? Is he aware that 6,000 women contract cervical cancer every year, that 3,000 of these die from it, and that almost all of them could be saved if some funds were allocated for yearly or even biannual tests? Will my hon. Friend assure me that he does not share the total indifference of his chief medical officer on this subject, who does not even deign to mention the subject of cytology in any part of his 1970 annual report?
    Mr. Alison: I must immediately come to the defence of the chief medical officer. He has recently published two articles on cervical cytology in Health Trends, which is circulated free of charge to every general practitioner, and he has urged an increase in the number of women they bring forward for screening.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is it correct that so much money has been spent on abortions that there is little left for cytology?
    Mr. Alison: As the hon. Lady knows from her wide experience of medicine, the problem in cytology is the difficulty of persuading women that they need to come forward for screening.
    Mrs. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That reply was in no way an answer to my supplementary question. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will now reply to it?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, I am afraid.
    Mrs. Short: Too many times at Question Time Ministers get away with this sort of thing.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of an answer is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mrs. Short: It is a matter for the House. It is a disgrace.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Health Trends is no substitute for the chief medical officer's report and that we trust that this will not be repeated in future years? Secondly, will he authorise far greater publicity to encourage more women to use this excellent service, which is saving thousands of lives a year? Will he also not remain content with testing those at greatest risk? What about those at lesser risk? After all, the life of a lesser risk patient is just as valuable as the life of someone at greater risk.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady will have noted that half of the tests carried out in 1970 were on women under the age of 35 Publicity is a matter for the Health Education Council, which has plenty of funds and is very active. It is simply a problem of communication in making women who may not have immediate symptoms of which they are aware come forward for screening.

    Re-establishment Centres
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many visits he has made to re-establishment centres since he took office.
    Mr. Dean: Of the 13 centres, my right hon. Friend has visited one and I have visited two.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the hon. Gentleman consider increasing the frequency of these visits in order to give more publicity to the valuable work being done by the centres, which exist to bring the long-term unemployed man back to work? Would he emphasise particularly that for the whole of 1970 only 2,308 men attended the country's 13 centres? Does not this give the lie to the idea, fostered on many occasions by the Conservative Party, that half the nation are no-good layabouts? Is he satisfied that the centres are receiving their fair share of resources in premises and skilled and professional personnel?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the centres. They do valuable work, particularly in trying to help those who have got out of the normal routine of work to get back into that routine. I assure him that my right hon. Friend and I will always visit them as opportunity arises.

    Abortion
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he gives to general practitioners who find that consultant gynaecologists in their local hospitals are refusing to accept their patients whom they recommend for termination of pregnancy.
    Sir K. Joseph: In general I would expect general practitioners confronted with such problems to take them up with the local hospital authority or with the appropriate regional hospital board. If an individual patient is referred back to her own doctor it will then be for him to consider the situation and make any further arrangements.
    Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West Midlands many general practitioners know that there is no point in referring their women patients to consulant gynaecologists because they refuse to carry out these operations? Is he also aware that some gynaecologists in different parts of the country are blackmailing women into agreeing to sterilisation before they will agree to carry out the termination operation? Does not he think that this is a disgraceful state of affairs, which causes great and needless distress to very many women patients? Will he urgently look at this matter, because it is a very serious situation?
    Sir K. Joseph: Without accepting any specific allegation which the hon. Lady made, I would reply that these are precisely the sort of questions which the Lane Committee exists to try to settle.

    Consultant Distinction Awards
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish the names of recipients of consultant distinction awards and also publish the reasons for each individual award.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would not make changes in the present system without strong evidence that they are desirable and have the support of the professions concerned.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as millions of pounds of public money are used to finance consultants' merit awards, the taxpayer has a right to know which doctors have been given awards and on what grounds? Why are Parliament and people not allowed to know the reasons behind these awards? Why is the whole matter shrouded in secrecy?
    Sir K. Joseph: In the very early days of the National Health Service, it was considered that it was to the advantage of the public that these awards, with the names of those receiving them, should not be made known, because patients might draw fallacious conclusions from them. A review body has confirmed that judgment. The B.M.A., the main professional organisation of the medical profession, is about to canvass once again the views of its members on the whole subject.
    Mr. Pavitt: If the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to end the nonsense of secrecy which has been allowed to grow up around consultants' merit awards, will he at least consider merit awards for State registered sisters who have reached the highest maximum nursing pay by their middle twenties and must spend the rest of their nursing careers without being able to get any advance unless they go into administration? Will he consider having merit awards for good nurses?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is another question and it is not on the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).

    Consultants (Leicester)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why a wait of three months is necessary in Leicester city or county before a patient can be interviewed by a consultant under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Alison: Urgent cases are seen without delay but because of shortage of facilities due to be remedied by hospital building developments, non-urgent cases in three surgical specialties may at present

    233
    have to wait for 12 weeks or more for an appointment.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware, so long is the wait for a National Health Service consultation, that many of my constituents are forced to consider having a consultation privately? This practice can do nothing but bring the National Health Service into disrepute.
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friends knows that urgent cases always receive immediate attention. It is always open to the general practitioner to recategorise as urgent a case which was not urgent if it develops through waiting.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In many specialties the waiting time is very long and very upsetting for the patient. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are more and more conscious of the gradual breakdown of the National Health Service and of the growing attractions of private consultancy for that reason?
    Mr. Alison: We regret all delay. As I said, in Leicester the delay is confined to three specialties. In other specialties, the waiting is a great deal less—indeed, better than in many other parts of the country. The situation will improve when building development now in hand is completed.
    Mr. Farr: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Retirement Pensioners (Deputation)
    Mr. Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last received a deputation of retirement pensioners.
    Sir K. Joseph: I received a deputation from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations on Wednesday, 27th October, 1971.
    Mr. Lamond: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the great anxiety among pensioners about the future, especially with winter drawing on, and that they find it very difficult to believe the figures being given by the Government to show that they are better off now
    234
    than they were last year. Will he not take advantage of today's debate to announce a new initiative with regard to the care of the elderly, on similar lines to that announced by President Nixon today, with a view to discovering the true nature of the needs of old people so that his Department can do something to meet some of the anxieties and make elderly people look forward to retirement instead of dreading it?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is more for the debate today, but I accept that the pensioners who came to see me convinced me that they need an assurance about the future.

    Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to raise the level of disregards for people in receipt of supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that that is the same answer that I received about this time last year? I have no reason to expect that it would be different from other years. On the basis that, in answer to earlier Questions, his right hon. Friend has made it clear that they will be starving the old-age pensioners into submission this winter, does he not realise that the Government could retain a little credibility by raising the disregards, particularly for those getting some kind of industrial supplementary pension? For instance, is he aware that he would help the 20,000 miners who have lost supplementary benefit and who, when the pension was increased to 30 shillings, lost the 10 shillings on the supplementary benefits? On the basis of the 25 per cent. inflation since the disregards were last increased, is it not time that they were altered?
    Mr. Dean: Since the hon. Gentleman was given that answer 12 months ago, £600 million has been made available to increase pension and other benefits. My right hon. Friend will keep these disregards under review. I must, however, ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that the best way of helping those in need is by putting up pensions.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for attendance allowance in respect of severely disabled people have been approved; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fennerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people he estimates will receive the new attendance allowance.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is, at the latest available date, the number of applications received, granted and still under consideration, respectively, for the new attendance allowance for disabled persons.
    Dr. Traffordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the development of the attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are expected to qualify for the constant attendance allowance; and how many successful claims have been registered to date.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the introduction of the constant attendance allowance.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to extend the attendance allowance for disabled people to cover a wider range of disablement.
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of applications for attendance allowance in respect of severely disabled people has been successful; if he will publicise the appeal procedure; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Over 95,000 claims had been received up to 23rd November. Of these, about 44,000 had been successful, nearly 21,000 were rejected subject to the right to apply for a review of the decision
    236
    and some 30,000 were still under consideration. The awards up to that date were 32,000 to adults and 12,000 to children. New claims are still coming in at the rate of several thousands a week.
    By 6th December, the starting date for payment, the number of awards will be within reach of the 50,000 we originally estimated, but the number who finally receive the allowance when all these outstanding claims or applications for review have been considered will be substantially greater.
    I think the House will agree that this is a highly satisfactory outcome so far, and one which reflects great credit on the Attendance Allowance Board, the general practitioners and other doctors whose help they enlisted and, may I add, the officers concerned throughout my Department, all of whom have worked hard and enthusiastically. I cannot at this stage say anything about the timing of further developments.
    Mr. Astor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him whether, in the light of the experience gained by his Department in assessing these applications, he will consider widening the qualifications for eligibility to include some of the very severely disabled people who are excluded at the moment?
    Sir K. Joseph: We have all the time described this as the first stage, but I cannot today go further than that.
    Mr. Lane: While that is an encouraging start, could my right hon. Friend say, in respect of the applications for children, what the percentage of success has been compared with the overall figures he gave a moment ago?
    Sir K. Joseph: The overall success rate, to give the background, is 69 per cent. The success rate for children has been 82 per cent.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there are large numbers of severely disabled people who need extra financial assistance but who do not qualify under the present attendance allowance? When will he be able to announce an extension of the range of the allowance to cover the new series of disabled?
    Sir K. Joseph: When embarking for the first time on trying to help the severely

    237
    disabled, the House and the Government recognised that we would have to do it by stages. I cannot give the answer today.
    Dr. Trafford: Can my right hon. Friend say when he is likely to be able to relax the day-and-night rule, in particular, on these allowances?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has put again, rather ingeniously, and in another way, the question put by two other hon. Members. I cannot answer that.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for attendance allowance to get under way, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a tremendous number of families are involved in this? In my own constituency three cases have been reversed on appeal. Would he agree that it is difficult to appreciate why certain categories have to appeal in any case? I can give an example from my own constituency, that of a lady who lost both legs and had three strokes, who had been turned down for constant attendance allowance.
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope that all hon. Members who come across cases which they feel are anomalous will advise constituents to ask for a review by the Board. We are faced with the inevitability of varied standards by general practitioners up and down the country. That is why we want to encourage reviews of any marginal cases. The Board has so far dealt with 4,100 reviews, of which 83 per cent. have been successful.
    Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pattern of acceptances and rejections, particularly for mentally handicapped children, in some areas is bewildering and that a large percentage have had to be submitted for a second time? Can he make it known that these second applications may succeed and try to eliminate the need for them?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not see how I can eliminate the need for them when we are bringing into payment a new benefit which depends ultimately on a combination of objective and subjective criteria and when the first line of agents of decision consists of a mass of intensely hard-worked general practitioners.
    Mr. Ashley: How soon will the Minister be able to remove the condition that
    238
    severely disabled people should need constant attention, day and night? This is an abysmal condition and unduly restrictive. Can the Minister give these allowances to those who may require attention during the day?
    Sir K. Joseph: Even to the hon. Gentleman I cannot give the answer that he and many other hon. Members wish to have. I am sorry.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department, on great humanitarian grounds, have already overruled the original negative decision and given people this attendance allowance, notably Mrs. Gregory in my constituency—an allowance originally refused. We are truly grateful.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not normally refuse any expressions of gratitude, but any credit must go to the Attendance Allowance Board, which is entirely independent.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many disturbing cases of refusal of entitled applicants being reversed only after strong representations from their Members of Parliament? Is it not time that we had an urgent review of procedure?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is entirely unwarranted. The Attendance Allowance Board is composed of devoted individuals who have very busy professional lives of their own and who have made time to carry out this relatively invidious task. They do not need strong representations from Members of Parliament; they simply need names of constituents whose cases need reviewing.

    Day Nursery Service
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to expand the day nursery service.
    Sir K. Joseph: As the available resources and the demands of other services permit I am continuing to recommend loan sanction for day nurseries where the majority of the children for whom they are intended are in special need of care. I estimate that new expenditure approved this financial year will be up by nearly a third compared with last year. This is a large increase from admittedly a rather modest level.
    Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that the recent small survey carried out by Sonia Jackson backs up evidence produced by the late Dr. Simon Yudkin and others eminent in this area, namely, that the complete lack of day nurseries and childminding facilities in the country means that large numbers of pre-school children are being looked after in totally inadequate and even dangerous conditions? Merely catering for those children in special need, as he says, does not meet this urgent problem. We need an immediate expansion in day nursery schools.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not need convincing of the need for more services for the under-fives. That is why I have asked the voluntary bodies concerned to submit their views to me, and why the Government seek to expand the appropriate services, within the resources available.

    Family Income Supplement
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will carry out a survey to establish what sort of families who are eligible for help under the Family Income Supplement Act have not claimed their entitlement, and why.
    Sir K. Joseph: At my request the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys conducted a survey in September in which a number of respondents to recent Family Expenditure and General Household Surveys were reinterviewed with a view to obtaining this information. I expect to receive the results shortly.
    Mr. Pardoe: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, and expressing the hope that the survey will produce the results which the Question was intended to produce, will the Secretary of State accept that nearly 100,000 out of the 185,000 families estimated to be eligible for F.I.S. have not claimed it? Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned that among those 100,000 are the most needy people?
    Sir K. Joseph: If my original estimate were correct the hon. Gentleman's figure would follow. What the House must recognise is that a much higher percentage of those whom we expected to be entitled to £2 a week or more have received awards. The sharp short-fall has been
    240
    in those entitled to relatively small awards. We regret this, however, because even with the small award, the pass-book that goes with F.I.S. would have given those families automatic free health and sickness benefits.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the types of reason for which applications for F.I.S. are turned down?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have answered this before. Two-thirds are turned down because their earnings are too high and one-third because they are not technically in full-time work.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of those receiving family income supplement are civil servants or public employees and what proportion of their applications are successful?
    Sir K. Joseph: It is a good question, to which I cannot give the answer. If the hon. Lady likes to put down a Question, I will try to find out.

    Poor Persons in Need
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that reorganisation of the social services since he was appointed is working to the satisfaction of the poor, and meeting their need; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. As regards cash benefits I would refer the hon. Member to the recent substantial uprating, achieved for the first time without any increase in National Insurance contributions by the low paid, and the introduction of family income supplement and selective improvements for the chronic sick and the over-80s. But the reorganisation of local authority social services into Seebohm departments and the greatly increased load on their staffs due to Government pressure to help neglected groups is causing unavoidable transitional difficulties and revealing deficiencies in services in some cases.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my main concern, like the editorial in today's Evening Standard, is for the old in need? Is he aware that I welcome his recently-announced extra provision for hospital facilities for the old and mentally sick? Is he further aware

    241
    that there are still big gaps in services for the old in need and the disabled at home? Will he, first, pressurise local authorities into using their powers on behalf of the disabled and, secondly, pressurise other local authorities into seeing to it that the old apply for financial help where they are entitled to it, and especially for heating grants?
    Sir K. Joseph: At a certain stage pressure might become counter-productive. Local authority social service departments are coping with a massive reorganisation and the requirement by Government to try to make good the short-fall of generations in dealing not only with the elderly but with the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled. It is a huge task and there are bound to be deficiencies.

    Earnings Rule
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services having regard to discontent among pensioners, continuous inflation especially affecting food and fuel, and levels of unemployment, whether he will raise to £15 per week the maximum under the earnings rule which a pensioner may earn, and £30 per week for man and wife, before retirement pensions are mulcted; and what other plans he has from 1st January, 1972, for bringing up to date the earnings rule.
    Mr. Dean: The earnings rule limits were raised substantially last September. Further changes are not contemplated at the moment.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Have not prices and wages overtaken this level of £9·50 of today and would it not be more realistic to allow these people to earn £15 a week from 1st January, as this would have a proper relationship to the correct level of wages and prices? Have we to wait another 12 months before it can be adjusted?
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. Neither earnings nor prices have overtaken the figure. The increase was no less than £2. In addition, the maximum permitted earnings of a wife of a retirement pensioner, being herself under the age of 60, are now £9·50, in comparison with only £3·20 before September. These are substantial improvements.

    Nurses (Pay)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the monthly gross pay of a fully qualified State registered nurse, also fully qualified in midwifery, on the basis that she is living outside the hospital.
    Mr. Alison: The monthly gross pay of a qualified nurse or midwife depends on her grade and seniority. For nurses it varies from £84 at the minimum of the staff nurse scale to £140·50 at the maximum of the ward sister scale. For those practising midwifery the corresponding figures are £86·50 and £140·50.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that these figures compare extremely unfavourably with average industrial earnings today and that this is one of the principal reasons for the decline in the quality of the Health Service in that these girls, dedicated as they are, know that they are being exploited by the community at large? When are the Government to take some initiative and pay these girls the money to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Alison: The increase in nurse recruitment in 1970 was the largest we have known. The Whitley Council is about to receive a further pay claim and the proper negotiating machinery will then be put into operation.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave last Tuesday to a similar Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).—[Vol. 826, c. 1133.]
  Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a time of crisis the British people expect their Prime Minister to be in the thick of things and not skulking behind others? Is he further aware that although he may have scored

  243
  a success conducting the London Symphony Orchestra last week, the country would think much more of him if he conducted a tour of Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: I explained the considerations to be taken into account in this matter when I answered a previous Question. Many people have differed from my views and no doubt will do so in the future, but I do not think that many people have questioned, in my service to my country, my courage.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister state what representations he has made, or is making, to the Northern Ireland Government about the recently-passed Payments for Debt Act which, as retrospective legislation, clearly contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights of which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory? Secondly, is he aware that by depriving the old, the sick and the disabled as well as the unemployed of up to half their income it is causing, provocatively so in the present situation, immense hardship?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter within the scope and power of the Northern Ireland Government. Those who feel aggrieved have an easy remedy, which is to go on with their normal payments.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: As my right hon. Friend—and the Leader of the Opposition—have reaffirmed their adherence to the Ireland Act, 1949 would he consider a referendum in Northern Ireland to give the people there an opportunity of stating whether they wish to remain part of Britain or to become part of Southern Ireland? Would this not have an additional advantage in that if the decision can be taken and clearly seen, it can remove this matter from politics for a generation or more?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the question of Northern Ireland becoming a part of the Republic is an issue at the moment and therefore the question of a referendum does not arise.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, serious though the position is, and irrespective of whether he goes to Ireland, he ought to try to convey to the people of Ireland on all occasions the overwhelming belief in this country that there is no problem in
  244
  Ireland that cannot be settled by peaceful solution and that there is certainly no problem in Ireland that is worth the loss of life of one of our soldiers or an innocent Irishman?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have always done my best to do as he says. In particular, the fact that we had the first meeting of the three Prime Ministers for 50 years and were able to sit round a table and discuss our differences is a clear indication of that. It also seems that if we, with considerable differences between us, can have discussions covering an entirely open agenda in the way we did, then surely those in Northern Ireland who are concerned with this problem, despite their differences, can similarly get round the table.

  TEXTILE INDUSTRY
  Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Trade and Industry and Employment on the problems of the textile industry; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments work closely together both at headquarters and in the regions.
  Mr. Barnett: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although he may be satisfied, the people of Lancashire are far from satisfied? The position is desperate, with the latest figures showing that as a percentage of consumption, imports represent about 55 per cent. compared with 15 per cent. in the United States. Bearing in mind the current serious unemployment in the area, is the Prime Minister aware that the Textile Council has recently found that a cut of 10 per cent. in those imports would provide 4,000 to 5,000 additional jobs, and will he reconsider the Government's whole policy of quotas and marks of origin?
  The Prime Minister: This policy was, of course, the policy of the previous Administration. The Act was passed by Parliament under the previous Government, and it was the hon. Gentleman's Administration which made the changes of which he is now complaining. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Gentleman

  245
  wishes his views to be taken seriously he should accept responsibility for his own Government's policies. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last night in the Adjournment debate, the questions which the hon. Gentleman has raised are being followed most closely, and special monitoring machinery has been set up by the Government to ascertain the facts so that action can be taken.
  Sir R. Cary: Following his much-valued visit to the Lancashire/Cheshire border recently, the Prime Minister will be aware of the distress caused by the closing of so many mills. Is it not wrong that the marking of cloth imported into this country should be abolished?
  The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is at this moment considering requests from the industry for special orders to be made under Section 8.
  Mr. Lamond: Will the Prime Minister say what action he is taking following his meeting with both sides of the textile industry during his visit to Manchester last month?
  The Prime Minister: As I have just said, one issue is the question of the special markings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now considering the requests which have been made by the industry. The Under-Secretary of State last night dealt with the introduction of tariffs, which are due to come in on 1st January, and this will undoubtedly benefit part of the industry. There is then the question of the disruption which may arise after the change-over, and the special monitoring machinery is being set up to deal with this aspect.

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister what replies he gives to those who write to him on the subject of unemployment amongst the 55 years and over age group.
  The Prime Minister: The great majority of such correspondents are concerned with individual cases, which I ask the Department of Employment to follow up.
  Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that this category of unemployment accounts for approximately one-third of the total and that within that total 40 per cent. have been unemployed for a year or more? What positive proposals has he to remedy this situation, since he must realise that without such action many of these people will never again be employed?
  The Prime Minister: The actual figures are as follows: In 1971 the proportion was 22·7 per cent. The corresponding figure in 1967, four years ago, was 22·8 per cent. This is a considerable problem but it is not a problem which is increasing proportionately; it remains about the same. The special action which is being taken is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced special training schemes so that new skills can be acquired where possible and people can be better equipped for jobs.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Prime Minister aware that this problem is worse in small seaside towns? In 20 towns over 10 per cent. are unemployed, a quarter of whom are in the 55-and-over age group. Could a special committee be set up to look into this serious problem?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to examine this special problem in seaside towns to see whether additional action can be taken there. Those people will be covered to some extent by the training arrangements which I have described.
  Mr. Taverne: Will the Prime Minister make a statement about the report in two leading newspapers that the Government intend to take action against unemployment by use of the regulator? Is it not intolerable that this statement should come from Rome, and is it not unfortunate that uncertainty should be created and that there should be a loss of sales by the inevitable anticipation of future measures?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman should have sufficient experience of Government and of the Press not to believe what he reads in newspapers.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Prime Minister must inform us a little further. Two of the most serious papers, The Times and

  247
  the Financial Times, today had lead stories, dated from Rome where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, announcing that the regulator would be used later this week. This is unprecedented. We have become used to having Budgets or mini-Budgets once a fortnight, but this degree of uncertainty is unprecedented. The country and the House are entitled to know from the Prime Minister whether we are to expect a statement on economic measures on Thursday of this week or early next week.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Press speculation is by no means unprecedented. He will also be aware that a variety of economic journals have been proposing a variety of actions. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a statement to make about any economic matter, he will make it in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Jenkins: If, as the Prime Minister says, this is pure speculation, is he prepared to deny the two lead stories in The Times and the Financial Times?
  The Prime Minister: I will not deal with speculation of any kind at any time, any more than the right hon. Gentleman did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  LONGFORD, MIDDLESEX
  Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Longford, Middlesex.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Bidwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) visited Longford, a few miles from my constituency, to make, yet again, a demagogic, racialist speech aimed at my constituents seeking, one assumes, to turn many of them white with fright. Since in this speech, which received wide publicity—although it was not handed out from the Tory Central Office this time—the right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of back-tracking on Conservative policy, and since in a cowardly way he accused Home Office officials of
  248
  issuing falsified monthly figures, will the Prime Minister reconsider his answer and come either to Longford or to Southall to explain the Government's true position?
  The Prime Minister: I have no responsibility for such matters, and it is an abuse of Question Time.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is the second time that a Privy Councillor has accused a Government Department of issuing false statistics? Cannot civil servants be protected from this sort of allegation?
  The Prime Minister: I have repeated constantly in the House that if any hon. Member, a Privy Councillor or otherwise, has any complaint to make and sends me the information, it will be inquired into. I have never received such information.

  PAKISTAN (COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to invite to a special meeting the heads of all Commonwealth countries other than Pakistan, with a view to expelling Pakistan from the Commonwealth and to the Commonwealth recognising Bangla Desh as a free and sovereign State.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Other Commonwealth Governments share our concern about the consequences of the situation in East Pakistan, but a meeting on the terms proposed by the hon. Member would contribute nothing towards a resolution of this grave problem.
  Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the present fighting is born of the Indian Government's despair at the failure of the world Powers to take positive action? Is it not time for the Government to give a lead to the world Powers in this direction? Does not the Prime Minister realise that the independence of Bangla Desh is now inevitable and that, therefore, self-interest comes in line with the moral imperative to take this initiative?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the Indian Government have no desire that any action should be taken in the United Nations or elsewhere. What is

  249
  more, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth took an initiative with both countries and it was rejected.
  Mr. Marten: I do not know about Bangla Desh, but is not a Question like this absolute balderdash? Should not the Commonwealth be trying to get together to resolve this matter with Pakistan rather than kicking Pakistan out of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: Many members of the Commonwealth have been in direct contact both with Mrs. Ghandi and with President Yahya, and we have all been endeavouring to find a way of resolving these difficulties. I am sure that is the best way of going about it.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the right hon. Gentleman prod his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to get the United Nations to have another go? There seems to be a reluctance to touch the United Nations, as though one would get an electric shock from doing so.
  The Prime Minister: We have encouraged various United Nations activities at different times during this trouble, particularly those concerning the refugees. On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to hold the view, as many countries do, including the two countries concerned, that to have a discussion about this problem in the Security Council would not be a way of resolving tension but might indeed increase it.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) say, in effect, that India's patience is exhausted? Is this the proper attitude for any Commonwealth country to take? Is it not also the case that there is no procedure for expulsion from the Commonwealth, and that in East Pakistan there is no separate sovereign State satisfying any of the criteria for international recognition?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on the latter part of his supplementary question. We must recognise the great social stresses and strains which are produced by nine million refugees in India. The Prime Minister of India has undoubtedly stood firmly against pressures to try to seek a solution of these problems by force.
  Mr. Shore: Since the United Nations has difficulties in considering this matter, does not the Prime Minister think that the Commonwealth could be a useful forum in which to discuss the great problems caused by civil war between Pakistan and East Bengal? Does not he also think that the Commonwealth Declaration, which was signed by all Commonwealth Governments in January this year, should be applied to East Bengal, as indeed in every Commonwealth country?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to give a view about the last part of the question. I did not exclude action by Commonwealth countries. That is going on all the time. What I said was that I did not think that a formal meeting of the Commonwealth would be the best way to solve these difficulties. Individual heads of Governments of Commonwealth countries are in touch with me, and many of us are in touch with both the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a new situation which has arisen over the answering of Questions. The House has recently decided that if an hon. Member puts down two oral Questions they should be split so that more hon. Members have an opportunity to put supplementary questions. It is not within the competence of the Chair to tell a Minister how to answer Questions, but if a Minister decides to answer several Questions together—for example, Nos. 1, 2 and 51—an hon. Member may have an opportunity to ask two supplementary questions, whereas an hon. Member who has a Question down before No. 51 is denied the opportunity of putting a first supplementary question. I seek your guidance on how to ensure that an hon. Member gets one Question answered before another hon. Member gets a second Question answered.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order. I also need to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—of course I need to seek your guidance; I am always seeking it. Question No. 79 in my name appears on the Order Paper today to the Secretary of State for Employment. It was tabled by

251
Me as a Question to the Prime Minister about how many deputations he has received. I see no reason, and the Table Office saw no reason, why it should not have been answered by the Prime Minister. I wished to ask whether the Prime Minister would take a ride in a three-wheeled disabled person's car, and he refused to answer. I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is getting upset about the Questions I am tabling to him. However, it is a well known fact that my questions are tabled not with a view to unsetting the Prime Minister but to get information.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot continue to seek guidance in this way. I can give him the guidance at once that that is not a point of a order. These are not matters for the Chair. What I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) also applies to the point of order put by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). It is not a question for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  PENSIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) to move the Motion, I must inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and the other right hon. Gentlemen, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to protect the living standards of old people, as evidenced by the recent increase in retirement pensions, the provision of pensions for the over-80s, and the improvement in public service and Armed Forces pensions; and notes with approval the increased resources made available by Her Majesty's Government for developing the services for the elderly "
  3.37 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move,
  That this House, disturbed by the plight of retirement pensioners this winter, and aware that the recent increase has largely been absorbed in rapidly rising prices, regrets that Her Majesty's Government has taken no further steps to improve the immediate purchasing power of pensioners, which would also assist the national economic position.
  We believe that the Government now have a rare opportunity to put right a very inadequate increase in pensions and that this will make sense both economically and socially.
  On 4th February, 1971, the Secretary of State said in the course of the debate:
  "There is a silent nightmare going on among the elderly, the hard-pressed, many of the sick and disabled, and the very poor in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1957.]
  That nightmare has not ended. The Secretary of State saw the problem, but he failed to find anything but that bitter answer. The "biggest rise in pensions ever" is a very sour irony. Again and again the Government make this claim without reference to its real purchasing power; without reference to the inflation in prices, or to the fact that they have

  253
  presided over the most rapid increase in cost of living in recent years. They must know as well as we do that their reference to "the biggest rise in pensions ever" is merely an attempt to take a great many people for a ride.
  I said on 3rd May, 1971, that the increase proposed will not maintain the purchasing power of the pension for long. By October, 1971, the pension was worth exactly 12p more than in November, 1969. Prices are still rising at over 9 per cent. per year. This means that soon after Christmas, and at the latest by some time in February, the pensioners will be getting less in terms of real value than they were in November, 1969, and long before the next review is due pensioners will be getting less even than they received in 1963.
  For 21 months of the next two years before the next uprating is due—I was extremely sorry to see the Government confirm their adherence to a biennial review in the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure—pensioners will become steadily poorer month by month than they were when the last up-rating occurred in November, 1969. But the position is considerably worse than this because, as many of my hon. Friends know, the cost of living index for pensioners moves more rapidly forward than the index does for the population as a whole, because the pensioner spends a very much greater share of his meagre income on food, fuel and rents than do the rest of the population.
  In all three of these fields the Government have either taken or are shortly about to take action which will increase the prices of those necessities even more. Furthermore, women pensioners between 60 and 65, as my hon. Friends point out in Question after Question, are obliged to pay increased prescription charges which by themselves wipe out the whole of the increase in pension, the small sum of 12p which the Government are still holding on to.
  There is another fact which has not often been raised in the House but which I believe to be important. In November, 1966, the then Labour Government introduced what was called the long-term addition, a sum of 45p a week, which was automatically paid to all old-age pensioners on supplementary benefit who had no other resources. The 45p auto-
  254
  matic long-term addition, which goes to 98 per cent. of pensioners on supplementary benefit, was increased in July, 1968, to 50p. It has not been increased since.
  One does not need to be a mathematician to see that the fall in the value of the long-term addition alone has been greater than the increase in pensions. What this means to the pensioner on supplementary benefit is that the 98 per cent. who get a long-term addition are worse off today than they were in 1969—and, by definition, they are the poorest 2 million pensioners.
  Furthermore, one of the few growth points which the Government have successfully brought about is a growth in the number of people drawing supplementary benefit. It has increased in just over a year from 1·6 million to 1·96 million. In other words, side by side with a million unemployed, the Government have also reached the target of 2 million pensioners on supplementary benefit. On top of that there are estimated to be anything between 500,000 to 800,000 who do not claim the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled.
  So much for the situation on pensions—
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Lady is misusing the figures on such a wholesale scale that I cannot refrain from interrupting to point out at least one confusion. Does she not agree that some of the increase in the number of supplementary pensioners is due to the fact that the level of requirements has been increased and is thus giving help to a larger number of people than before—not because of increased poverty but because this Government, as have previous Governments, have raised the threshold of the definition of poverty?
  Mrs. Williams: I do not follow the Secretary of State because the increase was 20 per cent. in regard to supplementary benefit and on his own figures the increase in purchasing power has been something like 2 per cent. There has been an increase in those drawing supplementary benefit, and this includes those who are retired pensioners. This the figures cannot be shown to deny.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would my hon. Friend accept that the real

  255
  reason why the number on supplementary benefit has increased at the rate she suggests is that the real value of money has fallen?
  Mrs. Williams: Indeed, this is the point I am trying to make to the Secretary of State, but we seem to be having an argument about it. The point I want to make is that the Government have a very special opportunity at this time in the existing economic situation to take steps to do something for the old-age pensioners.
  The Government in their White Paper on Public Expenditure declared
  "There is no question here of other needs competing for resources; only of using productive power which would otherwise be idle."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has pointed out, the Government so far have produced £1,400 million in tax relief, offset by some £400 million in extra charges.
  In the debate on 23rd November the Chancellor claimed
  "… never before have a Government taken so much action to expand demand and stimulate employment."
  He went on to say:
  "Finally, we have provided the biggest ever increase in pensions"—
  there we see the Government using that same phrase—
  "an action which is both reflationary and directly meeting needs."—[OFFICAL. REPORT, 23rd November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1159.]
  The Chancellor cannot expect the country to swallow these extraordinary claims. He has concentrated a large part of his tax reliefs on those who neither need them nor are currently spending them. He has concentrated his extra charges on many who cannot afford them. The latest example of this philosophy is the claim that extra relief is to be given to parents sending their children to direct grant schools. This in some extraordinary way is to have priority rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who are in dire poverty.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that the pensions increase was reflationary, but we have already seen that a true reflationary effect involves an increase in purchasing power. By definition, after February there will be no
  256
  increase in purchasing power on the part of pensioners; there will be the beginning of a long and steady decrease. A decrease in real purchasing power cannot be described as reflationary. It is deflationary over the period of time in which it takes place. Therefore, the pensioner will make not more but fewer demands on the economy, because of the action the Government have failed to take over the next 21 months.
  What fundamentally the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is to pump money into the economy, most of it in areas which are slow to respond and which do not assist the poorest in the land. He points to increases in hire purchase contracts and new car sales. This is a bit of a joke to the old-age pensioner, who does not have very much to do with these things. It is notable that the demand for basic requirements, for food and fuel and the like, has increased very much less than it has for semi-luxury necessities and luxury products of this kind.
  In the Government White Paper, Command 4829, proposals are made for the next two years and, in terms of direct demand on resources, they amount to 3·9 per cent. a year on average in the next two years. The Chancellor's own forecast for an increase in the level of growth is somewhat higher than that. The recent figures of increase in industrial productivity are very considerably higher again. But unless the Government build up public expenditure to a point where it at least matches the rise in industrial productivity we shall get not just unemployment but even more unemployment than the Government's worst dreams at present encompass. Moreover, we shall get a reversal of the move towards greater productivity and industrial efficiency of a most dangerous and damaging kind.
  It is clear that the Government must take further action, action which will show up immediately in the effect on purchasing power, if the economy is not to continue its long slide for many months to come. One of the ways in which I hope to be able to demonstrate later that the Government could do something most effectively and quickly to offset unemployment and the low present performance of the economy would be to find a way to increase the purchasing power of elderly people.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely the hon. Lady is aware of the double message which is coming from the Labour benches. She quoted her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and then went on to attack, in a rather class hatred sort of way, the reduction in direct taxation. But her right hon. Friend made clear that the one problem facing this country is the lack of investment in industry, and the reduction in direct taxation is likely to help on that front. This is in no way tied up with the hon. Lady's feelings of sympathy with the old-age pensioners, which I share.
  Mrs. Williams: I do not think there is a disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on reduction of taxes. There is a sharp disagreement about whose taxes should be reduced, and I will come to that point later.
  I want to refer to what has been a unanimous chorus in the Press about the inadequacy of measures so far taken. I quote the Financial Times of 24th November, 1971:
  "The unemployment position dictates that the risks should be run on the side of expansion."
  The Guardian said on the same day:
  "With an enormous balance of payments surplus, with rapidly rising productivity and freed from the discredited notion which saw positive merit in cutting back public expenditure, the Chancellor has missed yet another opportunity to act decisively."
  Even the Sunday Telegraph, in the person of its financial columnist, Mr. Patrick Hutber, said last Sunday:
  "How about £10 a head for the pensioner and £100 a head (a 'donation', as Sir Alec would say) for the unemployed?"
  The rumours which have been referred to today in Questions about the use of the regulator make hon. Members on this side of the House suspicious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has let the cat out of the bag somewhere when not under the scrutiny of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We suspect that before long the Government, in desperation, will take yet other action to try to inflate this stubborn economy.
  I shall now suggest ways in which we think that might be done in a much more socially just way than by the use of the regulator. I put before the Secretary of State a number of specific pro-
  258
  posals. He will know that the T.U.C. and the Labour Party have called for immediate increases in pensions. The T.U.C. has called for a £1 increase right away and for a further £1 at the time of the Budget. That seems to be a very proper claim. But I am also well aware that the right hon. Gentleman will say that it is administratively impossible. I remind him that in 1964 he was one of the leading figures in the then Opposition to claim that eight weeks was quite sufficient to raise national assistance rates in 1955 and that two to three months should have been sufficient to do the same in 1964. He criticised my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Pensions for acting so slowly that a Government which came to power in October increased the amount going to pensioners only in December and January.
  Let me put before the right hon. Gentleman certain proposals which seem to do exactly what needs to be done to put more money in the pockets of pensioners this winter. They are ways which I believe are administratively possible.
  First, will the right hon. Gentleman consider an emergency winter payment in the shape of the one which took place in 1964? I repeat that it took two to three months to make it operative. That would assist pensioners this winter to meet the increasing bills which to them are a growing nightmare. The right hon. Gentleman could do it without having to change the pension scheme, and without the complicated business of going through the contributions of employers and employees. He could do it by an Exchequer contribution of the kind that was made in 1964, and he could do it by stamping pension books. There would be no great administrative difficulty than that.
  Secondly, and, I suggest, in addition to the first proposal, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the immediate doubling of the long-term addition to which I have referred? The present long-term addition which goes to supplementary benefit pensioners is 50p. If it were doubled to £1, the cost would be about £50 million a year. That is not a very large sum. But it would more than restore the value of the long-term addition from where it was last left in 1968. Administratively, it would be relatively simple, and it could be done relatively

  259
  quickly. It would benefit the poorest pensioners.
  Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for an immediate extension of the scheme for heating allowances and an immediate increase in the allowance figure, which is now 75p a week? As everyone knows, the true cost of heating a house or even a flat is very much more than 75p a week. For a group in the community which suffers more from the cold than most of us and which very often cannot get out, it is crucial to try to increase the limits on heating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I suspect, is not the best expert on this problem.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: I am a member of the Institute of Fuel who is deeply interested in the price of coal. Old-age pensioners in South Worcestershire are now, as a result of exorbitant wage demands by miners, paying 90p a cwt bag for "coal" which is made up of stones and rubbish.
  Mrs. Williams: Whatever cause the hon. Gentleman cares to offer, I am sure he agrees with me that 75p goes very little way towards paying the cost of heating a house or flat.
  Next, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that at present the heating allowances go to only one pensioner in about 30. At present, the allowances go to about 186,000 people, which is a very small proportion of pensioners. Therefore, I suggest to him that the present very restrictive rules operated by the Supplementary Benefits Commission with respect to paying additional heating allowances should be looked at again to see whether a much wider group of pensioners and supplementary benefits pensioners should not be brought within the orbit of this assistance.
  Mr. John D. Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the London Borough of Islington the local task force has carried out an exhaustive survey, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister, pointing out that in many cases pensioners have to choose between food and fuel because of the inadequacy
  260
  of the heating allowance? Is she aware, further, that when I questioned the right hon. Gentleman's Ministerial colleague, he dismissed what I said and replied that the Supplementary Benefits Commission currently feels that the allowance is inadequate?
  Mrs. Williams: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be as familiar with that survey as I am. It also shows that a disturbingly large number of pensioners complain about being constantly cold.
  Fourthly, I make the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman should request his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the forthcoming Budget not only to see whether he can make provision for a further increase in pensions but, at least as important, to raise the threshold of tax for elderly people. As we know, present taxation bites into the incomes of elderly people at a very low level. Surely there is a very strong case for raising the tax threshold, if necessary, by a further increase in personal allowances for those over retirement age.
  Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may say about us, I hope that he will not say that we are not attempting to be reasonably constructive.
  Fifthly, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman must look again at the possibility of an annual review. On 10th March, 1971, The Guardian said:
  "With current rates of inflation the adequacy of a biennial review must be in serious doubt."
  On 17th June, 1971, the Opposition moved an Amendment to the National Insurance Bill calling for an annual review. We said:
  "… it is the only straightforward and simple solution … to the devastating effect inflation is having on elderly retired people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1971 Vol. 819, c. 781.]
  With his usual charm, the Under-Secretary had said when we moved the same Amendment in Committee:
  "The hon. Lady would not expect me to give a firm commitment to an annual review today"—
  indeed, we did not—
  "but I hope that what I have said will reassure her that the matter is open to consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G. 20th May, 1971; c. 110.]

  261
  That was June. We are now at the end of November. The door to consideration has been open quite long enough. Can we now expect an answer—the only answer that we can get if that consideration has been serious to our demand for an annual review?
  In 1969 the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Health and Social Security estimated the cost of an annual review on the basis of two 10-shilling increases rather than a single £1 increase at a biennial review as an additional £140 million. The figure may be slightly higher now. That represents 1p on tax. It reminds me of an old rhyme:
  "Christmas is coming, the geese are getting fat,
  Please to put a penny in the old man's hat.
  If you haven't got a penny, a halfpenny will do,
  If you haven't got a halfpenny, then God bless you."
  Cannot the Government find one penny on income tax to enable an annual review to be brought in? Is this not a higher priority than another penny off for surtax payers?
  I am sure that the Government will say that none of our five proposals is practicable because, although they may meet some administrative difficulties, the pressure on the Department at present is too great. I want to look at that frequently used excuse "the pressure on the Department." One of the growth industries in this country is the Department of Health and Social Security. Members of Parliament know that the offices of that Department, like the offices of the Department of Employment, are becoming more and more overwhelmed with work. There are increasingly long delays in reply, there is increasingly more difficulty about getting home visits, and there is a massive amount of compulsory overtime.
  In a situation where a Department, like the right hon. Gentleman's, is groaning, as all who visit social security offices know, because a great deal of additional work is having to be done, why do not the Government abandon their absurd dogma about the size of the Civil Service and give qualified young school leavers who are looking for jobs in the North, in Scotland, in Wales and elsewhere, opportunities of becoming clerical officers in the Department and
  262
  getting the training that go with those jobs? There is an absurd nonsense about running compulsory overtime side by side with the desperate problem of school-leaving employment. The Government must look at this situation again. We have had an increase of nearly double in the number of school leavers without employment and a decrease of nearly two-thirds in the number of vacancies for them. Yet this is the time when the Government prefer to run their offices inefficiently, hire temporary help, and do nothing to give opportunities to youngsters who badly need them.
  Finally, I turn to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a Question. When mentioning deputations from pensioners he used the phrase.
  "pensioners … need an assurance about the future."
  Alas, the future is, if anything, just as grim as the present under this Government. We now have their proposals for pensions in the long term. We have their proposals for a reserve scheme which is so heavily weighted against the people who will be driven to rely upon it—lowpaid workers, women workers, and people changing their jobs—that no one who is not forced into that scheme would possibly adopt or accept it. It has no Exchequer contribution, no tax relief, no guarantee against inflation, and no credit for periods of unemployment or sickness. It is not only a recipe for administrative chaos, but the worst bargain since the Government sold the public its promises in June, 1970.
  The basic benefits in the Government's new scheme will be below the supplementary benefit level for years to come, and the reserve scheme addition will be pathetically small and in many cases those who receive it will be left below the supplementary benefit level. This is all to make the Government's backing for occupational pension schemes work—occupational pension schemes for which the Government are accepting an employer's contribution of 2½ per cent. at a time when employers often contribute between 8 and 10 per cent. to staff pension schemes. The Government have done inadequately by present pensioners and they are planning to do inadequately by future pensioners as well.
  The Government seem to be in a dreadful mess of their own making. They face

  263
  high unemployment and seem to have little idea of what else to do about it than blame their advisers. They face rapid inflation at the same time.
  The Secretary of State, who is a humane man, knows that we are not simply producing political propaganda about pensioners. Hon. Members on both sides know that the plight of pensioners is serious. The Chancellor is looking for opportunities to increase public expenditure, the country is looking for opportunities to end the desperate level of unemployment, and the pensioners are looking for an opportunity to live on their parlous income. Why not bring these three things together in an act of imagination and increase the income of the old now in one or other, or preferably all, of the ways which we have suggested?
  4.6 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to protect the living standards of old people, as evidenced by the recent increase in retirement pensions, the provision of pensions for the over-80s, and the improvement in public service and Armed Forces' pensions; and notes with approval the increased resources made available by Her Majesty's Government for developing the services for the elderly."
  I have great personal respect for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), but a number of things which she said today were far below her normal level of clarity and understanding. I shall pick up some of the errors which she made as I go through my argument, but I shall reserve the party political comments which her speech deserves for the end of what I have to say because at the heart of the debate is an intensely serious national issue with which I wish to deal square on.
  There are nearly 9 million people over minimum retirement age. Of those, about 71 million are drawing the retirement pension. The House will remember the relatively neat divisison of this large number of people into one-third who are well enough off, despite the specially high tax threshold for the elderly, to be paying direct taxation, one-third who are actually receiving supplementary pensions, and
  264
  one-third in between who are not well enough off to be paying direct taxation and not with low enough incomes to be on supplementary pensions. But what the House does not always remember is that the standard of living of the poorest pensioners has significantly improved over the last 15 years.
  The House ought to absorb some rather remarkable figures. In the decade from 1955, when there was a Conservative Administration, to 1965, after the first Labour up-rating, there were five separate up-ratings of what we would now regard as a reasonably generous standard. Successive up-ratings produced improvements in the buying power of the pension in real terms between 1955 and 1965 of 15, 11, 10, 9 and 12 per cent. The result was that in those 10 years, in consequence of four Conservative up-ratings and one Labour up-rating, the buying power of the pension improved by no less than 81 per cent. I do not think that that is a figure which hon. Members on either side distinctly recognise. That was at a time when the number of the working population, compared with the number of elderly, was already dwindling and Governments had not realised as much as we realise now that pensioners need improved benefits and services. Consequently, during those 10 years, though the cash benefits improved, relatively less extra money was provided to improve services for the elderly than is being provided now.
  Let us compare those 10 years of four Conservative and one Labour up-ratings with the aggregate result for pensioners of the last six years in which there were two Labour up-ratings and now the current Conservative up-rating. I am admittedly comparing a six-year period with a 10-year period but, compared with the 81 per cent. improvement in buying power in the 10 years to which I have referred, in the last six years—and I include the Government's recent up-rating—there has been an improvement in buying power of only 6 per cent. That is a sobering comparison.
  Both parties must recognise that the proportion of the working population to the elderly has been dwindling sharply. Indeed, the figures are quite striking. Whereas in 1955 there were well over five members of the working population to every pensioner, there are now fewer

  265
  than four members of the working population to every pensioner. Thus, we now have a more difficult task inasmuch as fewer workers are supporting a larger proportion of pensioners.
  I must remind the House that both parties, and particularly this Government, are intensely aware of the need to improve services as well as cash benefits for the elderly. That is why, in addition to the improved pension that was paid from this September, the House ought to take into account the two extra injections of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided last November and this November to improve the services for the elderly.
  It is normal for the pension to lose buying power between up-ratings. That has been proved under both parties when in Government. It is, of course, much more depressing for the pensioner when the cost of living rises sharply between up-ratings than when it does not, and what is above all important to the pensioner is that the degree of improvement in real terms which the pension is given at an up-rating provides some protection against any fall in the value of money before the pension is up-rated again.
  It is a sobering fact that despite a good up-rating when Labour first came to office in 1965 their next two up-ratings were not particularly handsome. In 1967 they did just what we had have done this time—roughly a 3 per cent. improvement in real terms. In 1969 they provided nothing extra in real terms. In fact, they marginally failed to restore the 1967 buying power.
  There is, in effect, a saw-tooth effect on pensions in between up-ratings as the rise in the cost of living—or, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) puts it, the fall in the value of money—reduces the value of the pension that has been awarded. There are only two ways to deal with that. One is to prevent any inflation, and no Government have succeeded in doing that. The second is to restore the buying power every month, or every quarter. What the Government seek to do is to provide a sufficient margin and to restrain inflation enough to protect the pensioner as much as is practicable.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck:I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy
  266
  in giving way. I regard the right hon. Gentleman as a man with a social conscience. Will he tell the House what is wrong with making the increase in pensions automatic with the rise in the cost of living; that is, gearing pensions to the cost of living so that they automatically rise with the increase in the cost of living? Is there anything wrong with that? If not, why cannot it be done?
  Sir K. Joseph: Except for the Labour Government's 1969 up-rating, it has been achieved by post-war Governments, but achieved at roughly two-year intervals. If it had been automatic, pensioners would not have gained the improvement in real terms which I have been describing—or not necessarily, if it had been limited to that.
  The up-rating in September of this year restored the buying power of the 1969 pension in full and provided a little extra—a 3 per cent. improvement in buying power in real terms. In addition, the up-rating provided the largest and most varied set of improvements for those receiving benefits that has been introduced to this House since the 1948 National Insurance Act. The position is that 150,000 people who were not receiving a pension are now receiving old persons' pensions as a result of our Act in May, 1970, and that as a result of the recent up-rating supplementary benefits have been increased. An additional extra benefit has been provided for all those over 80. That has helped about one and a quarter million people, and has made the pension for the over 80's worth 8 per cent. more in real terms than they received in 1969.
  The hon. Lady asked me to speak to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about raising the tax threshold for the elderly. As she knows, that was done by my right hon. Friend in his Budget. This Christmas—and I want to put this soberly and factually—despite the fact that prices are still rising, pensioners as a whole will still be marginally able to buy more than ever before. I am putting it soberly and modestly. Those over 80 will have marginally more still in buying power.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: I have a lot to say, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
  The last up-rating represented the first occasion on which any Government increased benefits substantially without raising contributions for low-wage earners. That was something to which hon. Gentlemen opposite paid great lip-service, but which they never managed to do. It ought to be remembered, to the credit of this Government, that that is what we managed to do this September, and that it has been benefiting low-wage earners every week since September. The second point is that we are not only improving the cash benefits to pensioners but are pumping in extra money to improve the local authority and health services for their benefit.
  The hon. Lady made a speech which was compounded half of suggestions for demand management, which fall to my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, and half of suggestions for improving the conditions of pensioners. Her proposals overlap to some extent, and she and the House will understand if I say that nearly all the points she made are for my right hon. Friend.
  I ought to remind the House that my right hon. Friend's Budget in April was criticised by some newspapers for being too inflationary, just as some newspapers now are begging him to reflate more, so I do not think that the hon. Lady was quite justified in her selective quotation from this batch of criticisms by some newspapers. My right hon. Friend has stressed that in the middle term there is adequate demand in sight, or coming into the economy, and that the national problem is to increase spending for the short term; that is, over the next year and the year after. Some of the hon. Lady's suggestions would increase spending—some less, some more—continuously in the future, and would not, therefore, necessarily fall into what my right hon. Friend sees as the necessary tactic for the next two years.
  The House will be aware, and I shall therefore not rehearse the ingredients, that my right hon. Friend has announced a series of special injections of demand to take effect, as he and the Government hope, over the next year or two. They amount, on top of the general improve-
  268
  ments in taxation and allowances in his Budget, to no less than £500 million to be spent over the next two years, particularly in the regions.
  The hon. Lady was quite right in seeking for ways to suggest which would both cut unemployment—without, I hope she will agree, overloading the economy in the middle term—and also help the pensioners. But we have to recognise that, although a transfer by way of increased contributions or taxes from the working population to the retired population injects some extra buying power by the difference in the propensity to save, it cannot be measured in gross terms as a new addition to buying power.
  Some of the hon. Lady's suggestions, and the suggestion of the T.U.C., I believe, which combines increased contributions, in a perfectly honourable proposal, with increased pensions, would not in themselves increase buying power by more than the difference between the propensity to save of different groups. I am not attacking them on these grounds—
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I give one word of explanation? The proposals which I put forward, first for a winter emergency payment and second for a long-term addition, were to be financed from the Exchequer, and would therefore be deficit financing and not deflationary.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady said that there should be a winter emergency payment. She said that in 1964 Miss Herbison, the Minister concerned, made a £4 payment to some of the elderly. But the hon. Lady, I am sure by mistake—at least, I imagine it was by mistake, because she generally does her homework thoroughly—might have given the House the impression that all the retired people received £4 extra. In fact, of course, it was the national assistance beneficiaries only—a very important group, but only about a third of the total.
  It is true that Miss Herbison made that payment and that when the new Labour Government came into office there had been 18 months since the previous up-rating compared with two months now. So that background is very different. The hon. Lady did not make it clear whether she was proposing help just to those on supplementary benefit or to the totality of pensioners.

  269
  The hon. Lady went on to speak about the heating allowance. Here, once again, she fell below her usual high standard. There is no suggestion that 25, 50, or 75p is intended to provide for the heating of a supplementary pensioner. The basic supplementary pension itself is intended to contain money which is used for fuel, and the extra allowance is to top this up in cases where the housing or the health or a combination of both of the individual pensioner justifies it.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) intervened to remind the hon. Lady of the recent Task Force inquiry in Islington. I have, of course, read the report with concern. It reveals a number of people—I think 47 among the many visited—who were not receiving what Task Force thought was an entitlement to the extra heating allowance. I am very concerned by this report and am asking Task Force whether it would find it possible to release the names and addresses to me so that I can have special visits made. Certainly it would be a very serious matter if large numbers of people in bad health and bad housing were not, after application, receiving the extra benefit which the Government have made available—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree—
  Sir K. Joseph: I refused to give way just now to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). If he would not think me discourteous, I will give way to his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Kaufman indicated assent.
  Mr. Heffer: I have no wish to be discourteous myself. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this problem in Islington can be multiplied throughout the country and that, therefore, it is not enough to consider it in isolation? Would he not agree that there needs to be a general supplementary benefit to all the supplementary pensioners in order to meet the amount necessary for heating? Surely the argument of my hon. Friend underlines this very point.
  Sir K. Joseph: There are three points which I want to make. First, even if it be true all over the country, an identified case is very valuable so that Ministers can draw conclusions from it, and this is
  270
  the only example which I have been given in fair numbers of a heating allowance allegedly not reaching the right people.
  Second, the House must realise that a universal heating allowance for supplementary pensioners would be a completely open-ended commitment. Paying the rent of supplementary pensioners is paying a charge which can be identified, but paying for heating could be completely open-ended.
  Third, if we were to provide an extra indiscriminate heating allowance for supplementary pensioners, we would be treating them far better than the poorer of the pensioners themselves, and that could be very complicated for both sides of the House.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: I have been generous to hon. Members opposite; would my hon. Friend like to intervene now?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what he said about any indiscriminate allowance for fuel costs. Would he take into account this winter the really large increase in the price of solid fuel, which I instanced to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) as 90p or 18 shillings per hundredweight bag? This is such a big increase that there must be some reflection of the increased costs in the allowance given to elderly people.
  Sir K. Joseph: It is true that coal has gone up in price and that wage claims have been a very large part of it.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: No, I will not give way: I have taken a lot of time.
  Mr. Skinner: On this question of the price of coal—
  Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry: I am not giving way about that.
  Sir G. Nabarro: That is the price of coal-miners' wages.
  Mr. Skinner: And £40-million worth of imported coal. Tell the right hon. Gentleman that.
  Sir K. Joseph: But the price of coal is an ingredient in the retail price index which we have taken into account in measuring our job in restoring the purchasing power of the pensioner, and we have done marginally better than that.
  It is constructive when the hon. Member for Hitchin and the T.U.C. propose that higher benefits should be financed by higher contributions. But—this is relevant to the whole question of how frequent up-ratings should be—the House should recognise that increased contributions at a certain stage and at a certain level of frequency could work through into prices and themselves intensify the worries which pensioners have. We cannot measure the exact level of frequency or degree of increase which would bring this about, but we must bear this possibility in mind.
  On the hon. Lady's suggestion of an annual review, I will not hide behind any argument about this being administratively impossible. It would be an administrative burden. The social security offices, as the hon. Lady recognised, have been very heavily burdened and have carried out nobly a very large number of extra tasks for the benefit of sections of the population on top of coping with the postal strike and the normal up-rating work—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: And the extra unemployed.
  Sir K. Joseph: Certainly—and the extra unemployed. So I am not hiding behind administrative difficulties. But in this country, unlike some comparable countries abroad, we have been in the practice of annually up-rating supplementary benefit over the last years under both Governments. This has produced some protection for those who are poorest—admittedly, with the very unpleasant consequence that, when the pension up-rating comes, the supplementary pensioners feel that they have been done down in some way and blame both Governments in turn for this.
  I also reminded the hon. Lady that, if there were to be an annual up-rating, there would have to be annual contribution increases, and they might in turn bedevil the price spiral. But we are certainly deeply pledged as a Government to protect the pur-
  272
  chasing power of the pension by up-rating at least every two years. We have shown flexibility in carrying out this pledge by advancing the last up-rating by, admittedly, the not enormous interval of six weeks, and that went some way to meeting the worries of the pensioners.
  The hon Lady did not mention a fact that the House will wish to bear in mind: namely, that while a large number of people still do not have occupational pensions, and while many of the occupational pensions in payment are relatively small, no fewer than two-thirds of men now retiring take into retirement an occupational pension, and that is some comfort that will improve the situation. [Interruption.] I said that some of them were tiny, but they will help to improve the situation.
  I have two general points to make before allowing myself to make some political comments on the Motion and the hon. Lady's speech. First, there is a general point on which I think both sides of the House can agree. Without my being in any way partisan, it would have been of great benefit for the pensioners of this country, and particularly for occupational pensioners, if the trade union movement as a whole had followed the advice of a number of trade union leaders in paying more heed to fringe benefits. I know that a number of trade union leaders have been very anxious to improve fringe benefits. But not in every case have they had the support of their members, and the people who have suffered as a result in their old age are those who have not negotiated fringe benefits.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the figure of those with occupational pensions may be 60 per cent. overall, and it is certainly less in the manual occupations, the lack of take-up generally, though not entirely, occurs in those areas of manufacturing and other industries in which trade union organisation is particularly weak?
  Sir K. Joseph: That is the hon. Gentleman's view and I must take him seriously. I shall improve my research to see whether I can agree with him. On the face of things, however, I would not have thought that his point was all that valid.

  273
  The second general factor of which I must remind the House is that the elderly, for whom the hon. Lady has been speaking, need services and cash. The Conservative Government can take pride in the fact that by their priorities extra money last November and this November has been put into improving the services for the elderly.
  I now come to some political points that must be made.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Before the right hon. Gentleman reaches that stage, may I ask him to recognise that his answer so far has been extremely disappointing? Does he intend to refer to the suggestion about doubling the long-term addition?
  Sir K. Joseph: I thought I had answered that part of the hon. Lady's speech when I referred to the heating allowance, but if not, I apologise. I explained that it could lead one into the danger, the quagmire, of improving the conditions of the supplementary pensioners beyond the bulk of the people just above them. This is not something that is to be excluded automatically, and I assure the hon. Lady that I would not wish to exclude her suggestion from all consideration, but I cannot give a categoric affirmative reply to her proposal this afternoon.
  I gave some general figures in a strictly objective way at the beginning of my remarks. I will now translate some of the lessons of the record into separate party responsibilities. It is a sober fact that over the 13 years of Conservative Governments from 1951 to 1964 there was an annual improvement in real terms—that is, in buying power—of the pension of very nearly 4 per cent.
  It is a sober fact that between 1964 and 1970 there was an improvement in real terms each year—in the buying power of the pension—of 2½ per cent. On the record, therefore—and I admit that it depends a certain amount on the months in which a Government came to power and left office—in general, the gulf between those two figures is such as to show overwhelmingly that the Conservatives can be trusted to protect the pensioners and improve their buying power. [Interruption.]
  The fact that in the 10 years to which I have referred the pensioners' real buy-
  274
  ing power went up by 81 per cent. as a result of four Conservative and one Labour up-ratings is evidence of that. I do not for a moment suggest that this Christmas these historic recollections will be of any comfort to pensioners—
  Mr. Skinner: You can say that again.
  Sir K. Joseph: —but I do suggest that they are evidence that should be taken into account when pensioners peer into the future and consider under which party they will be protected and have their standard of living enhanced, and I maintain that our record justifies them in trusting us.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does it really matter to the pensioner which Government did best or which did worst? The fact remains that unless something is done quickly, a large number of pensioners will be cold and hungry this winter.
  Sir K. Joseph: That was not exactly the spirit in which the hon. Lady moved the Motion. She suggested that under this Government—and she said that we did not care—pensioners were in a poor plight. She is quite wrong in saying that this Government do not care for the pensioners.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I must protest. I did not say that the Government did not care. I specifically said that hon. Members on both sides of the House cared. I said that the Government did not act.
  Sir K. Joseph: I must remind the House of the up-rating which completely restored the purchasing power to 1969 and improved and provided a large number of extra benefits for the severely disabled, the chronic sick and the over-eighties. That up-rating has still put in the pensioners' pockets and handbags buying power more than they had in 1969. That will continue to protect them for some months to come. As between all up-ratings, the buying power of the pension will then fall until we up-rate again—and we are pledged to up-rate in 1973, taking into account any implications of our joining Europe.
  Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept, as did his hon. Friend yesterday in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

  275
  Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), that there is a criterion in addition to increases in purchasing power; namely, the pension as a proportion of average earnings? The answer given yesterday by his hon. Friend shows that under this Government that proportion is lower than at any time in the past seven years.
  Sir K. Joseph: There is yet another figure that can be taken into account, and I am well equipped to give the House all the figures. I refer to the difference between the purchasing power of the pension and the net disposable income of the wage-earner. Gross earnings are no help to the wage-earner. It is his net disposable income after paying his income tax and National Insurance contributions that matters. Under Labour, taxation of the wage-earner as well as his national insurance contributions—I am referring also to lowest paid wage-earners—rocketed. By that comparison, therefore, the pensioner has not done so badly.
  The up-rating was necessary in September because of the rise in prices since 1969. It has totally restored the purchasing power and provided something extra. [Interruption.] We are pledged to protect the pensioner in future. If one looks ahead to next year and compares the degree to which the September, 1971, pension will hold its value with the degree to which in the comparable months after the 1969 up-rating the pension then held its value, I wager that there will not be very much difference between them.
  In other words, the Labour Government permitted just the same diminution of the buying power of the pension between up-ratings as they are now rhetorically begging us to cause to stop. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to point out that two wrongs do not make a right. It would have made more sense and her remarks would have been more effective if the hon. Lady had admitted this in her speech.
  It was the Labour Party which, when inflation was running at 6 per cent. per year, committed this House in a White Paper to a statutory two-year obligation to up-rate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now begging us to change what they in a period of high inflation, proposed statutorily to adopt.
  276
  The parties are judged by their actions more than by their words. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very eloquent now. In office they did much less well than we have done and are doing. They were a bitter disappointment to their supporters.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: In rising to speak, I am conscious that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to contribute. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that we have just heard a very disappointing speech from the Secretary of State in reply to an extremely constructive one from my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).
  The Minister gives the impression that he cares about the plight of the elderly, but he makes no constructive changes to see that they have their proper share of wealth in the community. He will find that before the end of the day there will be many more members on both sides of the House who will show their concern, their compassion and their general good will towards pensioners. But that is not what the pensioner wants at present. The pensioner wants some tangible action and help. It is what pensioners are looking to the House for. The Minister's speech was very disappointing in that respect.
  If hon. Members opposite consider that reflation is due—one gathers from their general tone that they have now swung round to that view—surely a high candidate on the list of reflationary measures must be a boost to the pensions of the 7½ million pensioners in Britain. It is clear that the pension increase which came into effect on 20th September was inadequate then and is totally inadequate now. It did not restore the pension to even its pitifully low level of 1969. The National Institute of Economic Research has pointed out that to restore the basic pension even to the level of 1969 needed an increase of £1·20 for the individual pensioner and £1·90 for a married couple. From November, 1969, when pensions were increased, to September, 1971, the most recent increase, food prices rose by 19·4 per cent., fuel prices by 15 per cent. and fares by 36·1 per cent. It is evident that the pension increase is already below the level of 1969.

  277
  Some of the fundamental problems facing pensioners cannot be eradicated overnight There are 350,000 old people without the use of a bath, a kitchen or indoor lavatory. Over 1 million are without hot water. These and many other problems are faced by pensioners day in and day out. It is true these dreadful housing problems cannot be removed in the short term, but the pensioner expects something positive now—financially positive. That is not the kind of measure being put forward in the debate. The Government, and the Minister in particular, ought to stop talking around this subject and ought to do something positive. Why not give assistance with pensioners' fuel bills, as my hon. Friend has suggested, whether it be in the way suggested or otherwise. There should be a positive move from the Government benches on this matter, whether they agree with what my hon. Friend said or with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in today's Guardian. The Government should come up with something positive.
  I could take hon. Members opposite around pensioners' homes in my constituency in which they would find them in bed at midday, and sometimes in the afternoon. That is not because they are lazy, tired or infirm but because they cannot afford to turn on the heating. This is a national disgrace.
  Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman has individual cases in mind who are, he considers, entitled to help, I hope that he recommends them to go and ask for it and, if necessary, that he writes to me about the individual cases.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: One of my constituents died last week. What happens in that case?
  Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I spurred the Minister to reply. It is not only individual cases. All hon. Members can site scores of cases of this kind.
  Mr. Heffer: One cannot deal with this on an individual basis.
  Mr. Pendry: This is not a question of individual cases but a national disgrace which transcends party politics, and something should be done about it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is not a matter of his having to tell the Minister; it is the Minister who should send his officials to see this happening in every constituency? One of my constituents died last week because of the cold. It is the Minister's job to go out and see these things for himself. It is not for us to tell him; he should know it.
  Mr. Pendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not only one constituent who has died. It is estimated that 19,000 die every year because of the effects of cold.
  Dame Irene Ward: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but it is a fact that some of the elderly have to retire to bed because they cannot afford sufficient heating. Would my right hon. Friend consider involving the Citizens Advice Bureaux in this problem, as many people relate all their difficulties to those bureaux, and the bureaux would be able, perhaps, to give a picture rather different from that associated with the Department or even with individual Members of Parliament? That would be helpful in this case.
  Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the hon. Lady will forgive me when I suggest that she tries to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the debate.
  Dame Irene Ward: I have made dozens of speeches about this matter.
  Mr. Pendry: I wish to continue and I intend to be brief.
  My constituency is not unique in these particular problems. To bring this to light in the House, I quote a letter written to one of my hon. Friends, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who unfortunately cannot be present today. I make no apologies for reading the letter. It may well be emotive but it is a genuine response of a constituent writing to his Member of Parliament on this matter.
  "Dear Sir,
  I have been a coal man since I left school. I have never seen so many old people starving in my life, sitting in their coats to keep warm, something must be done to help them. I asked one old couple if they had been to Security. They said it was no good, they had to manage. One old lady showed me two chops she had paid 50 pence for. She said she had to make them last two or three days.

  279
  My parents are dead, thanks to God. I feel sorry for them and am unable to help them. One old widow had an electric bill and a monthly telly to pay. She said she wishes she was in Heaven with her old Dutch. They tell me you are a nice chap."
  that is referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East—
  "Isn't there something you can do for them. The people in the bungalows get help and no one seems to care about these lonely old people. I asked one old lady what she was having for Christmas. She said she might get a bit of fish and stay in bed to keep warm. I said to my wife, 'If we have anything to spare, those poor old people will get it.' I have seen more old people this week hungry and cold than ever before. One old woman had a light bill. She said she had got a telly in and she only paid it a few days ago. It touched me very much and I hope you will do something about it. I know it has hurt me very much. Hunger is a sharp thorn.
  Yours truly,
  A coal man with a heart."
  The Government can do something about this situation. The obligations are heavy upon them, and they must do something about it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: They can do it for the horse racing fraternity.
  Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend has mentioned the 1964 situation, and it was also referred to by the Secretary of State. I recall Margaret Herbison's Act. Whatever refinements the Minister wishes to place upon what my hon. Friend said, surely the onus is on him. We want him to get off the seat and do something positive for the old people. Whatever short-term measures are taken—if there are to be some—will, clearly, not be enough. The basic question of the pension is the most pressing concern for all pensioners.
  Leaving "at a stroke" on one side, the Government have displayed a complete lack of judgment in controlling price levels which affect the elderly more than any other section of the community. At a time when the O.E.C.D. advises countries to subsidise consumer organisations, the Government scrap them. That is the kind of measure which has not helped. With the astronomical price levels, the case for an annul review is made. At the present rate of inflation, wild fluctuations in prices will inevitably increase the burden on the pensioner between the biennial reviews. If inflation
  280
  were to be brought within tolerable limits, the pension would not have to rise by a large margin. Therefore, if the Government believe that they can control inflation and believe what they were telling the electors before the General Election, they will not have to give any great pension increases at these annual reviews.
  Mr. Skinner: Would my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Pendry: Yes, once.
  Mr. Skinner: I cannot guarantee that it will be once, but it is the only intervention I wish to make. On the question of prices, is my hon. Friend aware that, far from controlling inflation, what will take place next April, in a cool, premeditated fashion, is that a proportion of the 8 million pensioners, those living in council houses and in the private sector who come within the control, will be subjected to a 10s. increase? Although it may be argued that rent rebates could follow in some instances, for the first year nearly all these old-age pensioners will not come within the threshold of being granted rebates.
  Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the appropriate Minister is not present to take note of what he said.
  The Secretary of State mentioned a particular quotation, but he omitted two important aspects of it. Speaking to the Industrial Society last month he said:
  "The standard of living of our elderly is inferior. Of our retired people, one-third are operating on an income sufficient to pay taxation, one-third are on supplementary benefit and the other third are in the twilight area in between."
  He said that today, more or less. He also said that Britain was not a good country in which to be old. He went on to say that this country would be shown up shamefully when we entered Europe, where some countries have much better pension schemes than ours.
  We are giving the Government the opportunity to rectify that imbalance. If the House accepts the Government's view that the level of inflation that we are currently experiencing is exceptional, the claim for an exceptional short-term measure must follow from that. Clearly, if the Chancellor's forecasts have been proved wrong—even the Chancellor

  281
  admits that—we should not expect pensioners to pay for the folly of the Chancellor or the Treasury.
  The pensioners of Britain, who, possibly most of all groups, believed the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's electioneering broadcasts, will turn on the Government unless they take swift action. I conclude on that point because, as a new Member, untarnished by anything that has happened when my party was in power—I agree that pensions did not rise enough under a Labour Government—I believe that the Government stand condemned. In the name of the pensioners, we look to the Government to do something on their behalf.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East): The House will recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and the feeling he has on the subject. It is a feeling shared on both sides of the House. His reaction against the idea of bringing solutions to individual cases reflects the fact that for some reason this seems to be unpopular in certain quarters opposite. I think the wholesale blanket schemes of national help, which is what we go in for at present, are all very well and extremely important, but most of us know that the really hard and difficult cases are those who miss out. These are the individuals who, for some reason or other, are not known about or catered for or do not fit into a large blanket system of State help and support. Unless we deal with them as Members of Parliament on an individual basis and take great care over them, they are liable to be missed altogether. So we should not miss the importance of the individual person in great hardship just in the interests of a wholesale increase in the blanket system of State aid.
  I very warmly support the Government's pension policy so far as it has gone, particularly the provision of pensions for the over-eighties, which was so long overdue. I believe also that the attendance allowance for the severely disabled will be, and is proving to be, of great benefit, particularly for the kind of individual cases I mentioned. It is in the nature of this vitally important subject that once one step forward has been taken its value is assumed, it is taken as of right, and all attention there-
  282
  fore becomes concentrated upon the next step. It is not enough, and has never been enough, to do what is already done, because so much more is needed. It is in this respect that the Government's policy has been attacked by the Opposition.
  The Government have committed themselves to a two-year review, but we all know that over the last two years prices and wages have risen very fast—much faster than anything we have been accustomed to for a very long time. Inflation is a common experience to all, and its speed is a living fact. Although the Government have provided one of the biggest increases of recent years, the doubt remains whether that value can be sustained over a lengthy period. The hon. Lady suggested that it has been largely eroded already and will disappear altogether in January or February. I do not go along with her in that. I think there is a discrepancy there and that a distinction should be made between the annual review and the annual pay out. To me, an annual review in a sense is what we are doing today, when we are reviewing the state of the pensions and looking at the position. I think that should go on all the time.
  I want to deal at this point more with the longer-term question, which is to what extent we look to increasing the purchasing power of the State pension over the next 20 years, and what criterion we employ for establishing that figure. Are we just going to continue for the next 20 years—I take that period because of the critical increase in the number of pensioners as opposed to the working population in that time—the ratio as at present, when 30 per cent. of the retirement pensioners are receiving supplementary pension?
  Much of the determination of the future depends upon the development of the occupational scheme and its proposed Government colleague. We have progressed from a stage where people made provision for their old age out of savings in one way or another and then the basic pension and supplementary benefit put a floor in the market, to a point where, as the White Paper said:
  "The security of a guaranteed basic pension through the State scheme is essential, but it is not enough. Every employee should have the opportunity to qualify for additional pension related to his earnings."

  283
  I am aware that this does not directly affect the present situation and the position of the pensioners this Christmas. But half the reason for the crises with which Parliament is always being called upon to deal in the short term, and always in the short term, is that they occur only because so little attention is paid to the longer term. If, as I believe, the Government are right in their general intention, we should now be considering the details of their proposal and how to achieve it.
  I am impressed by the State reserve scheme idea. It is going to be demonstratively self-supporting, fully funded by employers' and employees' contributions and by income from its investments. The Government as such will be completely divorced from the scheme, and that is fine. But for how long? What guarantee can anyone really have that such a tempting source of State funds—an estimated £5,000 million by the end of the century—might not be raided if there are matters of apparently more pressing priority at a later date? It has not been unknown to happen before.
  Also, what guarantee is there that any private occupational scheme will eventually be able to hold out against the size and apparent invulnerability of a State scheme? As far as I can see, the major weapon of the private occupational pension schemes is that contributions are exempt from tax. But I do not believe that investments in these schemes can ever be completely safeguarded from risk. Although the Government propose that recognised schemes should be funded to finance benefits as well as pensions, and that priority should be given to these categories if any scheme is wound up, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that some schemes may still yet be wound up to the detriment of their participants. With that in mind, will not the weight of investment be attracted by something absolutely safe? People will never believe that a Government will not back a State scheme if it runs into trouble. First the smaller schemes and then the larger ones may well come to feel that the advantages of a Government scheme for that reason far outweigh any advantages that private enterprise could give, and we may well see a gradual shift to investment only in a Government scheme. As a believer in private enterprise, I do not think that would be desirable.
  284
  Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are in the Chair, I conclude by saying that I often wonder whether we are right to accept without question the idea that the widow of a man participating in an occupational scheme should receive half his pension contribution. We have passed into law equal pay for women. Should we not start talking about equal pensions as well? Would that not for a start mean a much more realistic approach, not only to a woman's situation if she is left a widow, which is every bit as onerous financially as the situation of a man if left a widower, but also to the funding of the scheme?
  There is also the question of the age limits. Why is it always 65 for men and 60 for women? We all know that women tend to live longer than men, but, since women are increasingly being reckoned to be equal in the State scheme and in civilisation as a whole, is there not something to be said for making their age limit the same as that for men?
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: In recent years there have been persistent cries in the Press, from journalists and others, about a deterioration in the quality of Members of Parliament and of Parliament itself. I have never subscribed to any of those ideas. Indeed, I once drew the attention of a number of journalists to an essay, written by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the 1930's, which showed that the arguments being used then against politicians are being used against them at present.
  The one thing I do fear is that we in this House will persist in this "yah yah" politics in which every single debate hinges upon the record not only of the last Government but of the Government before that and the Government before that, and of the present Government as well. I am convinced that large sections of the community are sick to death of politicians saying, like little children sitting on a wall, "We did better than you."
  What we are dealing with today is a matter of far greater importance to everyone here than a subject on which we can reasonably expect to make comparison. The right hon. Gentleman made some comparisons, and I will not argue that

  285
  case except to make one brief observation. He made comparison between the Labour Government and this Government and the 13 years of previous Tory rule. I would merely point out to him that had a Labour Government been in office—and I served in his Department—the Department would have provided us with figures to prove conclusively that we had done better than the Conservatives, just as it has provided figures to the right hon. Gentleman to prove the contrary today. It is a question of the use of statistics, of bases, of all sorts of factors. It is, in my view, less than honest of the right hon. Gentleman to treat this situation by using the sort of arguments which, regrettably, I have used myself from a departmental brief.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): To be fair, I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was quoting figures not for any one Government but for the decade from 1955 to 1965, which included both Labour and Conservative Governments, and during that time there was a very substantial increase in pensions. My right hon. Friend then quoted the period following that, in which again there were both Labour and Conservative Governments. He was making the point that no Government had found it as easy to give as big a real increase in pension in the latter period as in the previous period. He suggested that this could be because of a shift to some extent from cash benefits to services. It was not a party political point.
  Mr. Loughlin: If the right hon. Gentleman was not making a party political point as I heard him, then I should not be in politics. If we are looking at the question of who did what and why, I will quote the right hon. Gentleman one figure. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have boasted for months now that since they came to power they have reduced taxation by not less than £1,400 million. That reduction has, to a very large degree, gone to people who could have afforded to do without it. It has gone even to people like myself. It has changed my tax threshold—and I want to make it quite clear that I have no income other than my parliamentary salary, but even I derive some benefit from the reductions.
  286
  Surely this is a question of priorities. This Government would have served a more useful purpose if they had provided additional benefits for the lower income brackets rather than giving supposed incentives in the form of tax reductions. There has been no real incentive. After all has been given away, we have 972,000 unemployed, not taking into account those who do not register. I shall not argue that the Government have not done the right thing, but they have got their priorities wrong. They talk about the pensions of the old folk today. It is worth making a comparison with 1969. The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong. From this it will be seen that that pension is now worth, due to the erosion of monetary values, about 11p. That is the amount now left to pensioners.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: In fact, the pension is now worth less than 11p. According to the latest figures which I have, it is worth only 7½p compared with its 1969 value, and it is losing ground rapidly day by day.
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to argue with my hon. Friend. The figure I had was 11p.
  The pension of which the Government boast makes no allowance for an improvement in standards. There is not a single section of the community, with the exception of Members of Parliament—and we have not had an increase since 1965—that has not experienced an improvement in basic rates or in income, so that that pension increase is now worth less than 11p. Can any of us be proud that in so short a time after an increase our pensioners are better off by only 11p compared with 1969? We know that food prices, on which old people spend a higher proportion of their income than any other section of the community, are going up daily. According to the retail price index, which deals with across-the-board shopping, the old-age pensioner may be paying even more for groceries than the index indicates. Looking at the comparison of prices, one finds that the cheapest food is in supermarkets, and very often old people cannot afford to go to the supermarkets; they cannot get out to do so, and so they go to the dearer, smaller shops in their area. The picture may be worse than I have painted.

  287
  This winter many old people will be in acute danger of hypothermia, which, if my memory serves me right, is the condition brought about when the temperature of the body is reduced below 95 degrees as a result of low diet and low heating. I should have thought that the Minister might do something about heating allowances, to which he devoted some time.
  I have the greatest admiration for the visiting officers and the people in the social security offices. When I listen to people who tell me how nasty they are and read some articles in the paper, I do not accept it. Millions of services go out from these offices year in and year out, but just because someone loses his temper in one of these offices he is castigated. I do not want to say a word that will reflect on the good name of the social security people, but I wonder—it may be an aberration—whether they bring to the attention of people some of the additional benefits which they might get. I know that the circulars are there, and I know about all the benefits that are made, but I would ask the Minister to check his offices—I am not talking about Gloucestershire: I would go to Mr. Macdonald, the manager there, and ask him to do it—to find out whether the powers to grant additional heating allowances are being used to the maximum extent. He may find that they are not.
  I appreciate that it would be difficult to get an open-ended heating allowance. Obviously, if that were done, someone might be buying someone else's coal, quite apart from the other technical difficulties. Would it be possible to deal with the situation, since the Minister seemed so sympathetic, by saying "All right, we cannot give additional heating allowances on an open-ended basis, but, seeing that it is a component part of the long-term allowance, we shall increase it by X amount"? It could be, for example, five shillings, old currency. It must be possible to increase the total heating allowance to old people this year: otherwise a considerable number of them will be in serious danger of dying from hypothermia. If we can give colossal sums of money in taxation relief to those who do not really need it—I do not need it and I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite do not—then we could be
  288
  a little generous and give some to the old-age pensioner.
  I wish the Department would get on to a yearly review. We had the same problem of the one-year-in-advance payment to supplementary beneficiaries. As the right hon. Gentleman said, when the review of the pension is done in the second year the supplementary beneficiaries always claim that they have been done down. I have tried to explain this to them literally hundreds of times. I have even gone to the extent of taking the total increases of supplementary benefits year by year and the total increases of main benefits and proving conclusively that there was 6d. in it. I never discovered where the 6d. came from, or whether it has been eliminated now. If we can think in terms of giving advance payments to supplementary beneficiaries we ought to be able to think in terms of making yearly reviews of pensions.
  There are an enormous number of people just over the supplementary benefit figure at one point in time who cease to be on that figure. It is this broad band at the bottom income level of retirement pensioners as distinct from the supplementary beneficiaries whom we should be looking after a little more than we do. I would like to see an annual review. I am not unmindful of the difficulties, administrative or financial. We shall have to face up to dealing with our pensioners across the board in a much more generous manner.
  Speaking as an individual and not as an M.P., I do not like to feel that there are so many of our old-age pensioners who are existing literally in pitiless poverty. It is the task of society so to organise its affairs as to ensure that old-age pensioners who have made tremendous contributions to our society are able to enjoy the seven or ten years that they have left of their lives in reasonable comfort.
  I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman. It is nearly Christmas. I put up what has become a hardy annual. Why not make a gesture to the old-age pensioners and give a once-and-for-all payment to help them over Christmas-time?
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I shall probably take a rather different line

  289
  from that taken by other hon. Members. I start by saying that in many ways I regret that this debate is being held. This is not because I think the Government have a poor case to put before Parliament, and certainly not because I think anyone should stand in the way of attempts by hon. Members to uplift the condition of the poorer sections of the community. It is because I have an uneasy doubt in my mind about just how much today's debate springs from a desire to improve the conditions of the people to whom I refer and how much it will be used as a stick with which to beat the Government. As I look back over the past years, Oppositions of both political complexions have tended to do this, and I felt I should start my contribution by deploring the necessity for this to be part of the pattern of operation of Oppositions.
  My contribution will be in two parts. I want to make some observations on the long-term and short-term problem of pensioners. While I recognise that most hon. Members here are particularly concerned with the difficulties of existing retirement pensioners, unless we lift our eyes to the future we shall go on feeling that we must have this sort of debate.
  There is only one way in which we can escape from having this sort of debate, and that is by ensuring that retirement income for everyone includes, in addition to a basic National Insurance pension, a second pension arranged during the working life of an individual and of a sufficiently high order and sufficiently protected against rising prices so that, pitching forward 10 or 20 years, only a minority of our people will be forced on to supplementary benefit. That is what the debate is about, or, more accurately, should be about.
  Both parties have for long now nursed the ambition of introducing just such a scheme. There was the plan introduced by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and more recently there have been the proposals in the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions". The "Crossman Plan" was the end product of a long period of thought by hon. Members opposite. It is appropriate to reflect that it having first been announced in a publication call "Signposts for the Sixties" in 1961—it having been announced that a new type of pension arrangement would be a priority when a
  290
  Labour Government was returned—such are the complexities involved that the scheme had not reached the Statute Book by June, 1970. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say "All the better for that", because here I come to a critical thought on the "Crossman Plan". Having long set themselves up as the defenders of the pensioners, having with all sincerity looked for a new dimension in pensions, the fact is that the Labour Party's scheme was not properly worked out. Even the experts failed to understand it, people who had earned their living for a long time dealing with occupational pension schemes and civil servants.
  One thing was clear from the scheme, it would have led to the creation of an unfunded scheme which could not possibly have kept its promises to future generations of pensioners without massive increases in contributions and charges. In due course it would have damaged at least in some degree the occupational pension schemes which are the envy of a great many workers who are not members of such schemes. I think the right hon. Member admitted this. I should declare an interest here because I am a director of a firm which gives advice on the installation of individual and commercial pension schemes. It is a matter of pride that I tell the House that I hope that, long before I retire, many thousands of people will retire with a better standard of living, thanks to the advice I have given them over the past decade.
  It is fair to say, therefore, that, while the Labour Party was moving forward in a search for a new approach, the Cross-man Plan demonstrably was not it. By contrast, we have recently seen the proposals outlined in my right hon. Friend's White Paper. These proposals, although by no means perfect, provide a good opportunity of ending, not immediately but over a period, the intolerable situation whereby the incomes of millions of people become the plaything of party politics.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), for whom I have great respect, dismissed the proposals in the White Paper rather peremptorily and gave them rather less profound thought than she normally gives to pension matters. Under these proposals, quite apart from the basic National Insurance pension

  291
  which will be price-protected by regular reviews, there will be for future generations a second pension, either a reserve scheme, to which the hon. Lady referred, or an occupational scheme funded by the contributions of pensioners and employers. "Funded" is the operative word. For far too long pensions have been assumed just to happen, just to be created by a touch on the Treasury tiller, but only a funded scheme can in the long run provide what the country is looking for if it is to eliminate the need for this type of debate.
  The second pension will be funded by the contributions of pensioners and employers while the pensioner is at work, and will be paid without question and without any tax subvention. That is most important. There will be a requirement to provide an income for the widow whether the death of the husband takes place before the retirement date or after. There will be a requirement to preserve the pension when a man changes his job, and there will be a built-in protection against inflation and rising prices. In this way we shall have the kernel for the provision for pensioners of the future of a guaranteed rising income paid for by themselves when they are at work.
  Not only have we willed the end—an end which I suspect every hon. Member will wish to see fulfilled—but we have thought about the means. This is in contrast to the complicated and unfunded system proposed by the Labour Government—and few hon. Members will deny that the Crossman Plan was complicated—and is an arrangement of considerable simplicity and a large measure of responsibility.
  I come back to my thoughts for the future to the immediate question of the level of old-age pensions. Many of our elderly citizens have a meagre existence. In an ideal world the House would unite in being much more generous to them but we do not live in an ideal world, and a responsible Government must balance the needs of pensioners on the one hand with the requirement to tax working people more to pay for them. They have to bear in mind the present rampant pressure to bring down unemployment and to stimulate purchasing.
  We are told that, as pension increases are immediately spent, this would be
  292
  a way to increase demand, but the range of goods normally bought by pensioners is so limited that an increase would probably stimulate little in the economy and, I suspect, stimulate in the wrong places. Pensions and general benefits will have to be increased not to stimulate the economy and to reduce unemployment but on the merits of the case.
  Pensions were increased as recently as September. In purchasing power they remain approximately 2·6 per cent. above November, 1969. It must, therefore, be as a conscious act to increase the standard of living of the pensioners that we increase pensions now. The cost of living shows welcome signs that it is least rising less fast than it has been. So even a modest increase would increase the standard of living. Why, then, should the Government not agree to this? To put it no higher, why should the Government not gain political kudos from increasing pensions?
  Before I answer that, I will remind the House that during the debate on the Queen's Speech I put forward a three-point reform of pensions which, with the indulgence of the House, I will repeat. I said that I should like to see a reduction in the interval between the announcement of increases in April and the actual payment of them in September. I cannot believe that nothing can be done considerably to reduce the period. Former Ministers as well as present Ministers seem to find that suggestion the cause of some wry amusement, but I do not believe that we cannot reduce the delay.
  Secondly, it I should like to see a closer relationship between pensions and the cost of living index. I concede that it may not do the pensioners very much good for pensions to be tied exactly to the index. However, it would give them a feeling of security that biennial pension reviews may take care of the cost of living. The fact that the pension is tied directly to the cost of living would make a great impression on elderly people—
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misconstrue anything I said. I thought he was referring to me—
  Mr. McCrindle: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I was speaking about an intervention made by another hon. Member who has now left the Chamber.

  293
  Thirdly, I asked for an annual review of the level of pensions and benefits. This is a point which has been made on both sides of the House, and careful attention should be given to it. When I said this on the last occasion, my right hon. Friend said that I was being pessimistic in thinking that inflation would go on at its present rate, thereby justifying an annual review. But if the rate of inflation declines, an annual review could be seen to be increasing the standard of living of retired people and pensioners. I repeat that I should like to see that three point reform brought into operation, and I hope the Minister will accept that as from 1972 there should be a yearly review.
  Remembering what I said about the level of benefits, which in purchasing power continues to be marginally above that of November, 1969, we should be unwise to be panicked into action now when there will be, I hope, in the near future an opportunity of so changing the system that, although this type of debate may still have to occur from time to time, it will do so much less frequently.
  If that is the only hope we give to pensioners now, it is a forlorn one as we approach the festive season. As we come close to Christmas, could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer afford to dispense a little good cheer? I do not know the technical difficulties, but could not the Government simply say, for example, that instead of one week's income on 21st December, pensioners should receive two weeks' income? That is something which we could do at an administrative stroke without building up inflationary pressure in the long term, and it would bring considerable comfort to the old people. That, combined with the steadying of prices, which most hon. Members concede, and the annual review of which I have spoken, would show that actions speak louder than Motions on the Order Paper.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: It is the custom of the House to ask the previous speaker to forgive one for not following what he has said, but on this occasion I will take up what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) about a Christmas bonus. I certainly hope the Minister will consider this request.
  294
  Yesterday the Transport and General Workers' Union Executive Council passed a resolution asking the Minister to grant a bonus of £20 to old-age pensioners a week or two before Christmas. I understand that tomorrow Mr. Jack Jones and other T.U.C. leaders are to see the Prime Minister and I assume that they will put this plea to him. There would be no administrative problem in paying a bonus of £20 if one or two weeks before Christmas pensioners were allowed to draw a double pension. This would mean only that the pension books would have to be renewed one week earlier.
  From Questions to the Prime Minister today it appears that there is speculation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to stimulate the economy before Christmas. Two leading newspapers today carried stories about a reduction in the Bank Rate, reduced purchase tax and so on, to stimulate the economy. The best way of stimulating the economy would be to put millions of £s into the hands of old-age pensioners, who would immediately spend the money and not save it or invest it in South Africa or Australia. This would produce a consumer boom to help to alleviate unemployment, which is now climbing over the 1 million mark.
  This is a practical suggestion to increase consumer spending, and it is administratively possible. All hon. Members know that there is widespread poverty amongst old-age pensioners. Literally thousands will die of cold and hunger during the winter. This sometimes happens because old-age pensioners are not getting what they are entitled to receive. There is a problem of identifying the people who are in need. The Government have had this experience with the family income supplement. After massive publicity they have found that only a tiny proportion of the people who are entitled to benefit have applied for it.
  The same applies to old-age pensioners. Many live alone and have very few friends. Many are too proud to claim the supplementary benefit, to which they feel, quite mistakenly, they are not entitled. The Department of Health and Social Security does a first-class job in trying to identify these people, but this is not always possible. We have to bring many cases to the Department's attention.

  295
  In regard to the basic needs of these people—namely, food and fuel—a boost over Christmas might help them to get over an otherwise long and hard winter. I make no contribution in this debate to long-term solutions. I am making an immediate plea for something to be done at once this Christmas for old-age pensioners.
  The right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench tell us that they have compassion for old people. There is no competition between the two political parties on this matter. Here is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that this is how they feel. They can kill two birds with one stone. They can assist the tens of thousands of old-age pensioners who are living in poverty, and they can do something to stimulate the economy, by putting more purchasing power into the hands of our old people.
  I ask the Government to take seriously the campaign which is now being organised by the Transport and General Workers Union. I hope that when the trade union leaders meet the Prime Minister tomorrow they will put this point of view to him. I hope their point of view will be reinforced from the Government Front Bench as a result of this debate, and I hope it will be possible for the Government to show that their compassion for old people is not a compassion of mere words but will take the form of action now.
  5.47 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The subject of this debate touches the conscience of the House. If, as so often when we are talking of pensions, the benches on both sides are relatively empty, it is not because right hon. and hon. Members do not care. It is because of the difficulty of making specific recommendations which are workable in this field in which the numbers are so vast and any recommendation one may make is bound to be enormously costly.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who moved the Motion which we oppose, was—as always—extremely effective. One cannot accuse her of not being specific. But I listened in vain for any clear commitment on her
  296
  part to a continuing increase in taxation—which is the only way in which in the long run increases in benefits to pensioners can be paid for.
  The House must be candid on this point. I do not believe there is anybody on either side of the House who would not like to see pension increases. But few are prepared to be specific as to the way in which the money is to be found. We must avoid vote-catching and bleeding-heart attitudes until we are prepared to be specific as to the way in which the money is to be raised.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Member will recognise that the T.U.C. and the Labour Party have both fully recognised that there would have to be increases in contributions to get the larger pension, and we have accepted that from the point of view of the employee.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: To be honest on this point, one should say as much about the necessity for an increase in contribution as one does about the necessity for an increase in benefit. I do not say that as a reprimand to the hon. Lady, who is a very honest speaker, but it is something the House must bear in mind.
  Although it is easy to make popular speeches about increased benefits for pensioners, it is not easy to make oneself popular by recommending increases in taxation. Nor is it good enough to say that at this juncture there is an evident need for a boost to the economy and that, therefore, we should make use of this particular circumstance to secure an increase in pensions. It would be a lasting commitment and would still have to be paid for after the present immediate circumstances have passed.
  It is useful to clear our minds on the precise nature of entitlement to pensions. I hope the House will forgive me if it feels I have made this point before. It is essential to our understanding of the situation to know why we are making particular payments to particular people.
  We pay pensions on the basis of entitlement established through need. We pay them on the basis of citizenship; and we pay them on the basis of contributions. I wish to make specific recommendations as to the way in which we should change our approach in each of these fundamental areas.

  297
  I should first like to deal with the question of need. My particular recommendation is that we should seek urgently to reduce the number of people who are entitled to benefit through need. I do not know whether it is now 3 million pensioners whose incomes are made up by supplementary—benefits but the number is far too large. We allow ourselves to indulge in a degree of hypocrisy when we speak of entitlement through need. Our economy is one in which people secure entitlement to benefit either through earnings or through savings. It runs counter to the philosophy on which our economy is based to say that there is also a system of entitlement for people who have no employment and no savings. We are simply providing a safety net for our consciences by allowing ever growing numbers of people to be relieved through supplementary benefit because their entitlement to benefits earned through citizenship or contributions is not enough.
  In our election manifesto we said that we would
  "… encourage all forms of saving and saving at every level of earnings."
  How can it be worth anybody's while to save if he is simply saving to exclude himself from entitlement to supplementary benefits when he retires? How can it be worth an employer's while to introduce an occupational pension scheme if the contributions he is putting in—and maybe requiring from his employees, too—simply lift the employees out of the range in which they are entitled to benefit from the State?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend care to add that the more they save in their working life the more interest they earn on their investments and the quicker they reach the threshold for income tax purposes, and so they are doubly worse off?
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am not suggesting that we should relieve pensioners from income tax. I believe that we should ensure that they are in a position to pay it. But there is so little clarity in our thinking on the whole cash relationship between the individual and the State that the question certainly needs to be debated further. On the question of citizenship, although the pension which we have given this year to the over-80s is the only one specifically related to
  298
  citizenship, and not to contributions, the national insurance benefit is, in effect, a citizenship benefit because the contributions of people now coming into retirement are such a ludicrously small part of what is needed if the National Insurance system were really a self-balancing one. We retain pettifogging regulations about the number of contributions made, which are only a cruel farce. The vast number of people who draw national insurance benefit are getting a benefit for which they have not paid but to which they are entitled simply because we recognise the necessity for a basic income for the population in retirement.
  Both the national insurance scheme and supplementary benefits are money-transfers. They are not drawn from capital but from the current arisings of the nation's wealth. This transfer between working population and the old is not the only form of money transfer that is going on in our complex society. If, for instance, men at work secure higher wages, then they are securing a form of money transfer to themselves. In too many cases this money transfer takes place at the expense of people living on fixed incomes. What should the Government do in this situation where this complex pattern of money transfer goes on all the time?
  My second specific recommendation is that the basic benefit should be enough. I realise that we cannot achieve this ideal overnight; but we should make it our target that the final National Insurance benefit for men and for women should be enough for them to live on even if they have no other income. It should not be necessary to resort to application for supplementary benefit except in particular circumstances which may, indeed, be regarded as special cases.
  One can argue against the idea of the national insurance pension being sufficient on grounds of the gigantic gross cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking a few days ago to the Institute of Actuaries gave a figure of £700 million gross as being the cost of raising the basic pension to eliminate the need for supplementation. But this is a case where gross and net figures are far apart. I suggest that the Housing Finance Bill, which hon. Members opposite were so unwise as to oppose, will make a significant contribution here.

  299
  One of the greatest difficulties in bringing everybody up to the point of freedom from means tests all over the country is the wide range of rents between country and towns and even within large conurbations. If a major contribution towards providing for rent is now to be made by another means, we shall soon have gone a long way towards freeing large numbers of our pensioners from the necessity to apply for supplementary benefit. There is also the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), that through taxation a large part of the money given to the better-off pensioners would be recovered again. I have often made the point that it is easy to give people basic benefits and to apply a partial degree of selectivity through the tax system. This is another example of the way in which the same system could work.
  In the relationship between the generations expressed in this complex structure of money transfers, we must always remember our moral commitment. When we ourselves come to retire we shall ask our children to be generous to us. They will be entitled to say "What did you do in your time for your parents, that you are now asking us to make a sacrifice for you?" All of us in this House would have to look shamefaced if we were asked that question, because we and the country at large know that we are not doing enough for our old people.
  I hope the Government will think again about their attitude to the adequacy of the basic pension and will declare it as their intention to raise it to the point where it is enough.
  Where entitlement is based on contributions, I am very concerned, too, about the problem of people who either voluntarily or involuntarily change their jobs in the course of their careers. At present we have the unsatisfactory situation that the great majority of people who change their jobs have to lose their pension rights in their occupational scheme as a result. This is not only damaging to the ideal of a property-owning democracy and our hope that people at all levels will be able to accumulate savings. It also offends the moral conscience of the public.
  I know the argument that if an employer introduces a voluntary scheme one
  300
  of the terms of which is that a man leaving before retirement is bound to lose his contributions, it constitutes retrospective legislation to say that in respect of the contract that clause must be waived.
  The taxpayer has a large stake in occupational pension schemes because of the generous tax concessions which are made available to them every year. Over the passage of years the stake of the taxpayer in a fund grows to be a very substantial part of it. When the pension starts to be paid out again in due course—if it is paid out—the taxpayer recoups his share by charging tax on that pension. But while the fund is building up in preparation for paying the pension, certainly the taxpayer has a stake in it, and that gives the taxpayer an entitlement to insist on certain conditions being observed.
  I worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) in preparing a Bill the object of which was to suggest ways in which one could go the whole way towards transferability of pension rights. Due to the opposition of Labour Members, we did not even secure a Second Reading for that Bill. Had we done so, we could have had a fruitful Committee stage. Although the solutions proposed in that Bill may not all have been the best possible, we attempted to introduce ways in which all the snags known to exist in connection with transferability had some sort of answer. If hon. Members had been able to give their minds to these specific problems one by one, we might now be a lot nearer transferability than we are today.
  Last Session, under the Ten Minutes Rule, I introduced a Bill which reproduced largely verbatim the Clause of the Crossman Bill which was intended to give effect, at any rate, to preservation. That, too, was blocked by an hon. Member opposite, among others, so I did not get a Second Reading for that either.
  When we discussed the Finance Bill this year I introduced a series of Amendments the object of which was to draw attention to ways in which the question of transferability or preservation might be tackled. I thought that I was putting it at the lowest possible when I suggested an Amendment which would have made it at any rate permissible for employers to protect the pension rights of their

  301
  employees if they wished. That also got nowhere.
  I recognise that there is a question over the man who wishes to take back his own contributions to his fund. People who operate pension schemes are hostile to this right. Naturally, it disrupts their long-term financial plans. But I had a painful interview with a constituent who told me that after 25 years he had unexpectedly been made redundant. He had to decide whether to withdraw his contributions from his pension fund because he did not know for how long he would be unemployed, or whether to leave them in to protect his future. His difficulty was that, not knowing how long he was likely to be unemployed, he did not know whether he would be able to continue to educate his children during the time that he was out of work. His question was whether he should consider his children's education or whether he should look after himself. He decided that it was right for him to take out his contributions, although it meant a great sacrifice to him to do so.
  I would always advise anyone in that sort of dilemma that the right course is to take out his own contributions and to forfeit his employer's, unless he has a clear undertaking from his employer that the value of his entitlement will be protected from inflation with the passage of time. I do not know of many schemes which give a specific guarantee in that regard.
  In introducing their "Strategy for Pensions", my right hon. Friends have dealt with this problem of protection of pension rights on changes of employment as they think best. But what they have done does not measure up to the commitment of the party. In our manifesto we said:
  "… we will ensure that everyone can take their pension rights with them when they change their job".
  It seems to me that there is only one interpretation of those words, and it is that we intended to find a means of bringing in transferability of pension rights and, what is more, that we intended doing it in the life of this Parliament.
  I know that "Strategy for Pensions" is intended to be brought into effect in 1975. I do not think that that is soon enough to deal with this urgent problem. Where there is a will there is a way, and the
  302
  problem of the protection of pension rights on a change of employment should be tackled now. I should like to see it tackled in the Budget next year. It is through the tax provisions that the first move should be made.
  This is not a matter that we can allow to run on over the years when there is so much anxiety about employment, so much unexpected redundancy, and when it is the Government's policy, which I support, to encourage people to change their jobs in order to get into more lively industries and make the most of their careers.
  Those are my three specific suggestions. I think, too, that there should be mechanical improvements in the way that we administer pensions. In June or July of this year I went to Brussels with a group of hon. Members and spent a fruitful day at the headquarters of the Prévoyatice Sociale, where officials showed us the machinery that they use and the way in which they tackled pension changes in Belgium. Of course, the numbers involved there are a good deal smaller, but presumably our greater numbers merely require a larger machine. In Brussels they were working up to the third total revaluation of pensions this year. They had had one cost-of-living increase earlier in the year; during the spring or early summer they had introduced a full-scale up-rating; and they told us that in October they expected that it would be necessary to introduce another general increase in pensions because of the cost of living. When I asked how much notice it was necessary for them to have in order to introduce a change in pension rates across the board, they said—as I recall it—that as long as they had the figures which were to be brought into payment by 25th September they would be able to make the first payments at the new rates on 6th October. That makes our months of waiting after changes have been decided look quite obsolete. Although I recognise the dedication, the hard work and overtime of all those involved in the administration of our pension system, often they remind me of the sort of firm which is so busy operating the old system that it has no time to consider improvements.
  Another possible improvement which might commend itself to my right hon. Friends is that Belgian pensioners are

  303
  not expected to queue in post offices to draw their pensions whatever the weather. Their pensions are brought to them in the form of cash and placed in their hands by the postman. Admittedly, it is done only monthly; they do not get their pensions every week, as British pensioners expect. But we could treat our pensioners more humanely in the way that we expect them to draw their entitlements.
  As for the two-yearly reconsideration of pensions, I suggest to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend that they should stick to their plan. However, I believe that what they should consider every two years is whether it is possible for pensions to be un-rated altogether. In the meantime, I think that they should commit themselves to some kind of automatic increase tied to the cost of living. If the cost of living rises by a certain percentage, the Government should commit themselves, whatever the date, to introduce a corresponding change in pensions. But they should stick to the two-yearly programme for a complete review and reconsideration of the general level of pensions.
  Our policy towards our old people must be clear and specific. If it is, the money will be there. The good heart of our working people wants our old people to have a fair deal. In addition, I believe that our administrative methods must be efficient and humane.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. R. Rys Williams) speaks on this subject with a good deal of knowledge, and the House respects his expertise. I should like to follow him on two points which he raised, but he must forgive me if I cannot profess his intimate detailed knowledge on this important subject.
  First, I take the fair point made by the hon. Member about not having everything for everybody all the time and that if we are to pay pensions, we must be prepared to accept the responsibility of finding the wherewithal to pay them. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we could not go further into taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) pointed out in an intervention that we were quite specific
  304
  in our proposal to increase contributions. The whole debate is really about the redistribution of the country's wealth with more justice to the old. If we are to give more to the old, it has to come from somewhere. Therefore, we must be prepared to accept that responsibility and, if necessary, increase taxation and take resources from other groups of people if it is needed for justice to the elderly.
  I remind the House that what I consider one of the most courageous political acts since I have been in this House was in 1964 when Peggy Herbison, who was loved by all on both sides of the House, was Minister. For reasons of social justice it was necessary to raise the old-age pension. That meant finding £300 million which we had not got. The Government were prepared to put 6d. on income tax and petrol, at a time when their majority in this House was only five and knowing that every newspaper was saying that within a few weeks there would be a General Election. The Government were right to take that step, although they knew that there were more votes affected by petrol and tax than old-age pensioners.
  The second point on the contribution of the hon. Member for Kensington, South concerns his analysis on entitlement. The point which he missed is the corporate national and community entitlement which we owe to the older generation. Everything that my generation and my children have rests on what those 8 million did in their lifetime. Therefore, it is not a question of measuring what their personal savings or contributions might be or how much the £ s. d. works out. We owe that debt to those who went before us for the standard of living we enjoy today. That is an entitlement which the House should honour.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) who, in his opening remarks, deplored the fact that politicians and politics must come into this matter. When this House is not concerned about the care and pensions of the elderly, it will be a sorrier institution. There must be a certain amount of cut and thrust from time to time with both sides of the House seeking to put their views. I often find that we get bogged down in figures. The debate can become arid when we throw out at each

  305
  side at Question Time, "You did this, we did that. We did that and you did the other." I should like in my contribution to this debate to put some bodies on the figures.
  Many hon. Members will have seen the excellent work done by a voluntary body called Age Concern on Pensioner Incomes. My contribution concerns not only the Government's pension scheme but the whole of the fringe benefits and the way that we are able to deal with our geriatric cases in hospitals, and the elderly in the community, which in the end boil down to individual cases.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about giving a Christmas present to the old-age pensioners. I hope that my speech will be a birthday present to one of my constituents, Maggie Nelson. She gained a bit of national publicity during the Labour Party conference at Brighton when she demonstrated outside the hall what she thought the Labour Party should be saying about old-age pensions. Because she is a bonny fighter, she was in Brighton the following week at the Tory Party conference, again making the same case. She had her eightieth birthday last week. Any contributions which I make I regard as my effort to support what Maggie Nelson has been doing for the 80 years of her life.
  I should like to quote from a pensioner in Slough, who says:
  "I have always paid insurance stamps and so I get £8·75 a week. I think that the rent here is too much for old people—it is £6·70 a fortnight and the week you pay that it is really bad.… Then there is the big things like coal and electricity—so I pay my electricity on a week that is not a rent week and get by on bad weeks by eating up what I have put in my cupboard on a good week."
  This is not an individual case. One can multiply it thousands of times. In our travels, we have all met constituents like this lady.
  I should like to quote another example of a couple with supplementary pensions where the husband was blind. Last week I had the privilege of spending five hours with blind unemployed people and others in the campaign that they were running on unemployment of blind persons. This couple say:
  "We always have money worries. You cannot have luxuries or anything like that.… I do not buy meat because it is too expensive.… When we got behind with
  306
  the rates when my husband went into hospital I sold my rings and everything. Then I had another bill for the rates—and the bailiffs came round put on to me by the rate people.… And the electricity and gas bills worry me terribly … no, I could not tell you what I spend on food."
  This is 1971. We should not, in a civilised society, be able to make such quotations in the House of Commons, yet we can. The debate is taking place today because hon. Members on both sides are feeling a little ashamed at how little they have been able to do. Both parties stand equally on this matter in that we have never yet done quite enough.
  Mention has been made of hypothermia. I recall the body of a woman being brought into the Central Middlesex Hospital, not having been found until she had been dead for three days, and yet, when she was brought in, she had a temperature of 70 degrees. This should not happen in a civilised society.
  We hear about the fringe side of this matter, which has its importance, but basically it boils down to how much money a person has to obtain the necessities of life. Mention has been made of that excellent organisation, the Women's Royal Voluntary Services, which takes round meals on wheels. At the last count, there were about 4,200 elderly men and women in my constituency living alone in single rooms. Their lifeline is the meals-on-wheels service, home help and other things which we are able to provide for them.
  I went round with the meals-on-wheels service to an elderly gentleman who is immaculate. He has his hair brushed neatly; he always keeps himself neat and tidy. One can see oneself in his brightly polished old shoes. Yet he wears his overcoat at lunchtime and does not light a fire until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. On the stroke of five he lights his fire. This is not just one case. My hon. Friends from other parts of the country can duplicate it.
  Recently there was a fight in my constituency between the local authority and the Government agencies because the local authority felt that when elderly people were living in council premises they should be charged the full economic rent which should be made up by supplementary benefit. After several months of acute anxiety we were able to resolve

  307
  this problem. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary that eventually the Supplementary Benefits Commission was prepared to pay.
  We have had a ridiculous situation. We take old people from slums and areas of bad housing and put them into modern areas where councils have erected the kind of premises which I believe are far better than geriatric wards of hospitals, where old people can live in their own surroundings with a certain amount of public support. Because these premises are modern they have central heating. The old people could not afford the central heating charge. Because they could not afford it, they each turned their own central heating off. Therefore, they had all been to the local flea market, or whatever it is called, and bought second-hand oil heaters. It is cheaper to buy paraffin than to switch on the central heating.
  This is a ridiculous situation. I am not blaming the Department. I share the esteem of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) for the Department. In my area, nobody is better or more welcome than the visitors from the Department of Health and Social Security who, unlike the old days when the officials were like the policeman, who called to see whether one had something to sell before being able to get benefit, now call to make sure that people are getting their entitlement. Despite that, the red tape at times is such that even they cannot get through and we are getting the kind of situation which I have just mentioned.
  The point has been made about upgrading being carried out annually. However we like to explain it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) did so regularly when he was on the Government Front Bench, and it is now done by the Minister—it is logical and rational. In pure arithmetical terms it is all very obvious, but it is not obvious to the person who, when he gets the extra amount, finds that he is in fact back to square one because of the difference of the one-year and two-year sessions between supplementary and ordinary grading.
  I quote again from "Age Concern on Pensioner Incomes":
  "A two-yearly review can only restore the purchasing power of the pension retrospec-
  308
  tively, and is never back-dated. One wonders how many trade unions or staff associations would tolerate cost of living settlements 21 months out of date and taking six months to implement."
  I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South about computerisation and his visit to Brussels, because I recall that when my then right hon. Friend Peggy Herbison was Minister she was almost heartbroken on finding that it took six months to get the increases through to those who were to receive them. I remember her assurance in 1965 that never again would any Minister of Pensions be in the situation of having to face a long delay in implementing his proposals, and yet in 1971 we find that the delay is still too great, in spite of things having been speeded up.
  Because we are talking about pension schemes, nothing has been said about concessionary fares which make life worth living for elderly people who want to visit their grandchildren. Proposals have been put forward in recent years to provide concessionary fares, but local and transport authorities have hedged the scheme around with so many provisos about the time of travel, those who are able to benefit and the boundaries to be observed that not a great deal has been done. At one time the London Boroughs Association suggested that the scheme should apply only to those over 70. What happened to those over 65 was too bad.
  In terms of the quality of life of elderly people and enabling them to get out and about, from the point of view of health, which is more my subject than pensions, it would be worth all the money that we could spend to prevent an elderly person from retiring into his shell.
  I wish to refer to prescription charges for women pensioners. This is something which the Secretary of State might perhaps consider when he is wearing his other hat. His problem is that he has to wear two hats and find a way of dealing simultaneously with health and social security. Surely a woman pensioner should not have to wait five years before she is entitled to free medicine.
  The Minister is aware of the cost of geriatric wards, and also of the tragedy of them. As the Minister responsible for the health of the nation, he has declared his policy of trying to get people away from hospitals and into domiciliary care.

  309
  If he can provide adequate pensions as well as the other services which an elderly persons needs when living alone, not only will he be able to achieve that, but he will prolong the lives of a number of people.
  We all know what the problem is. An elderly person has his roots in his possessions. He often lives in the past, on his memories. The moment he is uprooted and put into a geriatric ward, because he can no longer cope with his problems, and because his independence has gone, he turns his face to the wall and dies within a few days. It is that kind of human problem with which the House has been trying to deal today, not with statistics, facts and percentages relating to this or that. What we have been debating today is just how much we, as a community, can care for the elderly.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) when he says that we can never be satisfied with what we do for the elderly. We on this side of the House care very much for the old people. Thus we know how much interest the hon. hon. Gentleman has taken in them and in what he calls putting the clothes on the figures.
  I was sorry that the debate started with the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), whom we all admire when she speaks on these matters, saying that our record was a "sour irony". I suggest that if that is so it must follow that the attempts of all Governments to bring about a tolerable and growing standard of living for retirement pensioners during the last 20 years must also have been a sour irony because, taking the best years of improvement in pension levels by both parties, there has not been very much difference in them. I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that we have to get away from the idea that "anything you did we did better, or anything you can do we can do better".
  What matters most to the one-third of retirement pensioners at the lowest level, and the one-third at not quite the lowest level, is that the record, whichever Government are in power, is a good one.
  310
  We have to concentrate on improving the benefits for the lower level two-thirds of retirement pensioners. I think that all parties have come a long way from the Beveridge idea of the flat-rate equal benefit for everybody, but in practice both parties have come to give what is really an annual increase to the lowest one-third—an increase in supplementary benefit one year and a smaller pension increase the following year. Surely it is not beyond the wit of my right hon. Friend and his Department to call it an annual increase and work out a scheme which ensures that the supplementary increase is not deducted from the pension increase the following year.
  I understand that the difficulty about doing that is that it puts some of the other two-thirds retirement pensioners who are not on supplementary benefit at a disadvantage. But surely in this age of the computer it would be possible to identify those who, in the year of the pension increase, would be getting less than supplementary benefit pensioners without having their supplementary benefit increase of the year before deducted from the increased pension. That is a matter which Ministers of both parties have not taken seriously enough. They have not realised how much that act is misunderstood and disliked by the lowest and poorest pensioners who suffer this deduction every other year.
  I was sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin made such a scathing attack on our record, for another reason. We have made a considerable change, of course, over the practice adopted by previous Governments with regard to public service and Armed Forces pensions. In the last 20 years it seems to have been taken for granted that the older the service pensioner, the less well off he should be. This has applied particularly to the widows of the earlier retired people. The view seems to have been that the older the service pensioner, the further behind he should be left in the struggle to maintain a tolerable standard of living. The bitter truth is that until two months ago these old people had not the slightest hope of ever enjoying as of right a standard of living during retirement at a level which they had earned and to which they had contributed. Some of us have taken this matter very seriously for a long while before we entered the House and since.

  311
  We know some very hard cases, particularly of Armed Forces widows who have suffered silently for a long time.
  Restoring the purchasing power of public service and Armed Forces pensions awarded before 1st April, 1969, to the level of 1st April, 1969, and giving an undertaking that that base line will be reviewed biennially has gone well beyond the commitment of our party before the election, and of any other party. It is a substantial improvement. Since the 1969 base figure, on top of that there is, of course, an 18 per cent. cost of living increase. This action of the Government has been welcomed by the Armed Forces and the public services. We need to draw attention to what we have done for these well-deserving cases.
  Of course, there remains many omissions and unfair anomalies in this respect, and there always will be. There are still some misogamists, I feel, particularly in the Treasury and to some extent in my right hon. Friend's Department. They do not seem to like widows very much, particularly Armed Forces widows, and still give them only one-third of their deceased husband's pension. I should like to see this raised to one-half as early as possible.
  We have not yet heard whether the Government have decided on the difficult question of giving pensions to Service widows who married after the retirement of their husbands. Some of us went to see the Minister about this as early as 9th March—nine months ago. We have not yet heard anything and I hope that there will be something said about this soon, because it is a case which seriously needs looking into as soon as possible. Some war widows are still far from receiving the special consideration which they should be receiving. Those are some of the anomalies, and we cannot rest satisfied until they are put right.
  The date for the reduction from 60 to 55 of the age at which the increases in Service pensions became payable has not yet been decided or announced by the Government. I hope that they will not put it off too long, in view of inflation and the difficult circumstances which many of those people are facing through unemployment.
  312
  As well as what has been done for public service and Armed Services pensioners, the Government have a remarkable record in regard to the war pensioners. There was a considerable improvement this September which all hon. Members should welcome.
  One part of my right hon. Friend's Department which should be mentioned—I came at the sharp end of it only a few weeks ago—is the War Pensioners Welfare Service. I was surprised to be called upon by one of the welfare workers in the ordinary course of her duties. She wished to inquire about the pension which I was receiving, the position that I was living in and my general condition of life.
  I very much welcomed her and had a long talk. I found that the War Pensioners Welfare Service officers have, in the past year or so, called on every 100 per cent. disability pensioner from the First World War in the country at his home to see how he was getting on. That is something greatly to the credit of the Department. These officers are at present carrying out the same exercise for the 100 per cent. disability pensioners of the Second World War: that is how I came in. I think that this sort of work, which is done by a few dedicated people, is something which this House should be proud of and should recognise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  As I said, the Government have much to be proud of in their record, but they have still a long way to go to put right some of the smaller things. That is what I should like them to concentrate on in the next year or two of their existence—looking after some of the anomalies particularly with regard to the widows, some Service widows and widows who married after their husbands' retirement and so on. We must look after some of these smaller cases if we are to say that we really care for the people whom we are put here to represent.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). I do not want to pursue his general theme of recognising the excellent work of the welfare officers for war pensioners. What strikes me is the contradiction in the

  313
  character of hon. Members opposite. I do not say this in a personal sense, but although they are so reactionary in general political terms, when they consider their experiencies and contacts with ordinary own Government, in the excellent way in which many have done today. The Government are having a rough time. I admit that there have been one or two individual compliments, but these have been paid usually to the Department and certainly not to the policy of the Government.
  I support the Motion. One of the areas of conflict here is reflected again in the contradictions of hon. Members opposite. We are supposed to be the party who think that the man in Whitehall knows best. Hon. Members opposite take a general anti-Civil Service approach—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly not.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is one of the best examples of those who make these usual cheap comments about bureaucracy.
  Nevertheless, it is true, in general party terms, that the country is encouraged by some irresponsible local newspapers—rather like some irresponsible Members—to believe that the party opposite always wants to get away from the concept that the man in Whitehall knows best. We have lost one or two elections on this distinction. But they are then stuck wih it.
  There is a general recognition that if ever a Department needed an increase in staff, it is the Department which we are discussing tonight. In many ways some of the ideas put forward, some of which would not cost too much, face genuine administrative difficulties usually connected not with the quality but with the quantity of saff. The present Government are no better and no worse than previous Governments when it comes to increasing the numbers of staff which are needed and the improvement in the working conditions of the employees. This is another aspect to take into account when we are making positive suggestions on the way in which the Government can help pensioners.
  I will not argue the general economic case because that was done cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin
  314
  (Mrs. Shirley Williams). Arguments about the ability to influence the management of the economy can be left to more appropriate debates, though there is a point of substance in the Government's case against the idea of a Christmas bonus.
  I am always reluctant to argue for anything that seems to be particularly popular and attractive. The circumstances in 1964 were to a considerable extent different from those of today. We were then one-and-a-half years away from the previous increase. Today we are told by the experts that despite the high rate of unemployment, our balance of payments position is strong and the economy is in a favourable condition. It should, therefore, be easier now to justify making an increase on an annual basis. I admit that I do not like arguing this way as a general principle, and I would rather look at the overall possibility of giving increases to those in the greatest need.
  We sometimes suffer from an exaggeration of the case. I fear that I may be misunderstood, even by some of my hon. Friends, when I argue this way, and I say this as a result of visiting old people's clubs and being in contact with the elderly. Many old people feel, no doubt understandably, that they have acquired virtues and talents which they never had when they were younger. In my experience they usually get worse as they get older, but as I have a mother-in-law living with me I had better not pursue the point. Suffice to say that we all become more difficult as we age, if that is possible in some cases.
  There is a natural tendency on the part of those concerned with old people—in pension offices, voluntary bodies and even hon. Members, who must rely occasionally on getting votes—to play to this type of psychological thinking without examining the matter and without being sure that we know where the areas of greatest need lie.
  It is easy to say that every pensioner requires an immediate increase, but that is not necessarily so. It is clear, for example, that while 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the retired need an increase, some war pensioners and public service pensioners are also in receipt of retirement pensions, as the hon. Member for Wells pointed out. A lot of loose talk is

  315
  indulged in about giving a blanket increase to all retirement pensioners, and this talk can be misleading.
  It may sound as though I am adducing a Tory argument, but there is need for selectivity here and I want to ensure that those in the greatest need get the greatest help and get it soon. I am therefore prepared simply to ask the Government why they cannot do something soon—I am a very reasonable guy who likes arguing for something when there is a prospect of getting it—for retirement pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
  For some reason, when we talk about supplementary benefit we always feel the need to talk about every form of benefit. The Government must recognise that there is fear and alarm among the one-third of pensioners who are the worst off. While we can make a general case for having an annual review of all pensions. I would settle—I would not be satisfied with this alone, but it would do for now—for an assurance from the Government that there will be an increase in the rates of supplementary benefit long before next September or October. I make this request for a number of reasons. I do not wish to be controversial, but one of my reasons relates to the lack of support for the Government's policy of taking us into the European Economic Community, a subject to which I shall return.
  So as not to delay the House I will make a few quick suggestions that should appeal to the Minister because they would not cost much to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the excellent services provided in his constituency by the W.V.S. and it is in this connection that I have a practical proposition.
  I am not lodging a complaint but asking for consideration to be given to my suggestion. We should investigate why local authorities either will not or are unable to use the school meals service, on a costed basis, for the provision of food for old people in selected or appropriate areas. I am not criticising the Government over this because I have been a member of a local authority. Here we have excellent facilities with kitchens and staff. I hope that the Minister will live
  316
  up to his reputation of having rather more imagination than some of his predecessors and will consider this suggestion.
  An approach has been made in Glasgow to a couple of hospital boards urging that any surplus capacity they have in the hospital catering service should be used for supplying meals in selected areas to old people. I am not asking for a subsidy of any form and have no doubt that the financial angle could be worked out. I am sure that only the existence of a great deal of red tape is discouraging many bodies from thinking along these lines.
  Prescription charges have not been mentioned, and this indicates the tremendous need for an improved visitation service. Changes in supplementary benefit were made by Governments of both parties with the idea of reducing the number of visits that had to be made, and we thought that that had merit. But with the vast increase in the number of means-tested benefits—I am not necessarily objecting to them; there has been a proliferation of them, particularly in terms of prescription charges—more should be done to improve the visitation services.
  The Minister must have been indundated with complaints from hon. Members about the somewhat misleading nature of the leaflet in relation to the earnings limit. This is a complicated matter into which I will not go now. The Minister will appreciate what I mean. A visit can do far more than any hon. Member can do by letter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West referred to concessionary fares. Under a Labour authority in Glasgow we have been negotiating with the Scottish Omnibus Group. It will please the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to hear that although we have a Labour authority and a nationalised industry, we cannot get any progress out of either.
  It seems that as the result of an anomaly we can have concessionary fares in Glasgow on corporation transport, but because the Scottish Omnibus Group operates in some fringe areas, other citizens of the same city are being denied

  317
  this concession. Many activists in politics do not understand why it is taking so long to settle this matter. Although the Minister may say that it is not his responsibility, it is well known that if one has a word with a colleague who has some direct responsibility, it is amazing how wheels can begin to turn. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
  An announcement has been made by the Secretary of State for Employment about the setting up, on an experimental basis, of an attempt to use young unemployed people in community work. I have a constituency interest here, but since I have no local newspaper no one will read about my speech. I am not trying to overdo the constituency angle, but this matter needs a little more than £500,000 or only one experiment in the whole of Scotland. I do not see this as just a bit of amelioration for the younger unemployed but as having the possibilities of quite an imaginative scheme. There is even something to be said for younger people who have left school, perhaps in a better economic climate, wanting to do some social work. There seems to be the seed of a worth-while idea, albeit introduced at present for other reasons.
  Finally, on a more controversial note—and I do not say this because I am a pro-Marketeer; I do not want to stir up more trouble, because we have enough—the Government have completely underestimated the feeling of old people about change of any kind. From surveys I have carried out, there is no doubt that support for the idea of entry into the Common Market was greatest among the young people and least among the old, for very understandable reasons. I was not trying to argue the Government's case. In fairness, all I said was that the facts were there in black and white, the same as any other Government have said, and that the Government had said that if there were additional rises in the cost of living due to entry into the Common Market they would meet them.
  I have no evidence to suggest that the Government will not meet those rises. But that is not enough when we are aware that most people on supplementary benefit know from experience that they will be worse off next year than they are this year. Rightly or wrongly, they will attribute that to the Government's policies. If for no other reason than com-
  318
  manding greater political support, it would be wise for the Government, if they will not accept the demands for big increases, at least to give some assurance that those with the greatest need can look forward to an increase in their benefits sooner than they would normally expect.
  6.53 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Whereas the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) pronounced himself a pro-Marketeer, I pronounce myself an anti-Marketeer, and dedicated to that cause. Though it does not have any major impact on the debate today, I re-echo at once a phrase of the hon. Gentleman in the early part of his speech, when he said that elderly people viewed with fear and alarm their present economic circumstances and the inadequacy of their State pensions. I will deal with that in greater detail shortly. But at the outset I should like to try to put it into perspective in my own way.
  It would be a poor Member of the House who did not have a major regard for the needs of those of retirement age in his constituency when the statistics reveal today that 20 per cent. of all our constituents are of retirement age. There are now about 8 million men and women in Britain of retirement age, out of about 40 million electors, which is about 20 per cent., and the figure has risen sharply in recent years.
  The figures touched on by my right hon. Friend are instructive and ought to form a kernel of the debate. I quote them in full as a summary of the relationship between the number of workers and the number of retirement pensioners during the last 20 years, measured at five-yearly intervals. There are four significant ratios. In 1955 there were 5·3 workers to each pensioner; in 1960 there were 4·4; in 1965 there were 4·0; and in 1970 there were 3·4—all of which demonstrates that statistically the number of those on retirement pension has risen by more than half in the last 15 years.
  The burden on the decreasing working population is, therefore, commensurately larger every year that passes, and, having regard to lower mortality rates for men and women year by year or, expressed very crudely, because the doctors keep us alive longer, this ratio is bound to worsen from an economic and financial standpoint during the years ahead.

  319
  I am not unduly censorious of my right hon. Friends in this matter of continuous inflation during the last 16 to 18 months since the Tories regained power. Inflation is continuous, and has been since the end of the last war. No politician in any Western country has yet devised a formula for reconciling policies of full employment with policies of stable prices. They appear to be inimical, the one to the other, and it is certainly being proven today that higher levels of unemployment do not connote fixed prices.
  But it is perfectly certain that the section of the community which suffers more than any other section in the kind of conditions we have endured during the last couple of years is those on retirement pensions; first, in respect of the very large increase in food prices, and second, what has been very largely dwelt upon in the debate today, the substantial increase in coal prices.
  I do not believe in Christmas boxes for old-age pensioners; it is patronising and clumsy. I should far prefer to try to create a system of a civilised character. If anyone asks me what I mean by civilisation, I reply at once: the good treatment by the community of the elderly citizens and those of tender and of school age; the old and the young, in other words.
  Food prices have risen by about 12 per cent. during the last 17 months. The last figure given by the Minister on 16th November was 11·6 per cent. I shall not dwell on the causes of this, because that is somewhat outside the scope of my speech, other than to say that my reckoning is that a retirement pensioner spends about 55 per cent. of his or her income on food.
  The other factor which has been largely dwelt on today and which I want the Minister to do something about before this winter is far advanced—he was kind enough to allow me to intervene during his speech, as was the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams)—is the price of coal. In the South of England coal is costing about 90p per hundredweight bag. That is for an average grade of house coal. We all know that two-thirds of the price of coal is miners' wages. Whereas I do not begrudge miners additional wages as they do a dirty and hazardous job,
  320
  and I have always proclaimed myself a supporter of the highest possible wages in the mines consistent with a rising curve of output, I want my right hon. Friend to understand that house coal prices have risen in the last two years by even more than food prices. If he really meant what he said this afternoon about making special provisions for coal for retirement pensioners who are, either due to health reasons or due to housing and substandard accommodational reasons, in need of special fuel supplies, he should review the supplemental allowances for solid fuel at an early date and at least ensure in the forthcoming winter that those supplemental allowances are adequate for coal at its present price, which is very, very high.
  I will talk about the price of coal and related economic factors, and so on, on another occasion. I did not wish to be pompous when I replied to the hon. Member for Hitchin saying that my interest in the matter is that I am a member of a highly technological body called the Institute of Fuel. Only one other hon. Member is a member of that body, the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). From that springs an abiding interest in the production, distribution and cost of all kinds of basic and refined fuels.
  The second point I put to my right hon. Friend arose at Question Time today. I assure him that the Question was put down 14 days ago, long before I knew there would be a debate on pensions today. It was entirely fortuitous that the Question fell to be answered at 3.15 p.m., only 15 minutes before the debate. I will read it to the House, because it is the quintessence of a part of my views on this problem.
  "Having regard to discontent among pensioners, continuous inflation especially affecting food and fuel, and levels of unemployment, whether he will raise to £15 per week the maximum under the earnings rule which a pensioner may earn, and £30 per week for man and wife, before retirement pensions are mulcted; and what other plans he has from 1st January, 1972, for bringing up to date the earnings rule."
  "Bringing up to date" are the operative words. It is perfectly true that the amount was raised to £9·50 only a couple of months ago, but the announcement was made many months ago. The fact is that wages and prices, which are the two considerations that bear on the level of the

  321
  earnings rule, have both risen a very great deal since the decision for £9·50 was originally made. I repeat to my right hon. Friend that I consider that a realistic rate today is about £15 per week. I want to go back further with my right hon. Friend, who entered the House in 1953.
  Sir K. Joseph: 1956.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Good God; I am wrong. I hope that HANSARD will not report that.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I heard the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) saying that he was wrong. Surely that cannot be in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Fortunately, I do not have to judge the rightness or wrongness of any hon. Member so long as he is in order. The hon. Gentleman was in order.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I correct myself. My right hon. Friend entered the House in 1956. He will remember a very important Committee established in the middle of the 1950s called the Phillips Committee. It was established by a Conservative Government to study the problems that we are examining today, the problems of the elderly, against the economic and financial background of those times, which was not so far removed from the kind of economic and financial problems we have today. A minority report to the Phillips Report, made by Professor Alexander Cairncross—later Sir Alexander Cairn-cross, principal economic adviser to the Tory Government in the early 1960s—recommended total abolition of the earnings rule, and the proposition rested on that simple concept. It said that if men and women could be encouraged to remain in full-time gainful occupation—women from the age of 60 to 65 and men from the age of 65 to 70—this would create more new wealth than the loss to the National Insurance Fund entailed by allowing them during that span of five years to draw their full pensions as well as their full earnings from full-time employment. That is still my view today.
  I do not want to coerce elderly people to continue at work. I merely want to stress—and this is a personal view, widely
  322
  supported outside the House—that if a man retires prematurely he suffers premature senility and goes to a premature grave. The longer he works, so long as he is fit and able to work, then the longer he will live. I think that that view is utterly true today and that, with the mounting volume of retirement pensioners, part of my right hon. Friend's policy—only part of it, but an important part—ought to be to encourage men and women to remain at work as long as they are able. In that important connection, abolition of the earnings rule would be an encouragement for them to do so.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest problem now is jobs for school leavers? If we encourage pensioners to continue work to a great extent like this, will it not make the position of school leavers more difficult? Would it not be better to give tax relief on pensions themselves, rather than on earnings after 65?
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman leads me forward to my next point but one. Surely there cannot be any competition between the relatively sedentary jobs that one would wish to encourage men and women in their 60s to remain in and the sort of jobs one would provide for the school leavers. I do not think they are comparable. If the hon. Gentleman had said that we would swell the ranks of the unemployed in their 40s or 50s by encouraging men and women in their 60s to remain at work, I would have attached more validity to what he said. Of course it would have a bearing on the labour market, but in tackling the problem of the elderly I appeal to my right hon. Friend again on this matter of the earnings rule first to legislate in the next few months for raising the figure to £15 a week for both men and for women—because it needs legislation. If he says that he has not the time, I will happily get up early and bring in a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, which, with his benevolent support, could quickly be steered through to the Statute Book, for I do not believe that there is any significant opposition in this House to the proposition I am advancing.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was going to help the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, by suggesting that perhaps the Government would like to drop their Bill, which they

  323
  slipped in on a Friday, to help the poor racehorse owners and the betting and gambling fraternity. I do not think that any hon. Member is much worried when one poor racehorse owner goes under. The time could be used for helping old-age pensioners. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would support me there.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I will offer the hon. Gentleman the important place as first sponsor of my Ten Minutes Rule Bill for the abolition, or at least the substantial extension, of the earnings rule, so long as I can have Government support.
  Mr. George Lawson: if I recall the Phillips Committee's Report aright, its principal reason for the retiral of men at the age at which they retired was that those engaged in heavy work, taken by and large, found that they could not go much beyond the age of 65. That conclusion was that if the system was continued—if full pension, for example, was to be paid at 65—those who had worked heavily all their lives were pretty well worked out by then and would be treated differently from those who had worked comparatively lightly during most of their lives and would be benefiting because they could, therefore, continue substantially longer, getting both pension and earnings. Is there not a substantial difference there?
  Sir G. Nabarro: That was one element in the Phillips Report. I do not want to get too deeply enmeshed in this aspect but the fact remains that a great body of opinion says that if this is really a National Insurance scheme and all of us pay into it all our working lives we—men at 65 and women at 60—are entitled to draw our pensions out of an insurance scheme irrespective of what we earn after pensionable age.
  Dame Irene Ward: I have listened with great interest to all the discussion of the Phillips Report, which I remember very well. It is fascinating to recollect that, despite the tremendous pressure that quite a number of hon. Members applied, a debate never took place on it. I think that it is a great pity that my hon. Friend, having raised it all now, did not ensure that we got a debate, because the report contained a lot of useful things.
  Sir G. Nabarro: For the sake of the record, I should point out that I was not Leader of the House in 1955. I used to sit in the corner seat of the second bench below the Gangway. I was deeply interested in the matter. I have always been a Cairncross supporter in this context. I am now advocating it because I believe that the difficulties of retirement pensioners are even greater now than they were in 1955.
  I pass to the next point which has emerged in the debate and was touched on, very accurately, by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—the question of taxation. The Conservative Party has done a lot about the threshold for the elderly for income tax, which is called the "age relief". This was raised last April for the double pensioner to £834. That figure is today wholly inadequate having regard to the situation for retirement pensioners with both their occupational pensions and their State pensions.
  As a double State pension is £9·70 per week, or aproximately £500 per annum, and an average occupational pension is of the order of £350 per annum, it follows that the average retirement pensioner is already above the threshold which was brought in by the Government at the last Budget. Again, inflation, taxation and economic conditions generally have overtaken the figures set up by the Government only last April, in the same way as they have overtaken the earnings rule provision of £9·50 per week.
  I want to make a further recommendation to my right hon. Friend. We cannot expect anything before March next but would he represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I believe is the correct and realistic figure applicable to present monetary values? It is £1,200 per annum for a married couple as the threshold for age relief for income tax purposes, advanced from £834 per annum. The concomitant of that is even more important for taxation. Several hon. Members have talked about taxation and income tax for the elderly. The point is that the older a citizen becomes, the more costly his life becomes, the more expensive it is to keep him properly clothed, properly fed, properly heated in his home, and so on. Mortality at the age of 80 or 82 or 85 is not unusual. Although the average mortality rate is a shade

  325
  below 70, those who survive to their 70s largely get through to their 80s.
  I regard it as wholly unjust that the rate of income tax relief for elderly people should be the same at 65 as it is at 75 and as it is at 85. I would like, therefore, a new system—a "graduated age relief threshold" I would call it—which would be £1,200 per annum at 65 for a married couple. At 66 there would be a diminution of 10 per cent., so that they would pay only 90 per cent. of their tax assessment; at 67 there would be a diminution of 20 per cent. and they would, therefore, pay only 80 per cent. of their income tax assessment—so right through, dropping 10 per cent. from their assessment every year until they were 75, when the assessment would be extinguished altogether, subject to an income limit of £2,000 a year for such extinction.
  That graduated kind of threshold arrangement would be easy to operate. There could be no administrative grounds against it to condemn it. If a tax expert said to me that it is much too complicated to operate. I would reply that it is far less complicated than the assessment of surtax payers. I cannot work out my own surtax. I would not attempt to do so.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Oh!
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman does not work out his surtax either. He sends it to an accountant in Derby. I send mine to an accountant in Birmingham, who saves me hundreds of pounds a year by his expertise and his knowledge of rules of which I have no knowledge. A graduated threshold for income tax age relief purposes would be infinitely less complex than the present basis of surtax assessment.
  My next proposition will, I hope again, also gain support from many quarters in the House. I have a constant stream of letters from pensioners all over the world proclaiming their dissatisfaction with the present Secretary of State and all his predecessors—the present Secretary of State especially, because he is a Conservative and should know better—because these men and women, retired and receiving the pension to which they were entitled on retirement date, if they go to live abroad get no subsequent increases in basic pension. There is a
  326
  whole host of technical arguments why a pensioner living abroad—for example, in Australia or Canada or New Zealand—should not receive the increases. They are based on the original 1948 legislation. I say that all of them are out of date and all of them are misconceived.
  If a man has worked in this country all his life and at the age of 65 has, for example, no young relatives living here and decides to emigrate and live with his daughter-in-law in Australia, where the living costs are at least as high as here and rise by at least as much every year, it is my view that he should receive all the pension increases applicable to pensioners resident in the United Kingdom. To deny these few thousand men and women all over the world their pension increases seems to me to be grossly unreasonable. It would be an act of benevolence and magnanimity, having my full support, if my right hon. Friend, before his next pensions legislation, would reconsider this position with a view to granting to all pensioners resident overseas any periodical increases in the basic pension.
  I want to put it on record that I am proud of my right hon. Friend's record on pensions. A dedicated Minister he is, and I would defend him on every platform everywhere in the country. He has never heard a critical word from me. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has listened to many critical words from me, but my right hon. Friend has listened to none.
  The Conservative Party's record is a little better than that of the Labour Party. The Conservative record rests on this simple statistic—which is irrefutable—that between 1951 and 1964, years of Tory rule the real value of the pension rose by 4 per cent. per annum. Between 1964 and 1970 the real value of the pension under the Labour Government rose by 2½ per cent. per annum—2½ per cent. in those six years, compared with consistent growth in real terms of 4 per cent. in the preceding 13 years. This demonstrates that the Tory Party has done 60 per cent. better than the Labour Party—if it wants a game of tit for tat on pensions. I personally do not like that game, but if any loud-mouthed Labour soap-box orator starts talking about the record of the Tory Party, there it is on the record, showing how well we Tories have done in comparison with the Labour Party between 1964 and 1970.

  327
  This is one of the rare occasions when I warmly congratulate one of Her Majesty's Ministers on his record of conspicuous achievement in social welfare.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Apart from the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) I found myself in broad agreement with many of the points he made, especially on the Christmas bonus, which I agree is a patronising attitude to adopt towards the pensioner. I must admit, however, that if the Secretary of State is not prepared to consider an increase in the basic rate in the coming months, the Christmas bonus would be better than nothing at all.
  As for the claim of the hon. Gentleman that his party did better than ours on pensions, I thought that line of argument tended to be outside the realms of the approach to today's debate. I would draw his attention to a number of aspects. I was under the impression that the Secretary of State, when quoting a 4 per cent. per annum increase, was including one Labour increase with four Conservative increases and that in referring to two 5 per cent. increases he was using Labour's pension increase in addition to the last Conservative one.
  Sir K. Joseph: The 4 per cent. related to the period from 1951 to 1964 and the 21 per cent. to the period from the end of 1964 to 1970. The four Conservative and one Labour increases were to account for the 81 per cent. increase in real purchasing power.
  Mr. Jones: I accept that, but I do not think it is what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks. Be that as it may, starting from a low-based figure of pensions in 1949 and 1950 and using the percentage increases up to 1964, comparing them with another percentage increase gets neither the pensioner nor the politician anywhere. I thought that the realm of this debate was above that; that it was conceded that both parties had not done enough, that both stood condemned and that both had failed to tackle this basic problem of the redistributive element of the national cake with regard to the old-age pensioners.
  328
  Many hon. Members in this debate have talked of the new pension scheme and the Secretary of State compared it with the previous scheme proposed by the former Labour Government. I have no intention of pursuing these interesting, important and, for the pensioners, crucial matters of the end of this century. We are today talking about 8 million pensioners who are directly concerned at their plight. Who are these people? It is important not merely to bandy around percentages and figures, but to remember two basic facts about the pensioner. First, he or she contributed directly to the wealth of this country. These are the people who built up our strength during this century and who have brought us to where we are today. They are the people who experienced the difficult and hard days of the depression in the 1930s. It is they who had to live in that time of great poverty and hardship, and it is incumbent on us now not to let them down in the days of their retirement. It is important to bear this in mind.
  The situation is bleak when we consider the plight of the pensioner today, although he may be better off than he was years ago. The fact remains that we have one and a half million pensioners living alone and a commensurate number who are socially isolated from the rest of the community. About 350,000 pensioners are without the basic household amenities of bath, kitchen and indoor toilet. Indeed, the Centre of Environmental Studies, in considering the plight of the pensioner, says that 100,000 pensioners die every year through hardship caused by bad housing conditions and particularly through being unable to meet the cost of heating their homes. Therefore, it is important that the Government increase at once the heating allowance.
  Again, at the recent Society of Health conference Dr. Arnold Bender said that if the over-65s received adequate nourishment there would be an increase of £150 million in the potential market for high protein food. These pensioners are desperately under-nourished and the available figures show that a quarter of them are deficient in vitamin C and vitamin B1, while a further three-fifths are deficient in vitamin B2. In talking about the need for an increase in pensions, therefore, we are saying that the result of the present

  329
  situation is malnutrition, personal and social hardship, and, in many cases, death. This debate should not be regarded as an academic exercise. I shudder to think that we might vote on this issue at 10 o'clock tonight and then come along next year for another debate on the same subject.
  We recognise that the Government cannot do anything immediately, but they can do it within a few months. I trust that we agree with the Under-Secretary who, when in opposition, said at a meeting in March, 1970:
  "The first charge on the state pension scheme should be to protect pensioners from rising prices. Pensioners suffer first and most when incomes are eaten away by the rising cost of living."
  Those are very true words. I submit to the Government and to the Secretary of State that this situation continues today, despite the last increase in September, and despite the fact that that increase is being bandied about as a generous one. It was in fact far less in real value.
  The Secretary of State, when asked last July what was the purchasing power of the pension as compared with November, 1969, replied that its purchasing power had reduced by 70p. The £1 increase since last September is an increase of only 30p. In other words, the real increase is being eaten away and will disappear in early 1972. We must assess the situation in the light of that fact, and particularly so when the next increase will not be until 1973.
  The Chancellor keeps getting up and down and we seem to have a Budget every other week—instant politics coming back with a vengeance. Apparently we are on the threshold of another injection into the economy. We have been saying that the pensioners deserve an increase and if there is some money available from the central Exchequer which the Government are ready to inject into the economy, let some of it be given to the pensioners. There has been a good deal of argument about whether giving them a rise will reduce unemployment and bring momentum to the economic boom. One fact which remain is that the £1,300 million in tax cuts to those who did not always need them do not seem to have brought about the economic boom, so that is no criterion by
  330
  which to judge the distribution of the national cake.
  I ask the Minister to say why it would not be in the interests of the economy, in attempting to introduce greater purchasing power, to give an increase to the old-age pensioner. If it is not the best method, perhaps he will tell us why. It should not be simply discarded and it should be remembered that the boom we want could take place in areas where pensioners do not spend money but in which, given the increase, they probably would.
  I was distressed to hear the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) say that there is no formula for curing inflation. I wish that the people had known this in June, 1970. I thought that there was a real, purposeful alternative, given by a yachtsman who happens to be the Prime Minister. Yet the cost of living has been increasing at the rate of 11 per cent. to 12 per cent. and a two-year review in that context is wholly unsatisfactory. The real value of the pension increase will have disappeared by the beginning of the year and pensioners will be faced with a period of 18 or 20 months before another increase. During this period there is no assurance from the Government that they will be able to control rises in the cost of living. An Employment and Productivity Gazette article showed, it the tables published in the Gazette are studied, there is a gap between the general index of retail prices and the index drawn up two years ago for the one-and two-pensioner households. The gap is widening to the disadvantage of the pensioner. The things that he is buying cost more. Increases in that sector are moving faster than in other sectors—gas, coal, food prices up by more than 12 per cent. in a year.
  Hon. Members have criticised the delay between the announcement of a pension increase and its implementation. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) told us about his visit to Brussels and I hope that the Department will study his remarks very carefully. The Government are keen to enter the Common Market and I hope that when Ministers have studied what he has said they will act at the earliest opportunity. If Belgium can implement pension increases in six weeks, I am sure that it is not beyond us to do the same.

  331
  We are being persuaded to be noncontroversial—I am not sure why—but I want to say this about the last increase. One of the first acts of the Government in October, 1970, was to announce an income tax reduction, to take effect from April, 1971. It was not until March, 1971, that they announced the proposal for pensions to take effect in September, 1971. I am sure that it would have been possible to have announced both measures in October, 1970, to take effect in April, 1971.
  Turning to the length of time between reviews. It would be in the best interests of the House, the pensioners and the country for an annual review to be implemented. There have been requests to take this subject out of politics. An annual review linked to the cost of living would do this. The pensioners would know where they were. Before this is done, however, the basic rate must be raised. If that were done and an annual review implemented, we would not have to come here attempting to persuade the Government to give pensioners an increase. They cannot wait and suffer more hardship. The Minister should tell us about his proposals.
  7.40 p.m.
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford: We are talking about 8 million people who are not getting a fair deal. Looking around the Chamber, can one wonder why some people do not want to televise the House of Commons debates? No doubt the 8 million pensioners would be shocked by the poor attendance.
  Since we gather that it will be impossible this year to increase pensions, I must plead the Conservative principle of looking to those who are most in need. I therefore make no apology for speaking on a subject on which I have spoken many times before, the heating allowance. It is our moral duty to find an answer to the problem of keeping our old and infirm warm enough. Half an answer to the problem is not good enough. It is not a question of a person being alive or half alive. A person is either alive or not alive. It does not matter whether a person suffering from hypothermia has severe or mild hypothermia; he is suffering from hypothermia, and the heating allowance must be enough to keep him warm.
  332
  We have ben told that we cannot afford to increase the Beating allowance across the board, so we must see which people are most likely to suffer. I have at my side my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), who wrote one of the first medical papers on hypothermia. Hon. Members have said that the death rate from hypothermia may be 90,000, and they may well be right. Although we know of only 2,000 or 3,000 people who have definitely died from hypothermia, the number is probably more than 10 times as many, since the diagnosis is so often missed. We must discover the minority groups who are in grave danger of dying of cold this winter and see how we can help them by giving them an increased fuel allowance. I take the point of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is not intended to pay the full fuel bill; but the allowance does not pay for the additional fuel which is needed.
  Let us look first at the over-80s. Few people who are over 80 are sufficiently physically and mentally active to look after their own heating needs. They must have additional help.
  The next group who need help are the infirm. A vicious circle operates here. A person who is infirm cannot take exercise. A person who cannot take exercise cannot buy the food for their needs. If he does not buy the food he needs he becomes apathetic. A person who becomes apathetic does not take trouble over heating. A person who becomes cold will in turn become more apathetic and will eat less. One way to break this vicious circle is to increase the derisory sum of 25p, 50p or 70p to an amount which will enable these people to stop worrying about their fuel bills and to enjoy a warm winter. Once they are warm their apathy will disappear, and they will take an interest in food and start to live the life which they should be living. By our present definitions one-third of the over-70s and all the over-80s are infirm. That is one minority group we must look to first, the extremely elderly and the infirm, and we must do what we can to help them.
  The next group to whom help should be given are the blind, who have an entirely meaningless allowance of 30s. This does not even pay for the food eaten by the guide dog which a blind person may have. It is insufficient to give the blind

  333
  an allowance which will not even feed the dog, let alone help them in their blindness. How this has been allowed to go on year after year without a great outcry is beyond my imagination.
  I hope the Minister will tell us tonight that our old-age pensioners who are becoming frail will be kept warm this winter and that the allowance for the blind will be increased to enable them to have a little extra money for themselves. We have heard many stories about hon. Members visiting the old in their houses and finding them sitting in their overcoats in front of a single bar electric fire, wearing mittens, or having to go to bed to keep warm. Those people will have been visited from time to time by a doctor and by a welfare officer; but what is needed is a constant supply of visitors. For this purpose we might use voluntary labour. The use of voluntary labour may be regarded as an excuse to save the Exchequer the money which it should be spending, but visiting the old would be a wonderful use of voluntary labour. This is done in my own city most effectively. But teams of people all over the country are needed to visit elderly people and to report to the appropriate welfare body on what is going on in a particular household.
  If we can achieve these things, the debate will not have been a waste of time; it will not have been electioneering or just a matter of words. Those who need an extra heating allowance need it not just for Christmas, when the spirit of good will prevails and they may be invited out to wonderful parties, after which they are sent home to die in their cold little houses in January and February. The help is needed in January, February, March and the beginning of April. Secondly, the derisory allowance for the blind should be altered to a reasonable amount. Thirdly, we need more voluntary workers to undertake the visitation of elderly people to see what is needed and to report to the appropriate welfare authority on what they find.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. James Sillars: It is always a delight for a member of the Labour Party to listen to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). I hope those words of praise will not prove to be the kiss of death for him in the Tory Party.
  334
  Many contributions from the Conservative benches have been non-political. There has almost been an appeal to us to be non-partisan on the Motion and the Amendment. During the General Election the Conservatives were not so nonpolitical on the issue of pensions and caring about individuals. If my speech is political, I make no apology, because basically we are concerned about the allocation of resources and the determination of priorities, which call for political judgment. The White Paper on pensions is a political White Paper. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) gave the game away by quickly retreating from the Amendment into the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) was disappointed by the speech of the Secretary of State for Social Services. I was not disappointed by it. It came as no surprise to me that, after shuffling words and figures around very skilfully, he virtually said that there would be no change whatsoever in pensions. I had the privilege of sitting on a Committee with the Secretary of State during the last Session when the Government pinched money off the workers by abolishing the three waiting days. I found him then just as skilful with words, facts and figures, just as steely-hearted at the end of the day and oblivious to all appeals made on behalf of individual groups. Many of my hon. Friends insist that the Secretary of State is a man of great humanitarianism. I am sorry he is not here, but he has yet to prove to me that he is one of the great humanitarians in the Tory Party. I do not find traces of humanitarianism in any branch of the Government.
  I want to deal with the Motion and the Amendment. The words of the Amendment are devoid of real meaning to the pensioners who are tuned in to the debate. The increase in pensions has been fairly adequately dealt with in earlier contributions from this side of the House. The increase has been rapidly overtaken by price increases. Those of us who have contact with old people quickly see physical and mental deterioration taking place from the time of retirement simply because of the lack of cash as inflation overtakes their financial resources.
  The Amendment mentions the provision of pensions for the over-80s. At the cost of being a little pedantic, I will make

  335
  it clear that this does not mean pensions for all who are over 80, but only for those who are over 80 and have previously had no State retirement pension as of right. I welcomed the Bill when it was introduced, but it is not relevant to plead that it answers the main charge in the Opposition's argument that there has been a basic neglect of State pensioners. The pension for the over-80s is a diminishing commitment because the over-80s will die off within the next two or three years. Never has a cloak of humanitarianism been purchased so cheaply.
  Public pensions are mentioned in the Amendment, but the provision for them makes no significant impact on the poverty of the masses of pensioners, and is not strictly relevant to the charge made by the Opposition.
  The Amendment goes on to mention the increased resources made available by the Government for developing services for the elderly. While we welcome this, some of the resources allocated to the elderly would not be needed if the basic pension were adequate. Much of the pressure on geriatric resources would not arise if we provided old people with a decent standard of living in their own homes. A large allocation of resources to geriatrics is needed when people have to go to geriatric hospitals prematurely because of inadequate home circumstances.
  The Government appear to pin their hopes on the increase which was given on 20th September—a fairly derisory increase. The Secretary of State said that the Government are pledged to review the whole matter in two years' time. But there are a number of old-age pensioners sitting at home tonight with an inadequate pension who will be dead long before 1973 when the review takes place. What are they to do in the period between now and then? No comfort is to be derived by them from the argument that the Government are pledged to review the matter in 1973 and to make up for any price increases which have taken place in the meantime.
  The cruel, hard fact is that thousands, indeed millions, of old-age pensioners will this winter face the terrible choice between fuel and food. They are likely to make a value judgment in spending
  336
  their money which supplies them adequately with neither fuel nor food, and they are likely to fall between the two stools. Nothing has been said by the Government—and I doubt whether we shall hear anything later this evening—to tell the old people that circumstances will change before the end of the winter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said that we have a moral commitment to the present generation of pensioners. He said that all our economic affluence is owed to their efforts. I agree with those sentiments and I would go further. One generation that deserves more from this society than any is the present generation of pensioners who bore the brunt of the Second World War, either in the front line or on the home front. It was that generation which prevented the light of democracy going out all over the world. If we breathe free air today as free men, it is due to the efforts of those people and those people alone.
  In one way or another, we all take part in the Remembrance Day functions. When I looked at the ceremony this year, I could not help wondering about the feelings of old-age pensioners watching on television all the activities associated with that event. They must have looked with irony and bitterness when our country, quite rightly, paid its respects to the efforts of their dead comrades. But the country and the Government today have totally ignored the needs of the living heroes of that period. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that on Armistice Day British society salves its conscience with a 6d. poppy. I hope that before many years pass we shall salve our conscience, not with a 6d. poppy, but by paying the debt we owe to that generation in pounds and pence.
  Let us remember what happened during the General Election campaign of June, 1970. I recall a party political broadcast on television in which one of the anchor men was Christopher Chataway, now Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I vividly recall a programme about poverty and caring about people as individuals and human beings in which he assured us that the Tory Party cared—that Ted Heath, as he put it, cared and that he, Chris, cared. Many old-age pensioners in my constituency are wondering

  337
  when those right hon. Gentlemen will put their money where they said they would in the General Election campaign of 1970. Many of the pensioners wonder how many four-minute miles the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications would have managed to run on a diet such as that on which they have to exist in present-day circumstances.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. He has referred to the over-80s and ex-Service pensions. Is he proud of his own party's record on either of those groups?
  Mr. Sillars: I should make it clear that I do not endorse everything the Labour Government did during their period of office, but what we are arguing this afternoon is within the remit of the present Conservative Government and we are asking them to bring about certain changes. It is an interesting thought that all hon. Members on this side of the House—whether left wing, right wing or in the centre—must, because they are members of the Labour Party, totally support every aspect of what was done by the Labour Government. But we are now in 1971 and we are discussing a Motion, and an Amendment to it, directed at the present Government's policy. That is what I am discussing.
  We have had arguments this afternoon for an immediate increase in pension. I feel the Government should go for at least £2 a week, which is the minimum any pensioner needs at present. But if the Government are worried about demand management and the inflationary effects of pension increases, how about giving some help in kind which would be a positive contribution to the standard of living of old people? I recall, when I worked with the Scottish T.U.C., arguing with Labour Government Ministers for free television licences for old people. The standard reply always was that the ultimate objective of the Government was to provide an adequate pension within which the old people were free to choose whether or not to have a television or whether to have a pint of milk. I looked back to the time when the Conservative Government were in power on the previous occasion. I discovered that the same basic Civil Service answer was given to pleas for help at that earlier
  338
  period of time. In other words, one Government are as bad as another, and no doubt the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will be pleased to hear me say so.
  I see no reason why a television licence cannot be granted free to old people since this would provide them with some measure of relief. Nor do I see why the Government cannot accept the concessionary bus fare scheme which, although it is supposed to be operating between local authorities and bus companies, is not working throughout the country as it should. Therefore, intervention by the central Government is required to provide the concessionary fares which are required today. I do not think the Government have made an adequate case against the provision of cheap fuel to every old-age pensioner.
  My final point is that the Government should commit themselves as soon as possible to providing subsidised milk for old people. If they are to steal it from the grandchildren, at least in justice they should give it to the old people and help to subsidise certain basic foods in an old person's budget. All these arguments are valid in the present situation.
  I conclude my remarks in a feeling of despair. In the past 12 months I have watched the much-maligned trade union movement, and particularly the Transport and General Workers Union, conduct a campaign for better provision for old people. We have seen 6,000 or 7,000 old-age pensioners demonstrating in the streets of Edinburgh and other towns.
  Mr. John Golding: Has my hon. Friend noticed the lead given by the Post Office Engineering Union? When its members were told by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that no concessions could be made to the elderly, they said that they would install telephones for the elderly for nothing, so enabling the price to be reduced.
  Mr. Sillars: The members of my hon. Friend's trade union should be congratulated for their activities on behalf of old people. The T.U.C. has for 12 months been campaigning for an increase in old-age pensions. At the end of this activity we have come to this House with the Motion today, and we shall have to return

  339
  to our old-age pensioner constituents and say that the Secretary of State has said No" to the increase for which we have asked.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) introduced a somewhat bitter note into what on the whole has been a thoughtful and compassionate debate. It is all very well to glory in what the trade union movement says it wants to do about old-age pensions but it must be remembered that many trade unionists have been primarily responsible for the appalling rate of inflation which has made even worse the bad lot of many old-age pensioners in the last few years. I believe that his strictures on my right hon. Friend are not shared in large measure on the Labour benches nor in the country at large. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's judgment in this matter rather vitiates some of his other comments.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested a £2 a week increase in the old-age pension. By a quick process of mathematics, this would amount to some £800 million extra a year which has to be raised. The only way the bulk of this can be raised is from the work force and the employers. If because of this extra burden employers had to put more men off and thereby increased unemployment, I can imagine the squeals which we should hear from the Labour benches. Therefore, although on this side of the House we are very sympathetic to an increase in pensions, we must realise that the consequences would involve a large increase in taxation to pay for it.
  My mind goes back two years when I first entered this House. I made my maiden speech on pensions. The comments which have gone to and fro today are probably similar to those which backbenchers on this side of the House made when we were in opposition. It is increasingly clear that Governments of whatever political complexion are always in difficulty when dealing with this particular problem. Fine words from either side butter no parsnips. This is why I regret the adverse comments by the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about my right hon. Friend's proposals for the future. I
  340
  believe at long last the Government should look to a long-term solution on how adequately to cater for the old. I believe they are on the right lines and that in the long run we shall be well on the way to taking pensions out of politics.
  People expect changes as the years go by, and what the old-age pensioners expect from society itself increases, and quite right, too. This in turn increases the burden on the Government of the day. Not only is the working population reduced but the number of hours worked by the working population is also at the same time reduced. Although the Government are on the right lines for the future, this does not help the present situation.
  I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the services which are being provided for the elderly. A report last week pointed to the tremendous percentage of our old people who spend their days in hospitals and homes. The figure is about 80 per cent., of patients apart from mental health cases. This is a reason for commending my right hon. Friend's recent statement about spending an enormous amount of public money on improving services in those homes and hospitals. I think that that shows that my right hon. Friend is a humane man and that his policies are on the right lines.
  However, there is another section of the elderly which increasingly requires help. I refer to those who live in their own homes. Many of them are so badly off that they cannot even afford to pay their share of improvement grants. A lady in my constituency wrote to me saying,
  "I understand that my house could be improved. I applied to the local council. When I was told that I had to add my part, I did not have the money in the bank to pay my share."
  I believe that local authorities can do a great deal to help in this sort of case.
  There are many elderly occupiers all over the country living in houses which could be improved. It may be that some of the houses have been improved. As the years go by, however, the ability of an aged man and his wife to cope with a complete home of their own declines, especially if it is an older house. Local authorities should do more to encourage such people to sell their houses to the local authority by offering them old persons' flats or bungalows which have the

  341
  correct degree of heat applied throughout, and make them a fair offer for their own houses. They cannot be paid the full market value because one has to take account of the cost of providing the council dwellings. Nevertheless, much could be done. It would do much for the health of elderly couples, and it would also give them some money in the bank which they would have received in payment for their houses. Although some local authorities are pursuing these schemes, far too few are doing it, far too few publicise them and, even now, far too few old persons' dwellings and flats are being built.
  Having said that about services, we must realise that, whatever we suggest, we know that we cannot help completely all three of the categories of old-age pensioners to which my right hon. Friend referred. Those who are on supplementary benefit can be assisted by means of increased heat allowances. They will be assisted before other pensioners because supplementary benefit rates are to be increased next year in the middle of the two-year review programme for pensioners.
  Those who are taxpayers could also be helped. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) made some very constructive suggestions, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass them on to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a growing awareness among the elderly who work that they are being doubly penalised, once for being old and not being able to enjoy as large incomes as they did before, and again for what they believe to be a most unjust taxation on their earnings.
  Either the amounts paid by way of pension contributions should be tax free, or the pension itself should be tax free when it becomes payable. I know that this would cost about £175 million a year, but the answer in this case is surely to raise the tax threshold for the elderly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South suggested.
  For the third category, those in between, there is no answer other than some kind of cash payment. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire spoke about cheaper bus fares and free or cheaper television licences. Already, cheaper cinema seats are available to old-age pensioners. But
  342
  not all elderly people want to take advantage of special cut rates. Many of them have a pride which does not permit them to do so. For this reason, although I encourage these moves, something else must be done before long to give these people hard cash.
  I do not attack my right hon. Friend about the administration of his office. He has done more for the elderly than most of his predecessors. It is not only the over-80s, who did not have pensions before, who have benefited. There is now an extra increment for people who have reached 80. We hope to see this policy pursued farther in the future. More has been done for public service pensioners. The level of services for the elderly has been improved. Nevertheless, at the end of the day I repeat my plea. I believe that our old-age pensioners want to see the colour of the Government's money. One hopes that before long they can have the increase that they so thoroughly deserve.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Probert: I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said just now. I assure him that, although he was not in this House when we were in government, many of his colleagues, myself among them, protested vehemently at the fact that the Government which we supported were not doing sufficient for the elderly. In that sense, perhaps, we are not engaged in a strictly party debate.
  I must touch briefly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the hon. Gentleman is a most exasperating person. One minute we agree with him wholeheartedly. The next minute we oppose bitterly what he says. This is an occasion on which I find myself in wholehearted agreement with him. He referred to heating costs and how we should deal with them, he referred to the earnings rule, and, finally, he referred to the taxation threshold. Perhaps it is only on that last point that I find myself disagreeing slightly, since I am a little at odds with what he said about a graduated taxation threshold.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), whose

  343
  concluding remarks I did not hear, referred to the contribution of the present generation of old-age pensioners to the society in which we live. I make a further remark about this because I do not think that it is appreciated fully by present-day society that, although the present old-age pension has increased tenfold, if not more, from what it was in the 1920s and 1930s, the demands made upon that pension in a more sophisticated society are far greater than they were in my youth.
  That brings me on to the fringe benefits, and the possibility of free television licences. Here is an essential commodity which did not exist in the 1920s and 1930s. Television is a great solace to elderly pensioners. Unfortunately, many of them have had to give up their sets because of the increased licence fee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) raised a number of points which she thought the Government should consider. However, the Secretary of State defended his Government's record and compared it with the records of previous Governments. I repeat what I said before. I was not satisfied when we were in office with what my Government did. Certainly I am not satisfied with what the present Government are doing. Whatever else may be said, the basic State pension and the supplementary benefit are wholly inadequate when compared with what any civilised community could expect them to provide.
  I do not wish to sound facetious, but I am a great lover of oranges. I cannot resist an orange. My wife, being a dutiful wife, makes sure that when I get home at weekends from this hive of industry there is a plentiful supply in the house. Last weekend she told me a little touching story. She met an elderly lady friend of ours. She is a widow in her seventies. While my wife was buying oranges for me at a cost of about 8d. each, she became aware of our elderly friend debating seriously whether she could buy one orange. She told my wife that she loved an orange for tea. But she had this cruel dilemma whether to have one orange at 8d. in the old currency or she did not say that this was the choice—an extra shovelful of coal for the fire. This is a dilemma in which many elderly people
  344
  find themselves. It is not a question whether we get the choice of a new car or a new colour television. This decent, elderly lady had to choose whether she should have an orange, which she liked so much—I can well understand that—or an extra shovelful of coal for the fire. In many ways that story highlights the cruel choice which faces many elderly people.
  We have all been united about the cost of heating. It is not just the cost of coal, which is a basic fundamental commodity, but the cost of electricity and gas. The weekend before last I paid £25·50 for a ton of anthracite, which is essential for my central heating plant. Coal has rocketed in price in recent years. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South that coal is costing too much these days. I do not want to debate coal now, but the fact is that it has always been too cheap. This has been the issue. I could recite some interesting stories of the experiences of many of my old friends in the coal-mining areas as young men in the 'twenties and 'thirties.
  The Minister quite rightly stated—theoretically he is correct—that within the basic pension there is an allowance for coal. But he must be impressed, if not by us, by many of his hon. Friends who have said that the 75p now granted as the extra allowance is farcical for meeting the extra costs of heating, which is so essential to pensioners.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, whom I respect—he is a worthy successor of a great Welshman, Emrys Hughes, who came from my constituency—the Minister is a humane man. I have experience of this in many spheres. He knows that I have paid tribute to him on previous occasions in other spheres, but not on pensions. I ask him to look at this matter again. I believe that heating costs, wherever possible, must be taken away from the basic pension. I accept that there are serious dangers in this, but I prefer to face those dangers and separate heating costs. The bills for heating should go direct to the Department to be scrutinised and paid by it. Past records of the heating costs of a particular household would help in judging whether there was any abuse. But there would be very little abuse. I think that it is better to treat the matter

  345
  in this way, because heating costs are going up as the weeks, and certainly the months, go by.
  In the mining community which I represent there is the anomaly of concessionary coal. One may find a pensioner in one house receiving concessionary coal because the householder, a miner, or his widow—the miner may have died from industrial injury—is receiving so many loads of coal at a cheap price. Next door a widow may be paying £16, £17 or £18 for a load of coal. That is the paradoxical situation which can be found. I do not want to debate this matter now. Often, when a male pensioner dies from natural causes, even if he was a pneumoconiosis case, the concessionary coal is scrubbed completely and his widow faces these terrible heating costs. This is a matter of grave importance.
  Finally, I turn to community social centres. The Minister may ask: what has this to do with the subject we are debating today? In my constituency there is an excellent community social centre in which meals—teas and lunches—are provided at very low cost. It is provided for the whole town, but we cannot expect pensioners from the peripheries to come into the town because of excessive bus costs, and so forth. I appeal to the Minister to look at this matter seriously. It is not only providing a supplement to the meals on wheels service, which is an excellent service; it is enticing the pensioner to visit the community social centre to have access to cheap meals and to meet his or her friends.
  The basic pension must be increased substantially. If we have to pay for it through taxation or contributions, I am sure that our present-day society will be prepared to meet it if it is put squarely. This is important. I believe that an annual review is also absolutely essential and, furthermore, that the pension should be geared to the cost of living.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in the debate. I have only one point to make. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the need to alleviate the conditions of the pensioner. We are all
  346
  agreed that our pensioners need better justice.
  Tremendous resentment is felt by pensioners about the tax system, which they regard as grossly unfair. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the inconsistency and injustice of taxing pensions while at the same time exempting other short-term benefits. My right hon. Friend is aware that I have been delving into this matter for some time.
  In July I asked two Questions on two consecutive days. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost to exempt National Insurance retirement pensions from taxation. The answer was £175 million a year.
  On the following day I asked what the yield would be if unemployment, sickness and supplementary benefits were taxable. The answer, strangely enough, was £175 million. This is an extraordinary coincidence.
  The Government could help pensioners—particularly those who have been trying to help themselves by saving for their old age—by exempting retirement pensions from taxation. They would not inflate the economy at all if they taxed the short-term benefits instead. The injustice has been brought to my attention in letters from all over the country. Pensioners are taxed on incomes as low as £12 a week, while in some cases people are receiving benefits from the State, including tax refunds, of up to £30 a week. The injustice of that is appalling.
  I urge the Government to do one of two things—either tax short-term benefits or exempt retirement pensions from taxation. I believe it would be a reasonable thing to do, and by so doing the Government would be fulfilling two of their election pledges; they would be encouraging saving and helping those in greatest need.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: I agree with the powerful attack made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on the Government's attitude to the Motion. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend had a sound argument in saying that the Government had taken six lines in their Amendment to say "No" to a Motion which clearly points to the immediate plight of retirement pensioners this winter.

  347
  It will not do for the Government, in any form of humanity, to come forward and tell the House what they have done in general terms. The Motion clearly highlights the plight of retirement pensioners this winter, and that is the issue on which the Government stand condemned in this debate.
  I listened with interest to the Secretary of State when he spoke this afternoon, but it seemed to me that one of the weaknesses in his argument lay in the way in which he dealt with the powerful plea made from this side of the House for help in kind. We are very much aware that the processes for providing financial help to old-age pensioners are difficult and complicated. That is why the emphasis on providing help in kind is of great importance. It could be given now, and the working out of the financial implications of doing so could be left until later.
  The Secretary of State turned down the request to undertake an open-ended obligation, but it is only fair to tell him that his job is an open-ended obligation. I am sure that he would be the first to accept this.
  Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
  Mr. Murray: It is, therefore, a problem which he could leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could leave it to his right hon. Friend to close the ends which he himself, as a humanitarian, must open.
  In a clear article in The Guardian today, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pointed out that on a reasonable estimate the amount of money involved in providing the kind of assistance to which I have referred would be about £50 million a year. That figure has been worked out with care by my hon. Friend. I therefore challenge the Government to deny that the commitment is something of that order. After all, in this age of inflation are any commitments closed-ended? Are they not always open-ended, because nobody can tell where inflation will take us? So much for that argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it bears close examination.
  I come back to the fact that a positive suggestion has been made from this side of the House. It has been strongly sup-
  348
  ported by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), with almost all of whose speech I agreed. It differed from many of the speeches made by his hon. Friends on the back benches opposite in that he went to the point of the Motion. He saw the point of it, even if others did not.
  I do not think there is very much to be gained from academic argument such as those advanced by the hon. Members for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), who painted a glowing prospect of what longterm pension policies could provide. We are concerned with the plight of pensioners now, and we could do something to help them now. We could do it not by providing money, which is difficult and complicated and takes time, but by providing help in kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) put forward a suggestion about television licences for old-age pensioners. It is true that heating is vital and is often a matter of life and death, but one cannot deny the moral support which television gives to old people. It is no good the Government saying, as the Minister might do tonight, that it is difficult to provide free television licences for the elderly, because free licences are provided for the blind. If it is done for the blind, who cannot see television, surely it can be done for the old who can, and ought, to see it.
  I do not know whether an answer of any credibility can be given to that kind of point. The licence fee represents a comparatively small sum. Nobody can say that the granting of free television licences to all old-age pensioners would lead to any kind of inflation. If we cannot provide heating for old-age pensioners, can we at least provide them with free television licences? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that that is somebody else's business. It is, but I hope that the Government will not try to shuffle out of this kind of responsibility by passing the buck from one Minister to another.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that at the end of the day the problem which faced society was that of determining the long-term principle upon which pensioners should be based. He produced some

  349
  interesting statistics showing the ratio of workers to the pensioner population and pointed out that this ratio was steadily declining. I should like to use that argument to point in complete condemnation of the Government's record. They refer to the record in their Amendment. That record is one of consistently increasing unemployment. The very productive workers upon whom the old-age pensioners depend for their pensions are steadily decreasing in numbers.
  The Government's policy also stands condemned on the broader front in which they themselves have sought to take refuge. In that very sphere, if the employment prospects of the people were increased and the number of productive workers raised, the taxation yield would be increased and the wherewithal to increase the old-age pension would come. Therefore, on the broader perspective to which the Government have referred, they stand condemned by their own words and actions.
  There are two alternatives which we can undertake to meet pensions. One is to adopt what has been virtually adopted by the present and previous Governments—that is, the prospect of a minimum income policy. We have a kind of tacit minimum income policy inasmuch as there is a network and right at the bottom of the subsistence level always come the old-age pensioners, those who are on supplementary benefit.
  I do not want to gloss over the complications which arise with a minimum income policy, but we already have a tacit minimum income policy and the cutting edge of that policy is the old-age pensioners, the worst-off of whom are those on supplementary benefits. If that is the policy which the Government adopt, they are bound to adopt a humanitarian standard of assistance and not a mechanical or financial standard. On that humanitarian standard, I repeat the request which we are putting to the Government to give the old-age pensioners help in kind this winter—to help them now.
  An alternative system for helping the pensioner, of financing pensions in the long term, the one which we should adopt, is one in which we would say that the wealth of the country, balancing productive workers against dependent persons, must be distributed so that the dependent receive a fair share of the total wealth
  350
  produced. That is a long-term policy, but in this situation it is no good using the arguments which some hon. Members opposite have applied to that kind of situation. We must help the pensioner now. I put that plea to the Secretary of State with all the force I can command.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is an important debate. We all know the problems of old-age pensioners, because they often present their case at our advice bureaux and "surgeries". Perhaps some of us know of their situation because of the positions we hold in local government. I serve on a social services committee and see at first hand many of the problems which face old-age pensioners.
  This debate has gone a long way towards restoring my confidence and respect in our debates. Perhaps, during my first six weeks as a Member, I have not seen the best performances from either side of the House. Too often party politics seem to dog the issue and very often befog the main crunch of the problem which the House is debating.
  Tonight we are debating the plight—I use that word purposely—of the old people. I see this very often when people tell me, "We cannot afford to run our central heating" or "We cannot afford to run our electric cooker, and we have to do our cooking on an open fire". In this day and age, is that something which we should expect in a civilised society? We have a responsibility—"moral commitment" is the phrase which has been used—to our senior citizens.
  I need not praise these folks for what they did when they were in work. They fought for this country and I am proud of their efforts. After all, the position and standard of life that I enjoy is due largely to their endeavours. They are now in a serious position and we must help them. What action can we take to help them? Many of the contributions to this debate have been positive and constructive. Many of the speeches from both sides have given me pleasure. When our senior citizens read what we have said today they will know that people in positions of authority are concerned about their problems and their standard of life.

  351
  In Questions to my right hon. Friend, I have urged that another pension increase should be given during the next 12 months. The pensioners cannot wait until 1973. Successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have done their best for the old people, but I regret that it has not been good enough. The present Government have done more than their normal best by way of State assistance, including increased pensions, help for the over-80s, improved widows' pensions and better social services. Now the old people need positive help, and quickly. I would not go along with everything said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about an immediate increase but I hope that my right hon. Friend will provide an increase in the first half of next year.
  I suggest that the earned and unearned income of people over the age of retirement should be totally exempted from income tax up to £1,500. This might seem to discriminate, but I would hope that a general pensions increase would accompany such a change. People who during their working lives have heavy commitments find when they retire that they must accept a much lower standard of living because their income suddenly reduces while their overheads in living do not reduce to the same degree.
  The exempting of incomes in that way would bring instant relief to many old people and at the same time encourage savings among workers, which would be good for the economy. It would reduce the mounting pressure on the social and hospital services because people would be able to afford the correct heating—this aspect has rightly featured in the debate—and a proper diet. This would prevent them having to fall back on the State, as is now often the case.
  There can be no doubt that the aged are often forgotten. They feel like pawns in a party political battle, and this is regrettable. I hope that the Government will do something positive to alleviate their plight because the circumstances of society have changed. In the past, families took full responsibility for their old people. Although their income in the form of pension has been meagre, it has often been supplemented by their kith and kin. Today, however, family respon-
  352
  sibility is on the wane, unfortunately, and these people have to stand on their own but very often they can hardly do so. Therefore, the Government have to realise that there is an increased commitment for the old people. Although we have made a substantial increase in the old-age pension this year, the increase in purchasing power that this has meant has already been eroded by the inflation which unfortunately dogs the country today.
  I plead also, as have a number of hon. Members opposite, for free television licences for all old people. This concession would be readily acceptable to the British people and would be a positive sign that we care for the elderly and realise that much of their time is spent alone and that television is often their only form of entertainment.
  Let us have an increase in the old-age pension. I am convinced that the British people would be prepared to do without any further decreases in personal taxation if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were able to increase the old-age pension. My right hon. Friend has achieved a great deal and I am proud of what he has done in his tenure as Secretary of State. But our old people need our help. I hope that he will help them.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. George Wallace: I shall be brief and make only one or two points. Before doing so, I ought to declare a personal interest. Last Christmas Eve, amongst my Christmas cards I received from the right hon. Gentleman's Department a buff envelope, the contents of which advised me that if I completed the forms, provided I was not in work, I could receive a certain pension. The initial shock was the fact that I had reached the age to deserve one. But a greater shock, on thinking it over, was the question of how I and my wife could live on the pension and the supplementary pension, relating it to our very modest way of life at present.
  In a constituency with so many old-age pensioners, naturally I encounter a number of their problems. We talk about a yearly review or a two-yearly review, but the blunt fact is that after the review has taken place, another 12 months elapse before the increased payment is made.

  353
  The fact that supplementary allowance increases are normally made before the basic old-age pension increase causes much confusion and anxiety on the part of old people. First, they receive their supplementary pension increase; then, usually months later, they have their basic pension increased, but not by as much as they thought. This causes a tremendous amount of anxiety and worry.
  We have to reduce worry in old age and reduce form-filling as much as possible. This is one example of where we can, by some administrative effort, achieve an avoidance of anxiety by enabling the pensioner to know exactly what he is getting and by paying the supplementary increase at the same time as the basic pension increase.
  I received a letter from an old-age pensioner which referred to the £4 Christmas box promised many years ago, which was stopped, and I was asked the reason why. This was somewhat obvious. There is a case for additional payment in the winter to meet fuel expenses.
  The pensioner also spoke about loneliness and the problem of the price of bread, which is to rise shortly, and the price of tea, sugar and milk. The problem of loneliness is serious. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) said that in our city the visiting services were pretty good. But in Norwich there are occasionally tragic cases of people being discovered dead, not having been seen for two or three days, after being ill and unable to obtain succour.
  One way in which regular visiting can be carried out is by using the meals-on-wheels service to a greater extent. My son, with the 18-plus movement, lends an occasional hand at weekends or in times of stress to the meals-on-wheels service. He has found it a great delight to go around and meet the old people as well as giving them their meals. With an expansion of the meals-on-wheels service, using volunteers as well as local authorities and by selling it in a big way to the old people as something worthwhile, there would be regular contact with the pensioner and this would combat loneliness and many other difficult situations.
  On the subject of loneliness, cheap travel is an essential factor. There is too much of a patchwork on this through-
  354
  out the various parts of the country. There should be central pressure and determination on the part of any Government—I am not speaking of any particular party—and direction from the centre, whether it is a local authority-owned transport undertaking or a public or private one. There should be a recognised standard of free or cheap travel for old people.
  This is an important debate. Many hon. Members have tried not to be partisan; some have not. But, beyond that aspect, we have to recognise that many old people are suffering. In many cases, because of their pride they will not apply for all the benefits to which they are entitled. In our respective capacities as constituency Members, together with our helpers and workers in the constituencies, we have to ensure that people know about the services they can obtain and know that the old system of poor law has now gone.
  There is a tremendous amount to do in publicity effort, in meals-on-wheels services, in free or cheap travel, and in the provision of social centres. I am lucky enough to represent a city which has quite a number of old people's clubs, but a great deal more can be done. I hope that, in reply to the debate, we shall get some positive answers to the points which have been raised.
  Although attendance at the debate has sometimes been rather short, I believe that it has done the House a great deal of credit.
  8.53 p.m.
  Dr. Anthony Trafford: I support those who have emphasised, although we would all like to see pensions at a higher cash level, the necessity for the development of services within the community. Although cash is extremely useful for many of the requirements of pensioners, it must be remembered, as has been emphasised, that loneliness in old age is a serious drawback, that the confusion which often occurs in old age may lead to inadequate use even of the cash which the old people have, that there is often an inadequate knowledge of what help they can obtain and also an inadequate appreciation of the fact that they may need special help.
  The degree of family support which is necessary for the support of the elderly

  355
  has often been limited, I regret to say. I believe that this erosion of the normally accepted family support often occurs as a result of the other economic consequences of the way in which society lives today. I do not wish at this stage of the debate to develop that point, but I emphasise it by saying that it is to the necessity of community services—to those services in kind which the elderly need—more even than to cash, probably, that many hon. Members have addressed themselves. One hon. Member referred to problems of nutrition of the elderly, for example. This is of multifactual origin and is not always simply lack of cash to buy food. It is far more complicated than that. Dealing with this fact among the other things I have mentioned would help the alleviation of the situation.
  Much has been said about the heating allowance. Many figures in this situation do not perhaps have a sufficient airing. I do not have the facilities to answer such a question, but I can put it rhetorically. I am sure that if the Department provided central heating and paid the cost for all those who needed it—and they were listed particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford)—the cost to the State as a whole would undoubtedly be less than that of taking all these people into hospital at enormous cost and with all the drawbacks that we have heard about in the institutionalising of people.
  My second point concerns the rather more distant future. So long as we continue with the present type of contribution and benefit-related system on a pay-as-you-go basis, I regret to think that we shall have this type of debate time and again as the years go by. In the White Paper there are many things to welcome as a move in the right direction, including the proposals in relation to this system, but they go insufficiently far.
  My third point is for the not too distant future, I hope—although my hopes in this matter have declined over the years as I have listened to my right hon. Friends make replies on the subject. I firmly believe that a great deal of the argument about benefits, pensions, means testing and the rest could well disappear to a large extent if we changed the whole basis of the financing of our social services towards some form of what is
  356
  generally called "negative income tax". I believe that this one type of payment as opposed to the many would in the long run be of greater advantage than any other change brought about by what has been referred to as "tinkering about" with the present system.
  I conclude by emphasising that a concentration of thought on the needs of people in old age is not mainly even cash related but is related to the whole problem of family support, of the alleviation of loneliness and of the provision of services which old people need and which they will understand how to use.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhane: In the relatively short time available to me, I give my support for an immediate increase in the old-age pension. The right hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech but really dealt with the next 12 months. I have completed a survey in my constituency. I thought I knew my area, having been brought up in the Gorbals, but on my door-to-door survey I discovered appalling misery in which people are living, even with the increase of £1, trying to exist on £6 a week but spending exactly half on fuel, be it coal, gas or electricity.
  These people use bread and margarine, and have the odd boiled egg. A visit to the butcher's shop is a rarity for them. This has created the situation that because of lack of nutrition, the health of pensioners degenerates, giving rise to the exceptionally high numbers of people waiting to enter geriatric hospitals. The Government must ask themselves how many geriatric units they are prepared to build. Not only are such units costly to build, but they are difficult to staff because by the time elderly people reach a geriatric unit they are incontinent and this gives rise to difficulty in nursing them.
  How much care is being devoted to the nutrition of elderly people? I understand that a report will come out shortly on elderly people living at home, and I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that report.
  I turn now to the matter of home helps. In the City of Glasgow there is an urgent need for home helps. The problem is that where a pensioner has a son or daughter living within the city boundaries—and, goodness knows, many of the sons and

  357
  daughters have difficulty enough in looking after themselves these days—he or she is denied a home help. Would the Minister think again about this? A home help, even if available for only two hours a day, is an absolute necessity.
  I wish I had time to touch on the survey of the disabled and chronically sick which I carried out. I am angry at the Minister's refusal to publicise, either on television or in the Press, the benefits available to disabled people, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which the Labour Government brought into being during their last months of office. It is one of the most excellent pieces of social legislation ever devised. But the Act is not working because all too often the disabled person does not know what his entitlement is. I would like the Minister to publicise the benefits to be obtained under this Act.
  I support my hon. Friends concerning television licences for disabled pensioners. I carried out a study of the benefits obtained by elderly and disabled people in European countries and found that, once again, we were at the bottom of the league. In Sweden, for example, disabled pensioners can have dish-washing machines, tape recorders and other accessories necessary to them. For a person living alone, a television set is a vital necessity. It keeps him in touch with the outside world. It would be a fine gesture by the Government if they would issue free television licences to disabled people and it would save embarrassment to the Post Office engineers who, I see, are conducting a vigorous campaign to ensure that people have licences.
  I reiterate the absolutely vital need for help for these people now—not at Easter, not in the Budget and not in six months' time. The choice for a disabled or elderly person living alone is either to eat and freeze to death or to keep warm and suffer a degree of starvation.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: The Secretary of State, after his exposition, has hardly been overwhelmed by support from his back benches. That is not surprising, bearing in mind the negative nature of his speech and statement. It was not only interesting but significant
  358
  that hon. Member after hon. Member on the Government back benches preferred to speak about the position of pensions and pension structures 20 years on rather than discuss the problem which we have raised in our Motion. We have had discussions about pensions well into the future and a philosophical tour of the pensions industry and pensions generally.
  I can understand hon. Members opposite, who complain and criticise the system and who, clearly, wanted some help for pensioners, feeling embarrassed by the speech of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has made the Government's policy absolutely clear, and it can be summed up by saying "No more money for retirement pensioners this winter." That is Tory policy in November, 1971. Those on supplementary benefit must wait for help until the autumn of next year, while those who are not receiving supplementary benefit—which includes on one recent estimate about 875,000 who are entitled to it but do not claim it, and about 2 million retirement pensioners who are above supplementary benefit, but only just—will have to wait not until 1972 but until 1973. This is at a time when the value of the pension is being eroded week by week as a result of roaring inflation such as we have not seen for years.
  The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) expressed the hope that we could develop a pension structure which would avoid party political debate. On the basis of the Government's recent White Paper "Strategy for Pensions", Command 4755, there is precious little hope of that. Page 1 of that document says:
  "There must be no promises that depend on our children doing more for us than we were willing to do now for our parents."
  Within that sentence is an explanation of just about all that is wrong with this Government's attitude towards the present generation of pensioners and of what is wrong with their White Paper proposals. That sentence illustrates that their proposals for the future will perpetuate poverty among large numbers of the aged into the 21st century. It also accepts the plight of the present generation of retirement pensioners with a frightening complacency, at a time when to help them would be a boon to the economy.
  It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the Government lack

  359
  the political will to implement what is not only morally right but economically desirable. The Secretary of State made a disappointing speech, and it is not only hon. Members on this side of the House who are disappointed. He said how well pensioners had done between 1955 and 1965 and he included the substantial increase of 13 per cent. in real terms which the Labour Government made in 1965. He juggled the percentages around and then decided that a comparison between the level of pensions and the national average wage did not suit his purpose. So he switched to a comparison of pensions with disposable income, not mentioning the increased walfare charges which hurt the lower-paid people.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) echoed the mood of both sides of the House when they said it was a pity that the Secretary of State was juggling with figures. There are more important things to discuss when pensioners are experiencing enormous difficulties because of inflation and rapidly rising prices.
  It appears from the Secretary of State's speech and from the Amendment that the Government are satisfied with the up-rating made several weeks ago and feel that they are entitled to sit back and do nothing more for pensioners. The Secretary of State and the Government may be satisfied, but the pensioners are not. The September, 1971, issue of Pensioners Voice, the newspaper of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations, said this about the increase:
  "Never before has the single pension been increased by so much, but never before has the cost of living risen so steeply to wipe out the increases. No wonder pensioners are angry, no wonder they protest."
  As I pointed out to the Under-Secretary of State during Question Time a fortnight ago, it is not without significance that within weeks of the up-rating which so delights the Government Front Bench, the old-age pensioners associations were holding protest meetings throughout the country. The pensioners do not share the satisfaction of the Government in what they describe as the largest pension rises ever given of £1 and £1·60. On the very day those increases were introduced, in terms of real purchasing power based on the last
  360
  increase in 1969, they were 3 per cent. overall and 7 per cent. for pensioners over 80. This was at a time of a massive balance of payments surplus and a steep recession in consumer demand. At a time when the Government could afford to increase substantially the income of pensioners, they introduced a real increase of 3 per cent., whereas in 1965, at a time of financial crisis, the Labour Government increased pensions by 13 per cent.
  Hon. Members on this side of the House and informed financial and economic commentators in the national newspapers are saying that the Government should be doing more for pensioners—
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman says that because there is an immediate shortage of purchasing power, pensions should be increased. He is, naturally, not also making the point that they should be cut again when the immediate crisis has passed. How does he suggest they should be paid for in the long run?
  Mr. O'Malley: Only the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) could raise a proposition of that kind. I shall have something to say later about financing which may or may not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, depending on his view of the importance of the contributory principle, of which we have heard a great deal from him in previous pensions debates.
  The evening papers seem to have received a substantial leak. Presumably in Rome there has been pressure not only on our Chancellor of the Exchequer but on the Finance Ministers of other countries which face a similar recession in domestic consumer demand that for the benefit of world trade, troughs in consumer demand should be taken up. According to the newspapers, tax cuts are on the way. Cmnd. 4829 on public expenditure talks of continuing examination by the Government of unemployment and general economic requirements. We are discussing how much we can help the pensioners at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has room for substantial tax cuts and when he is able substantially to help a section of the community which needs help more than any other section.

  361
  Throughout his whole period of office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has over-estimated the growth of consumer demand. He did so in July, 1970, October, 1971, February, 1971, and April, 1971. I can understand any Chancellor of the Exchequer getting it wrong once, but when he gets it wrong five times it is no wonder that there is little confidence in the House or in the business community that he will get it right this time.
  Certainly in the business community there is little confidence that the most recent measures announced will solve the problem. Of course, the latest measures involving £185 million of public expenditure spread over two years will bring few jobs before next summer. It is also the case that the taxation and credit measures which so far have been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done, and will do, little to help the poorer sections of the community to increase their purchasing power.
  The Government may say that there has been a rise in consumer spending since April, but the rise has been almost entirely in motor cars and consumer durables, not in the area in which pensioners are able to spend their money.
  The result of all this miscalculation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the Secretary of State for Employment has admitted that the situation is the result of the Chancellor's miscalculations—is that we have seen a rise of 50 per cent. in the number of wholly unemployed since June, 1970, with the present trend of unemployment figures being sharply up and the number of unfilled vacancies sharply down. Investment is lagging and business confidence is low because of the uncertainty in foreign trade owing to doubts about exchange rates, but also because of the low level of domestic consumer demand.
  Therefore, in discussing pensions and the plight of the pensioner this evening the situation is as follows. Arising from miscalculations by the Chancellor, men and women are now out of work, and one of the reasons is that their parents have inadequate purchasing power to buy goods which could be manufactured by people if they were in work.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I have quite a lot of sympathy with the
  362
  argument about providing more purchasing power for the pensioner, but would the hon. Gentleman say that the things pensioners would be likely to spend it on, which would be food and fuel and one or two other things, are likely to provide employment? I have a horrible feeling that this is not the case.
  Mr. O'Malley: Of course it will have an effect on the distributive trade and the service industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) pointed out that at a time when we have unemployment at such a high level and a fall in the value of money, this measure will have a deflationary rather than a reflationary effect. Surely hon. Members on both sides agree that there is a case for further reflationary measures. That is certainly the view of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who has spoken in the debate this afternoon.
  The hon. Gentleman is reported as having made a speech at the weekend in which he suggested that what is needed is an injection of £1,000 million of demand into the economy, or, he prophesied, there would be 1½ million unemployed by the spring. There was a time when I thought I knew something about economics and forecasting. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody does any more.] I know that nobody does now, of course. Forecasting of that kind is not something on which I would attempt to compete with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. But his speech indicates that there is a wide band of opinion on both sides of the House, and among informed economic commentators in the Press, that it would be a good thing for the Chancellor to inject further purchasing power into the economy.
  Therefore, the Government are in a uniquely favourable position to do something for pensioners. We know that the position of pensioners under the present national insurance structure—which we all want to see removed and replaced by something better—and under the present supplementary benefits system is unsatisfactory, even without their having to suffer from record inflation. We have been told by the Secretary of State this afternoon that 30 per cent. of retirement pensioners are living at standards little above the standard supplementary benefit. Many who have read the document

  363
  quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will realise that life for the retirement pensioner on supplementary benefit is a life of worrying about the next bill; there is little or nothing left for pleasure. In winter there is often a choice between food and heating. They are able to spend no more on food than many individuals spend on cigarettes during the week.
  If the situation is unsatisfactory at a time of relatively slow upward movement in the price index, how much worse is it for pensioners at a time of soaring prices? Contrary to what was said this afternoon by the Secretary of State, who seemed to be optimistic about the next few months, it is interesting to look at what has happened to the retail food index in recent years. Between the beginning and end of 1966 the percentage increase in the index was 2·4. In 1967 it was 4·1 per cent.; in 1968 3 per cent.; in 1969 4·1 per cent.; and then up to December, 1970, it was 6·8 per cent. In early 1971 the increase was 9·1 per cent., and by October, 1971, the increase already this year is 7·5 per cent. This is most depressing for the pensioner.
  I have made some inquiries and obtained some information which has been collected by the Department of Employment from about 1,000 retailers in 200 areas in the United Kingdom. I find that between June, 1970, and September, 1971, the price of milk went up 22 per cent. Before the price increases came last weekend, New Zealand butter had gone up 59 per cent. Bread had gone up 17 per cent., and we know that it is going up again on 6th December. Margarine had gone up 17 per cent. Cheese had gone up 32 per cent. A 20-oz. tin of Heinz baked beans had gone up 18 per cent. I do not go shopping, but I have a list from what I think hon. Members will agree is a reputable source.
  Figures of this kind show how difficult it is for pensioners to live. Here we are in November, 1971, when the value of the pension is now 7½p. more than it was in 1969, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin said, by January it will be worth less than the pension which was being paid in 1969. In addition, even today the retirement pension for a married couple is a lower percentage of national average earnings than it was
  364
  in 1967. All the indications on any reasonable forward projection that one can make is that by July, 1973, the relationship between pensions and national average earnings will have fallen at least to the 1957 level, which was worse than at any time since 1948.
  The general economic interest demands that there should be further reflation and an increase in consumer purchasing power. In circumstances where pensioners are affected by almost unprecedented inflation, we on this side have made a number of proposals in the course of this debate.
  First, we say that what should be done immediately is to make a special winter payment which would produce a near equivalent increase in consumption expenditure. We suggest that the winter payment should be made to all pensioners and not only to those on supplementary benefit. In view of the pleasure with which this proposal has been received by hon. Members on both sides, subject to the reservation that many hon. Members feel that pensioners should have a decent pension system which made it unnecessary, it is to be hoped that the Government will look at it again. The Secretary of State had nothing to say about it, and I think that he turned it down, but will he look at it again to see whether something along these lines can be done?
  Secondly, a number of suggestions have been made about the supplementary benefit structure. The Secretary of State said of almost every proposition that my hon. Friend put forward that it would cause difficulties. Difficulties are meant to be overcome. On such matters as heating allowances and the long-term addition, if the right hon. Gentleman put those difficulties to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, he would find it humane enough to solve his problems for him. Let the right hon. Gentleman put the problems to the Commission, and let him take up the point made by my hon. Friend, which he did not answer, that the staffing ratios of officers in the Department of Health and Social Security should be made more realistic. Here we could make a little impact on the total unemployment figures of clerical workers and school leavers, especially in areas hit by the highest unemployment.
  My hon. Friends asked for an increase in the long-term addition. It is long

  365
  overdue. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary know this. There is a substantial case for increasing the disregards. In 1948 the disregard for many types of income was 10s. 6d. That was when the flat-rate pension was £1 6s. The disregard of £1 which is in operation now was brought into operation in 1966, when the flat-rate pension was £4. In cost-of-living terms that disregard should now be over £2 and, in pension terms, moving from 1966, it should be £1·50.
  I understand that representatives of the National Federation of Pension Funds went to the Department with propositions asking whether half of any increase in occupational pensions could be disregarded. I was reminded of the situation in which the National Union of Mineworkers pensioners found themselves, during the period of the Labour Government, when the occupational pension went up from £1 to £1·50 and it was promptly affected by the size of the disregard. I am not particularly selling the proposition put forward by the National Association of Pension Funds because, if it were allowed to apply to large occupational pensions, there could be objections. However, the Government must look at disregards again.
  From almost every hon. Member who has spoken concerning the heating allowance this afternoon there has been one message to the Government: that the system of heating allowances is entirely inadequate. The first evidence of this is the numbers involved. With more than 8 million people over pensionable age, in November 1970 only 166,000 retirement pensioners—2 per cent. of the elderly—were receiving a heating allowance and 145,000 of them were receiving a heating allowance of not more than 20p. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin said, that average heating costs in winter must be about £2 a week. Many hon. Members have pointed out the inadequacies of the situation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is to survey and inquire into the situation which has arisen in Islington. I suspect that that kind of situation, judging by the small numbers receiving this benefit, is probably being repeated throughout the whole country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde quoted a letter
  366
  from a coal man which was a damning indictment of this country that old people should be in such a plight in 1971. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West mentioned an elderly gentleman who could not afford to light a fire until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South pointed out that pensioners found that coal was very expensive for them. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who is a member of the medical profession, wanted better heating, particularly for the elderly infirm. Therefore, we must press the Government to look at the possibility of an automatic heating allowance through the supplementary benefit system. If they cannot do that—there is a strong case which would bear detailed examination—certainly the Secretary of State cannot be happy with the small number of people who are receiving these benefits and the smallness of them.
  The "A" code states:
  "Where the long-term addition is included in the assessment therefore, it will not be necessary to make inquiries about special expenses unless it is clear that they are likely to exceed 10s.".
  Perhaps that part of the regulations should be scrapped.
  Another proposition which we have put to the Government is that they should, at the earliest opportunity, dynamise the graduated sixpenny pensions. It is a disgrace that, for example, a man can earn a sixpenny addition to his pension in 1963 and that, if he retires in 1993, he will not get even the equivalent of that sixpence; he will get the sixpence or 2½p. It is no wonder that the graduated pension scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has been described as the Mark I of the Tory graduated swindle. Of course, their new proposals are the Mark II of that proposal.
  Some hon. Members have asked that the tax threshold be raised. I agree with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South that there is a case for a progressive raising of the earnings rule at a time of particularly rapid inflation.
  The proposition that there should be an annual review was supported by the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), Kensington, South and Billericay. If it is important as a matter

  367
  of principle at other times, it is now more important than ever, because unless the whole up-rating process is brought forward, the next increase will come in six months after value-added tax is introduced, nine months after the start of the adjustment to E.E.C. food prices—if we go in—and 15 months after the end of the C.B.I.'s period of retraint.
  The mood of the country is one of wanting to help pensioners. The trade unions and the T.U.C. are pressing for such help to be given. It could be argued that giving the extra help would not increase overall demand because of the increase in contributions, but it is open to the Government to increase the Exchequer supplement. It has not always been 18 per cent., but has been up to one-third at times, and if it were now increased to one-third it could mean an extra £375 million for pensioners without any increase in contributions.
  The terms of the Government's Amendment are self-congratulatory. This is no time for self-congratulation. The Government are prepared to do nothing immediately to help old-age pensioners, and by both their short-term and long-term proposals they would leave large numbers of pensioners in poverty or near-poverty. The Government could act to help pensioners this winter. They refuse to do so, and for that reason we shall vote against them tonight.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): No debate on pensions would run true to form were the Government not to be told what more they ought to do and in what direction they should do it. In that respect this debate has run true to form.
  Equally, we can fairly claim that in 18 months a great deal has been done, and that our intentions for the future can be judged on that. We have made a good start, and we intend to better it.
  Another point which has come through very clearly in this debate, and which was put in his usual effective way by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), is that we must pay at least as much attention to how we are to pay for improvements in
  368
  pensions or any services as to what those improvements should be.
  Another theme which has run strikingly through our debate today is the conversion of both sides of the House to the concept of selectivity. There has been remarkably little talk about blanket increases in benefits across the board. There has been a great deal of talk about identifying areas where the need is greatest, and considering how best that need can be met. That is an interesting development in our debates and I think, in itself, reflects considerable credit on the policy which my right hon. Friend has been pursuing during the last 18 months.
  Another aspect which has characterised the debate is the emphasis which there has been on the care side for the elderly, instead of only on the cash side, if we are to have the comprehensive range of services which we all want to see for the elderly. Great emphasis has been laid on the need to ensure that the care services, be they in old people's homes, in hospitals, or in clubs, and services in the home, such as helps, are given as much attention as the cash benefits.
  I would first say something about the record because, in view of the criticisms which have been made of them, the Government are entitled to remind the House of what has been achieved. The first Bill of this Parliament was one to introduce pensions for the over-80s, and 150,000 of them are now benefiting from it. They are benefiting not only from the new pension but also from the various other benefits which flow from the possession of a pension order book. The up-rating of pensions and other benefits which came into operation in September was the largest ever in money terms and higher in purchasing power than the previous increase in November, 1969–3 per cent. on the basic pension and no less than 8 per cent. for the pensioners who are over 80, over 1 million of them. The extra cost of this is well over £500 million, but none of it is being met by the lower paid; all of it is being put on those who are able to bear the cost of the increase.
  Then there are the new proposals, which a number of my hon. Friends have welcomed, the significance of which, for the basic scheme and the future security

  369
  of pensioners, is that they are putting the scheme on a firm financial footing, providing the bouyant revenue which is necessary if we are to meet the growing cost of pensions. They are also relieving the lower paid of the burden which they at present bear, while at the same time putting a ceiling on the contributions, which will ensure that the higher paid and employers do not have too big an increase.
  There is also the attendance allowance, which begins on 6th December. Over 16,000 people over pension age will benefit from this new allowance of £4·80, tax free, with no means test.
  Then there are the improvements for war pensioners. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) for the tributes which he paid to the War Pensioners Welfare Service. This is not only the largest increase in cash terms for war pensioners and widows, but a special emphasis on the older of them and on those who are most disabled. There is a welcome increase for widows—a new age allowance for widows at 65 in the war pensions scheme instead of 70. Also, certain widows have been brought within the pension arrangements who did not have them before.
  The Government have also ensured that the war pension preferences are maintained. War pensioners who are eligible to the new age addition within the national insurance scheme and the new chronic allowance introduced in September will be eligible to these on top of the war pensions and the war pension allowances which they are getting. As a result, to give the House one example, a 100 per cent. disability war pensioner over the age of 80 has an increase of no less than £4·50 per week.
  Then there is the increase in public service and Armed Forces pensions operating with effect from the beginning of September, and the provision there to reduce in due course the qualifying age for the paying of these increases from the present age of 60 to the age of 55. Then there is the Superannuation Bill, at present going through the House, to revise the public service pensions schemes and the machinery for changing them.
  Finally, on the cash side, there are the tax reductions which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  370
  has introduced, particularly the raising of the age exemption limits to take into account the pension increases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell) feels that this is at least a step in a direction in which I know he is particularly interested.
  That brief summary of what has been achieved in this short time entitles us to say to the House that we will build on the good start which has been made.
  Mr. Michael Meacher rose—
  Mr. Dean: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have a lot to say and not much time in which to say it.
  Many hon. Members referred understandably to the heating allowances. It was right for them to show concern about this aspect of our arrangements. Heating and other costs are accounted for in the scale rates and also in the long-term additions which are available to retirement pensioners and others who have been on supplementary benefit for a long period. The scale rates were increased in September of this year.
  In addition, there are extra allowances for those in need of additional help with their heating. These were improved by the Government last winter, and the improvements are now in operation for those who are eligible. The criteria are poor health, bad accommodation or no option but to use expensive fuel.
  A number of hon. Members have expressed anxiety about whether those who might be entitled to these extra allowances are getting them or whether they know sufficiently that they are available to them. We are extremely anxious that those who are eligible for them should get them. Equally, I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), with his experience of the Department, that it would be a mistake to make these allowances open-ended and to give them indiscriminately to all. It was, he thought, right to keep them on the present basis, available to those with special need for additional heating allowances.
  The Supplementary Benefits Commission does not wait for old people to ask.

  371
  Its officers when visiting supplementary pensioners and other claimants alert people to the existence of these special allowances and try to ensure that those eligible for them get them.
  In view of the anxiety expressed today, I hope that any hon. Member who feels that people who may be entitled are not getting this special additional help will either let us know direct or get in touch with one of our local offices. We can then ensure that visits are paid, and, if there are people not getting these allowances who should get them, we can be in touch with them. I hope that the House will respond to this request.
  Another point made about the allowances was the fact that they are not available during the winter period when, clearly, the heating needs of people are very much greater. The experience of the National Assistance Board in this respect is quite conclusive. From 1938 to 1944 the scale rates were higher in winter than in summer, and until 1966 special heating allowances were paid in the winter only.
  They were abolished by the Board under its discretionary powers because of the widespread dissatisfaction with them. Fuel bills are normally not paid in the winter months, and it was felt, as a result of the experience of the Board, that paying a high rate of allowance during the winter was not a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) mentioned the possibility of a winter emergency payment. I do not think she made it clear to the House that when a winter emergency payment was made in 1964 it was available only to those on national assistance, a comparatively narrow group of people. That occasion is not comparable with the present because there had not been an up-rating for 18 months, whereas there was an up-rating in September this year.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: When the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD, he will see that I indicated that this was limited to national assistance pensioners at that time. If the Government intend to do nothing, it may be simpler for them simply to say so.
  Mr. Dean: My point is that at that time benefits had not been up-rated for
  372
  18 months, and therefore the situation is in no way comparable to the situation then.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) proclaimed himself as a prophet of selectivity. He said that he was all for concentrating help on those most in need. He made one or two specific suggestions, one with regard to meals on wheels for people who live in their own homes and who value this service. He asked whether the school meals service and hospitals could help more in the provision of meals. In many cases they help at present, but the difficulty is not so much the preparation or the making of the meal but of sufficient people to take the meals and distribute them to those concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) asked about the earnings rule. It was increased by no less than £2 in September this year, a very substantial increase. In addition to that, the earning wife under the age of 60 can now earn substantially more than was the case before September. She now has the more favourable earnings rule operating, which means that she can earn up to £9·50 without her husband having any deduction in pension, whereas before September the sum was only £3·20. So the combination of these two things is a very substantial improvement in the amount of money which can be earned by everyone over the age of retirement.
  My hon. Friend also criticised the fact that pensioners who live abroad get the rate of pension to which they are entitled when they go abroad but do not receive subsequent increases. The main reason for that, as perhaps my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that the cost of the increased pension is borne by contributors and taxpayers in Britain. At the same time, we are very anxious that the reciprocal arrangements to ensure that full pensions are paid both to our nationals who go abroad and to other nationals coming to Britain should be extended. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this is the best and most satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.
  I turn to the other side of the story, which I mentioned earlier, namely the care services which are designed to deal not only with pensioners but also with the

  373
  all-important care services which our old people need so much.
  Mr. O'Malley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of pensions, as all that we have heard from him so far is a potted history of the administration, is it not time that he answered the points made from this side of the House and said whether the Government will do anything?
  Mr. Dean: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting so heated about this. I am, as I am entitled so to do, reminding the House of what has been done, and I am also dealing as quickly as I can, in the short time available, with the questions that he and others have put to me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) mentioned the importance of family support, and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) talked about the need for help in kind. All of us who have visited old people's homes know how important is this side of things—the regular and balanced meals and the comfort and companionship available in those homes, including the day centres which people who still live in their own homes can visit.
  The House should remember that during the last 18 months my right hon. Friend has been able to announce two very substantial increases in the resources made available to improve the facilities for the elderly in old people's homes and the like. This will mean a substantial speed-up in the replacement of workhouses and old houses which are no longer suitable, a substantial improvement in hospital services for the elderly and, equally, through bringing into operation Sections 13 and 45 of the Health Service and Public Health Act, 1968, more comprehensive services in the community for elderly people. That is another side of the developments about which we are entitled to remind the House.
  Then there is the rent rebate scheme. This is another practical measure which the Government are introducing to ensure
  that elderly people who are in need receive more effective help through housing finance arrangements than they can obtain at present.
  Mr. Pavitt rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Dean: We are also entitled, in the face of this critical Motion, to say that our record during the last 18 months stands up, and stands up very well, to what the Labour Government were able to achieve.
  Mr. O'Malley rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is the case, and he does not like it. Equally, when the Opposition say that they are backing the campaign for a £2 improvement in pension at an extra cost of £1,300 million a year, we are entitled to ask them where the money is coming from. It would mean 14p extra on the stamp of the £20 a week wage-earner, 69p a week extra on the average wage-earner and an extra £1 a week on the £42-a-week man. Had the last Government been a little more responsive in resisting the wage claims which are responsible for much of the price rises which have been causing difficulties to pensioners, the House would be much more inclined to listen to their criticisms.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Dean: In the light of what we have achieved and of the Opposition's bad record, we are entitled to ask the House to support the Amendment.
  Mrs. Williams: If the Government would give from the richer taxpayers, we would give the contributions needed.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 266.

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Astor, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Batsford, Brian

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bell, Ronald

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bennett Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Burry St. Edmunds)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biffen, John

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Blaker, Peter

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke

  Body, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Moate, Roger

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Molyneaux, James

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Money, Ernle

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monro, Hector

  Braine, Bernard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bray, Ronald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Brewis, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Charles

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Havers, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Murton, Oscar

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hay, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bryan, Paul

  Health, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Haseitine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Buck, Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Burden, F. A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)

  Holland, Phillip

  Osborn, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Percival, Ian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Clegg, Walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Cooke, Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Coombs, Derek

  James, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dean, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Dixon, Piers

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kirk, Peter

  Robert, Wyn (Conway)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lambton, Antony

  Sharples, Richard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

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

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Simeons, Charles

  Fell, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fidler, Michael

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

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

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Soref, Harold

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Luce, R. N.

  Spence, Iain

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sproat, Iain

  Fortescue, Tim

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Foster, Sir John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fowler, Norman

  McLaren, Martin

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Fox, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fry, Peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gower, Raymond

  Maude, Augus

  Temple, John M.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  376

  377

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tilney, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  Trew, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Bernard Weather, I.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kerr, Russell

  Albu, Austen

  Eadie, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lamond, James

  Allen, Scholefield

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Latham, Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lawson, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ellis, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ashley, Jack

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, Fred

  Leonard, Dick

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ewing, Harry

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Barnes, Michael

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Baxter, William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Beaney, Alan

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Michael

  McBride, Neil

  Bishop, E. S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  McCann, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Forrester, John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Booth, Albert

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McElhone, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  McGuire, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackie, John

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McManus, Frank

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Marsden, F.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Hamling, William

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Milne, Edward

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hilton, W. S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Cronin, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Horam, John

  Murray, Ronald King

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  Davies, Denzil (Lanelly)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Delargy, Hugh

  John, Brynmor

  Pardoe, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dempsey, James

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Doig, Peter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  378

  379

  Probert, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Varley, Eric G.

  Rankin, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Small, William

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wallace, George

  Richard, Ivor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Weitzman, David

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Steel, David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Roper, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Taverne, Dick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Atertillery)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Tinn, James

  Woof, Robert

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. John Golding and

  Sillars, James

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. Tom Pendry

  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 266.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Cordle, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Crouch, David

  Havers, Michael

  Astor, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Davias, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

  Heseltine, Micheal

  Balniel, Lord

  Dean, Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dixon, Piers

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bell, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, James (Southampton. Test)

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hordern, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hornby Richard

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Biffen, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Blaker, Peter

  Farr, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Body, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  James, David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jessel, Toby

  Bray, Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Brewis, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fowler, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fox, Marcus

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fry, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Bryan, Paul

  Gardner, Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Buck, Antony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kirk, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gorst, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Channon, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Knox, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gray, Hamish

  Lambton, Antony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Lane, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grylls, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gurden, Harold

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Loveridge, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Luce, R. N.

  Cooder, A. E.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  MacArthur, Ian

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Percival, Ian

  Sutcliffe, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  Madel, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Maginnis, John E.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Raison, Timothy

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Marten, Neil

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mather, Carol

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tilney, John

  Maude, Angus

  Redmond, Robert

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Trew, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Waddington, David

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Moate, Roger

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Money, Ernle

  Rost, Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Monro, Hector

  Scott, Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sharples, Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  More, Jasper

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Morrison, Charles

  Simeons, Charles

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mudd, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Soref, Harold

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Normanton, Tom

  Spence, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Nott, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stainton, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Osborn, John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stokes, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edelman, Maurice

  Albu, Austen

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ellis, Tom

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Concannon, J. O.

  English, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, Fred

  Ashley, Jack

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ewing, Henry

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Atkinson, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (Bham, Lady wood)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cronin, John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Barnes, Michael

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Baxter, William

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Foley, Maurice

  Beaney, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ford, Ben

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda. E.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Bottomley, Rt. Kn. Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Bradley, Tom

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Gourlay, Harry

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Delargy, H. J.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Doll, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Buchan, Norman

  Doig, Peter

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamling, William

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hardy, Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Harper, Joseph

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  382

  383

  Hattersley, Roy

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Roper, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hilton, W. S.

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sandelson, Neville

  Horam, John

  Marsden, F.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mendelson, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Silverman, Julius

  Hunter, Adam

  Milne, Edward

  Skinner, Dennis

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Small, William

  Janner, Greville

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stallard, A. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Steel, David

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Strang, Gavin

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ogden, Eric

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Swain, Thomas

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Taverne, Dick

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orme, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Kerr, Russell

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lambie, David

  Paget, R. T.

  Torney, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tuck, Raphael

  Latham, Arthur

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lawson, George

  Pardoe, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool. Exchange)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Leonard, Dick

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wallace, George

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prentice, Rt. Kn. Reg.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Prescott, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCann, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Woof, Robert

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mackie, John

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. John Golding and

  McManus, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to protect the living standards of old people as evidenced by the recent increase in retirement
  384
  pensions, the provision of pensions for the over-80s, and the improvement in public service and Armed Forces pensions; and notes with approval the increased resources made available by Her Majesty's Government for developing the services for the elderly.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Banking and Financial Dealings Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

  BANKING AND FINANCIAL DEALINGS BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  BANKING AND FINANCIAL DEALINGS BILL
    Clause 1

      BANK HOLIDAYS
      10.21 p.m.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'Majesty' to end of line 19 and insert:
      'shall by proclamation appoint not less than one nor more than six days in each year, either throughout the United Kingdom or in any place or locality in the United Kingdom, as bank holidays under this Act'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be in order to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 in the name of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), which are in Schedule 1, page 6, line 5, line 17 and line 23, at end insert 'the second Friday in May'.
      Mr. Barnett: If I refer throughout to public holidays the Minister of State will be aware that, although the Bill refers to bank holidays, most people think of them as public holidays.
      The Amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to put in the word "shall" instead of "may"; and, secondly, it seeks to ensure that the Queen shall by proclamation make at least one public holiday or bank holiday per year and not more than six per year. These should be not special holidays, as they are as the Bill is drafted, but regular holidays.
      These are broadly the variations that we seek to make. Now that the Minister of State has had time to consider what we said in Committee, I am sure that he will be happy to accept the Amendment. What it seeks to do is still to enable the Government, by the Queen's proclamation, to have these public or bank holidays in different parts of the country.
      386
      For example, it would not be necessary to make 1st January a bank holiday throughout the whole country. It could be made a bank holiday only in Heywood and Royton, or possibly only in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), but certainly not in Worthing, since the Minister of State was so Scrooge-like in turning down our reasonable request in Committee.
      The Amendment would allow the Government, by the Queen's proclamation, to vary holidays, as happens at present in the case of 1st January. In the North, the North-West and in other parts of the country it is thought of as a public holiday and is taken as a public holiday by many people. I understand that in the South it is not considered a public holiday, and it is never recognised as such. It would be open to the Government to allow 1st January to be a public or bank holiday in the North and North-West, leaving Worthing and the rest of the South with some other day which is more convenient, or possibly with no other day. In some respects, the latter possibility would be more reasonable in the light of the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to allow us to have 1st January.
      There is an overwhelming case for some extra bank holidays. International comparisons were made in Committee. It is clear from them that we in Britain do very much worse than most of our industrial competitors. There is a need for more public holidays for many reasons. There is a growing move towards greater leisure, some of it enforced by this Government's economic policies and the resultant level of unemployment. I believe that we should look further ahead, to a time when I hope we shall have a Labour Government and return to times of full employment, instead of the present situation where a desperate Government are taking desperate measures to relieve the situation which they themselves have created. We have seen reported statements today that there are to be further economic measures to help reduce the level of unemployment. However, I gather that the Prime Minister has been busy repudiating those statements which have emanated from Rome. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said is not correct. Apparently, the Government will not take measures of

      387
      the kind that will relieve the unemployment problem—at least, not this week.
      We had some strange arguments from the hon. Gentleman in Committee. For example, he said:
      "It would most certainly be a counsel of despair if one were to suggest that one needed to increase the number of holidays to offset unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd November, 1971; c. 13.]
      We have a counsel of despair from the Government. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that many people should be left with the impression that we are in a situation for which the Government have no answer. Whilst we recognise that in the not too distant future we will, under a different Government, return to different levels of employment, we have a situation today which hon. Members are bound to take into consideration.
      10.30 p.m.
      It is for the future that we should be considering the Bill and the Amendments. For the future it is important to recognise the reality of the holiday situation. As I have said, most countries have more public holidays than Britain. There is a serious case to be advanced, which was not answered by the Minister of State in Committee, for a move to greater leisure and a recognition that the structural changes which are taking place in industry mean that over the longer period there will be a need for workers to work fewer days and hours.
      For example, some figures which I saw today showed that about 30 per cent. of workers in manufacturing industry are working about 8½ hours overtime a week at a time when we have 1 million unemployed. Clearly, there is a case to be answered whether we should be thinking in terms of fewer hours to be worked by ordinary workers who have jobs in order to create employment for many who do not have jobs. This case needs to be answered. It has not so far been answered by the Minister of State.
      In Committee and, indeed, on Second Reading the Minister said that we should leave this to negotiation between employers and workers.
      Mr. John Golding: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Barnett: I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend. No doubt he will be able to make a strong case.
      I believe that, in the main, this matter should be left to employers and workers; but that does not mean that we in this House cannot say that there should be one extra public holiday and a maximum of six. That is not taking out of the hands of employers the opportunity to negotiate with their workers the totality of holidays. So it is not a good argument to say, when talking about an extra one and a maximum of six public holidays, that we need to leave it entirely to employers and workers to negotiate the totality of holidays or, indeed, just that one.
      Then we had the most interesting argument of all from the Minister of State when he told us, in col. 14 of the Committee proceedings and in col. 1466 of the OFFICIAL REPORT On Second Reading, that if we allowed an extra one or two bank holidays this would have a "considerable inflationary effect". I do not want to take the House too far along this road, but it is an interesting argument. I appreciate that the Government have presided over an inflationary period of more than 10 per cent. I will not bore the House with the promises that they made, but, having had that level of inflation, for them to tell us that one extra public holiday a year would have a considerable inflationary effect is strange indeed. I am prepared to accept that they are experts on all kinds of things; but to argue, from their great knowledge of how to deal with inflation, that one extra public or bank holiday would have a considerable inflationary effect is strange indeed.
      I have always understood that the Government want to see real higher wages—I had not understood that they were opposed to that—and that that must be combined with increased productivity. All the evidence which I have seen in Government reports and other pieces of research has been that higher productivity tends to come from working shorter hours and weeks. There is a very strong case for arguing that we need more public holidays rather than fewer. So the Minister's argument, on this count also, does not bear consideration.
      I would only add that, after what this Government have done to the country in

      389
      the last 18 months, we need an extra day's holiday.
      Mr. John Tilney: I am in the odd situation of supporting the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). Some years ago I asked the Government which he supported whether they would appoint 1st January a bank holiday, and I got a very dusty answer. On Merseyside that year, in many factories, so many did not turn up for work that those who did had to be sent home. What a waste that was. There is much to be said for giving the Government this option. Countries in Europe have many more holidays than we have. I hope that as our standard of living goes up, so will our leisure time.
      Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I entirely agree about the desirability of 1st January being a public holiday. In my constituency, in Corby in particular, there are many thousands of Scots who feel very much deprived because they have to work on 1st January.
      But I am more concerned about having a Europe Day. I want the second Friday in May to be a bank holiday called Europe Day. For many years the 17 Governments of the Council of Europe have agreed to celebrate 5th May as Europe Day. In this country each year more local authorities fly the Europe flag on 5th May. The schools celebrate it and make more and more recognition of the fact that we have in Europe a common culture and in many ways common institutions. The Minister of State said on Second Reading that he noted my point about the flying of the flag, and that he had encouraged his local authority to do so. The total of local authorities is up to 400 now. I hope that other hon. Members will encourage their local authorities to do so, so that it will soon be 500.
      I would have suggested 5th May as Europe Day but for the fact that it can fall on any day of the week. The second Friday in May can be tied to a weekend and is not far from 5th May.
      I particularly like the month of May for a bank holiday. As I reminded the Committee, not only are the birds and bees active, but, even if the sun is not out, the rain is warm, or relatively warm. All these considerations point to the desir-
      390
      ability of May and to the desirability of the second Friday. Certainly, we want to celebrate Europe Day. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and make a proclamation for Europe Day—in 1973 or 1974 or possibly sooner.
      Mr. John Golding: I am glad to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), who is leading for the Opposition tonight, has raised his sights. Whereas in Committee he was arguing for four public holidays, he is now in favour of six. I like to think that his change of heart has come about as a result of the evidence I presented in Committee.
      On that occasion I gave some international comparisons. I pointed out that if one excluded the Virgin Islands, which have 19 public holidays, and Spain, Portugal and the South American countries, which have followed in the Catholic tradition, the norm for public holidays throughout the world is nearly 11 days, and I hope that we shall soon have as many public holidays as the United States and the other European industrial countries.
      In Committee the Minister argued against additional public holidays on the ground that the whole matter should be left to the trade unions and employers to settle. Holidays were a question for industrial negotiation, he maintained. We established in Committee, however, that the trade unions look to Parliament for a lead in this matter because there is no machinery through which all employers and all trade unions can come together to negotiate such a matter, be it May Day—to which we are surely entitled—1st January, the Queen's birthday—a holiday for which I have asked—or even Christmas eve.
      I argued in Committee that the public holiday we are seeking would be a family festive occasion, and I have been disappointed at the absence of an Amendment to designate 1st January as such a holiday, which would be particularly welcome in the Midlands, the North-West, the North-East—indeed, all areas north of London. This day off is required to enable people to get over the festivities of New Year's Eve.

      391
      Perhaps people living in the South are too mean and miserable to enjoy themselves on New Year's Eve and do not need to rest on New Year's Day. But that cannot be so because among the many letters I have received asking for this change, some have come from the South. In the way that the men from the North won the battle for British Standard Time, so we shall win this one, and have a day off on 1st January.
      In any event, many people will continue to stay away from work on 1st January, whatever the Government say. We pointed out in Committee that the present arrangement was creating two types of citizen—those who stay at home on 1st January feeling guilty, and those who go to work and feel mugs because they are the only people who have turned up and it is impossible to do the work for which they went.
      10.45 p.m.
      My other point is about the importance of a holiday on the Queen's birthday. It is unreasonable that servants of the Crown may enjoy the privilege of a holiday on the Queen's birthday when a potter, a miner, a baker or an engineer has to work. I shall not burden the House with all the details, but in Committee it was made clear that Japan has the Emperor's birthday as a holiday, Dr. Sun Yat Sen's birhday is a holiday in China, and in New York the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are taken as holidays. Why should we in Britain not enjoy, as a nation, a day off in celebration of the Queen's birthday? In New Zealand, a small country, our Queen's birthday is loyally celebrated by a public holiday.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has his way and the whole of Ireland becomes part of the Commonwealth, with the Queen at its head, it would make it much easier to persuade the Irish that they should accept the Queen as the head of their country if there went with the acceptance a day off on the Queen's birthday.
      Mr. Golding: I do not want to address myself to that point. From my knowledge of Ireland, I am certain that the Irish enjoy more holidays than we do. That may also be a contrary argument. The
      392
      Irish may be listening even now, saying that the English have only a handful of public holidays and that if they were to return to the Commonwealth it may be that they would be swapping a handful of saint's days for one Queen's birthday.
      This is a very important subject to all those who work so very hard in Britain and have so very few holidays compared with industrial workers in Europe and the United States.
      Mr. John Roper: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) before covering one or two other matters on this very important Amendment.
      My hon. Friend discussed first the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), about the rather spurious argument developed in Committee that it was not appropriate for the House to give a lead in designating extra bank holidays because this was a matter for employers and employees. But that argument falls because we also learned in Committee that making a day a bank holiday does not make it a public holiday. All that we would be doing by asking the Queen to proclaim that there should be six additional days as bank holidays would be making sure that the banks and certain other institutions closed and, for example, that customs officials had the day as a holiday. It would, however, be giving a lead to employers and employed in order that they, through negotiation, through bodies like the N.E.D.C.—one form of economic development would be more public holidays—could agree on six additional holidays.
      My hon. Friend returned to the theme he pursued in Committee—the subject of the Queen's birthday. I accept many of his arguments. However, in the context of the Amendment I see some difficulties. It is somewhat difficult to ask the Queen herself to make by Royal proclamation her own birthday a holiday. It would be more appropriate for her loyal servants—her Secretaries of State—to designate her birthday as a public holiday rather than ask her to do it. Perhaps the Government will consider this and in another place bring in an Amendment making her birthday a public holiday so as to

      393
      avoid embarrassing her by leaving her to do it by Royal proclamation.
      Before we decide our attitude to the Amendment, perhaps the Government could tell us about the way the Queen has exercised her powers. On how many occasions during her reign has she taken advantage of the powers she has under existing legislation to proclaim a special day throughout the United Kingdom or in some particular locality a public holiday?
      If it is not improper to suggest one particular day which the Queen might consider appointing as a bank holiday, I hope she would consider 24th October—or 25th October if the 24th falls on a Sunday—as being suitable. It happens to be a period when we have not got many public holidays, falling two months from the late autumn bank holiday and two months from the Christmas bank holiday. It is also, of course, United Nations day. There is now before the General Assembly a motion that 24th October be proclaimed a world holiday. I hope that the Queen, if this Amendment were accepted, would indeed accede to that suggestion and so designate 24th October.
      I was sorry to read, after the Committee stage had concluded, that in another place the Government had said that they were not proposing to support the motion—proposed by Zambia—in the General Assembly, but in the event of its being adopted by the Assembly, this Amendment would give the Queen power to make United Nations day a bank holiday in the United Kingdom.
      It is important to find some method of ensuring that we have a reasonable number of bank holidays, for it is clear that we do not have a reasonable number at the moment. The Amendment would ensure that we could have up to an additional six days.
      Mr. Peter Rees: I admire the loyalty of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in wishing to celebrate the Queen's birthday. I admire their idealism in wishing to celebrate United Nations day and United Europe day, but if the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) wants a bank holiday in October I recommend Trafalgar Day. I admire the devotion of hon. Members in wishing to commemorate a wide range of saints, St. Karl of blessed
      394
      memory coming first. Why not add St. George of England, St. Andrew of Scotland, St. Patrick of Ireland and St. David of Wales? I hope I do not expose myself to a charge of insularity with this multiplicity of bank holidays and saints' days, which is reminiscent of a banana republic.
      Mr. Golding: Has the hon. and learned Member examined the holidays given in New York, and, if so, would he describe New York as a banana republic? Has he examined the holidays given in each of the Six countries in the Common Market, and would he describe those countries as banana republics?
      Mr. Rees: It is not for me to comment on the fruits grown in New York City or on the Continent of Europe. Speaking for myself, it would perhaps increase the flow of production, improve our health and provide more scope for civilised living if employees and employers would negotiate for a third or even fourth week's holiday, rather than having a multiplicity of bank holidays and saints' days. In that respect the Government have always given a splendid example which I am sure will be followed by private sector industry. For these reasons I cannot support the Amendment.
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): In Committee I was requested by hon. Gentlemen opposite to increase the number of holidays. I said on that occasion that I was in some danger of being like the visiting speaker on a school speech day who announced towards the end of his speech that he would not give an extra holiday to celebrate the occasion. Now I find myself in the position of being asked back the following year to make exactly the same pronouncement.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) has introduced some variety into the discussion. Trafalgar Day was not suggested either on Second Reading or in Committee.
      It has been said that I am adopting a Scrooge-like attitude to this question. I do not believe that is so, but we cannot accuse the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) of doing that because he is increasing his bid.

      395
      Whereas in Committee an Amendment was moved to increase the number of holidays to four, it is now being suggested that the number should be between one and six. I regret to advise the House that I cannot commend the Amendment.
      I will not go over again the ground which has been covered many times before on the distinction between bank holidays and public holidays. I find rather strange the argument that the Amendment would enable us to have regular holidays, when this is precisely what the Amendment does not do. The Amendment suggests a degree of variation, but does not necessarily create a situation in which the holidays proclaimed will cover the entire country. To this extent it would be somewhat unfair and discriminatory.
      The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) asked me a specific question as to which holidays had been granted under the proclamation procedure. I think I am right in saying that the actual dates are 20th November 1967, 15th and 16th March, 1968, and 2nd June, 1953, which was Coronation Day. Clearly, these were exceptional occasions, rather than being within the context of the kind of point the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton had in mind, when he tabled his Amendment.
      11 p.m.
      I should also make one other point, the fundamental reason why it is not necessary to accept the Amendment. As I pointed out in Committee, there are already powers, by Royal proclamation, to declare additional holidays, and Amendments moved in Committee and today are to that extent otiose. It may be that the Amendment before us now would impose some limitation on that right which does not exist already, and to that extent it is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are being Scrooge-like, although I cannot speak for what action may be taken on this matter.
      An additional point I made at the Committee stage is that the Government view is that the establishment of additional holidays is for negotiation between employers and employees. This preserves the flexibility of those concerned to take account of local circumstances. The Government cannot support this proposal to increase the
      396
      number of holidays. If these are to be regular holidays, it is right that they should be embodied specifically in legislation, as is done in this Bill in one case.
      I now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). He returned to the point we discussed in Committee, although he was not a member of the Standing Committee. That was the question of a holiday on 1st January. As I have already pointed out, this is already a holiday in some parts of the country—Tyneside and Teesside, where it is a customary holiday. If there is a local holiday on this day, it is better that there should be flexibility and that it should be by agreement between employer and employee.
      It is important to bear in mind what would happen if we were to close the banks by Statute on New Year's Day. It might cause considerable inconvenience, since in some years it would result in the banks being closed on three consecutive days on two consecutive weekends. This does not commend itself on grounds of convenience and banking facilities.
      Turning to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I would pay tribute to the strong and unwavering support he has given to the cause of Europe. I would pay tribute to the cause he has championed for many years. British entry to the E.E.C. is a beneficial and long-awaited development. On the other hand, I do not believe we can accept the creation of a Europe Day holiday, because it is essential to preserve the flexibility which the existing scheme gives.
      The hon. Member for Farnworth put forward views which I found a little inconsistent. On Second Reading he suggested that provisions in Clause 3 were backdoor harmonisation, and yet I find him supporting this Amendment seeking to go in for a degree of harmonisation. There are no specific proposals for this in the Community. While I sympathise with the motives of the right hon. Member for Kettering, I do not feel able to recommend the Amendment to the House.
      Mr. Roper: I explained in the Committee stage that another part of my speech on Second Reading appeared to

      397
      have been misunderstood. I was not supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) only on harmonisation with the Six. He was suggesting that the day should be celebrated among all countries in Europe, not merely those in the Community.
      Mr. Higgins: I had fully appreciated that there was a distinction between the E.E.C. and the Council of Europe. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was looking at it in the broad and narrow contexts. He does, however, request a holiday on a date in May. There are two points to be made about that, one purely technical. The Amendment originally was to be from 1974 onwards, whereas the present Amendment would have the effect of creating a holiday from 1972 onwards. There is also the point that because of the peculiar distinction between bank and public holidays, the situation would not extend to Scotland and Scotland would be in some way left out of the general European context, which I am sure he would agree is not desirable.
      Also, if we are to have an additional holiday in May, there is already in England a bank holiday on the last Monday in May and in Scotland on the first Monday. Both would be retained but there would be some bunching if the Amendment were accepted. We have discussed this at some length, and I understand the arguments put forward, which I have no doubt are popular. The arguments on the other side are, however, overwhelming and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Minister of State in a remarkable debate. We have heard about the birds and the bees and the warm rain in May and the birthday of Sun Yat Sen and the 19 days' holiday in that important place, the Virgin Islands. The name is interesting and the number of days' holiday in that delightful spot equally significant.
      There have been remarkable arguments. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) did not develop his point about solving the Irish problem with a few extra bank holidays. It was interesting to hear about banana republics, such places as New York City and the countries of the Com-
      398
      mon Market. The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) did not want extra days so much as extra weeks, and the Minister of State did not seem to deal with that point.
      The hon. Gentleman said that I was being discriminatory. I was pointing out that under the terms of the Amendment the Government could, by Queen's proclamation, vary the days so that we could have 1st January as a holiday in the North and the Midlands. I can understand a Government which seem to favour the South not recognising the needs of the North. If they are not prepared to vary it I am happy that they should allow the people in the South to have 1st January as well.
      My Amendment limits the number of days that the Queen could name as special days. Whereas she could have had more than six by proclamation, I have limited it to six. I am willing to concede that. But the Minister did not deal sufficiently with the interesting question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). How often have we had a proclamation of special holidays? [Interruption.] I understand the hon. Gentleman said four times in 18 years. Now he is arguing that, because I have suggested there might be only six per year, I have limited the number of days.
      Mr. Roper: The Minister of State said we would have four in 18 years, but three of them in future would have to come not under Clause 1 of the Bill but under Clause 2, being closures of the banks for technical reasons and not public holidays. So in terms of Clause 1 there has been only one—Coronation Day—in 18 years.
      Mr. Barnett: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for expanding the argument in answer to the spurious case presented by the Minister of State. If he still feels I have limited it too much by allowing only a maximum of six, then I am sure this could be amended in another place to ensure that, if necessary, we could have more than six days a year. I am willing to allow such an Amendment in another place if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
      The hon. Gentleman then reverted to the argument about flexibility for employers. When all we are asking in this Amendment is that there should be a minimum of one day a year, I do not

      399
      see how this would affect the flexibility of employers' negotiations.
      The hon. Gentleman did not repeat the argument he put forward on Second Reading about the inflationary effect. But he did give us the argument about convenience of banking facilities. In these days when we are thinking in terms of opportunities for the public to use banking operations, it is a little odd to be told that an extra day would cause considerable inconvenience in banking facilities.
      I find the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case most disappointing. Our case is not only popular, but is a good one, and I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney).
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2

      POWER TO SUSPEND FINANCIAL DEALINGS
      Mr. Joel Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 17, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.
      This is an exploratory Amendment whose purpose is to inquire why the fine on summary conviction should be £400. Would this be enough? It is possible that somebody who broke this piece of legislation could make considerable sums of money. Under subsection (4)(b) on indictment the penalties could be considerably more than £400, but it may not always be desired to proceed to indictment.
      Is the Minister of State prepared to say how the sum of £400 was arrived at, and how long it is considered that that sum will be sufficient? Is it felt to be sufficient for a period of 5, 10 or 50 years? With the rate of inflation that is being experienced under the present Government—I do not wish to be partisan—then in another year that sum will certainly not be sufficient. It might be convenient for the Government even to accept this Amendment.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Higgins: In the course of our recent late night discussions, it is true
      400
      that the hon. Gentleman has not been partisan. However, he tends to stray near the bounds of order.
      The hon. Gentleman began in an exploratory frame of mind. He seemed in his second sentence to discover where he was going. Whereas in subsection (4)(a), which he seeks to amend, the penalty on summary conviction is a fine of not more than £400, in subsection (4)(b), on conviction on indictment, the penalty is imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine, or both.
      The House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that it would be possible for an individual to make a considerable amount of money through contravening such a regulation. That being so, however, I believe that it is the feeling of the House that the second penalty—that is to say, on conviction on indictment, of imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine, or both—is an extremely heavy one and one which would be a major deterrent.
      Perhaps I should put this aspect of the Bill into context and answer more precisely the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The situation is one where one needs to achieve some degree of consistency between the fines which are laid down in the different enactments, otherwise there is the possibility of anomalies and the consequent risk of injustice.
      Where the legislation provides for a trial on an indictment, it is the general practice for a maximum fine on summary conviction to be not more than £400. The Criminal Justice Act, 1967, passed by the previous Administration, indicates the fines in a number of existing cases, and in any event it stipulates a fine of not more than £400 on summary conviction. There are other exceptions to the maximum limit of £400, but we do not consider that it would be justified in the Bill, which is in line with the maximum penalty normally imposed in the circumstances set out in subsection (4)(a).
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the second point. It is that, unless there are special circumstances, people being tried for offences carrying substantial financial penalties should be tried on indictment. This gives them an opportunity to make their case in a way which such a trial allows.

      401
      It is always open to any Government to bring monetary fines into line with current monetary values.
      On the hon. Gentleman's more partisan points, I make only two in reply. The first is that this is what the previous Government did in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. The second is that, as regards the rate of inflation, the hon. Gentleman would do well to study the events of the last six months and compare one three-month period with the one before it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

  SOMERSET HOUSE
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I welcome this opportunity to take a stage further the quiet campaign which we on this side of the House have been waging to restore to more profitable public use one of London's great but largely unappreciated buildings. I am happy to have the support and encouragement here tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), who has taken a special interest in this matter.
  The fact that we have a Somerset House at all today is the result of the chance lighting of the eye of fancy of Henry VIII on young Jane Seymour, whose brother, Edward Seymour, later Protector and Duke of Somerset, gave his name to the palace which stood on the site. This was no mean affair, and what I hope briefly to say on this is something that will bear on the future.
  The first palace involved the destruction of vast numbers of famous buildings and stopped short of St. Margaret's, Westminster, as a stone quarry only because of the Duke of Somerset's death. It might be mentioned in passing that Sir John Thynne, builder of Longleat, is believed
  402
  to have been the architect of the first Somerset House. All this magnificence on the part of the Duke of Somerset led to the usual public jealousy, and whereas death duties now curb the pride of such people, it was only the Duke's execution which ended the affair.
  Elizabeth was a captive princess in the old Somerset House, and Anne of Denmark succeeded her as resident. Inigo Jones was responsible for many of the masques put on there for Henrietta Maria. It was her desecrated chapel which later became a sort of Hyde Park Corner for dissenters. In old Somerset House Cromwell lay in state. The Fire of London stopped just short of it, due to extensive demolitions. As late as 1746 old Somerset House was the scene where Horace Walpole reports on the new heads of executed Jacobites stuck on Temple Bar nearby.
  It was from the site of the terrace of Somerset House that Canaletto painted many of his famous views of London. About this time, Sir Joshua Reynolds was busy founding the Royal Academy; the Royal Society of Arts had its beginning, and Samuel Johnson was working with them. It was in 1763 that the last great magnificent reception was given by Queen Charlotte, George the Third's Queen, to the two Venetian Ambassadors Extraordinary. Old Somerset House departed in a blaze of glory, and Queen Charlotte was moved to Buckingham House, as it then was, because Somerset House was required for the public use. It is improved public use that we are now debating.
  It was decided in those days that a clean sweep of all the old buildings should be made, and Sir William Chambers was responsible for the laying of the foundation stone of Somerset House, as we now know it, in 1776. It might be appropriate that by 1976 all could be set in order once more. To the more impatient hon. Members, I may say that I hope to explain why it will take some little time before we can get it as we would like it.
  The Strand frontage of the present building was constructed to house the Royal Academy and several learned institutions, notably the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries, whose name is still written on the door. The remainder was purpose-built Government

  403
  offices and, by Parkinson's Law, the more the offices increased the more the inmates multiplied. The Navy pay, sick and hurt offices, the Clerk of the Estreats and Comptroller of the Pipe were some of the more picturesque inmates. They multiplied, but at the same time the Royal Academy flourished. Indeed it was the exhibition of 1780 which netted no less than £3,000 in admission fees—in money of that day—that caused, I believe, certain ladies to have the vapours: the sculpture was very advanced for that time. And that is the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) would like to see in our modern museums.
  The Royal Academy schools were established at Somerset House, and they would have flourished if it had not been for the interference of Benjamin Robert Haydon and his gang of interfering Members of Parliament who upset the whole scheme. It was Prince Albert who had to step in and get the whole business of industrial design going—but I digress.
  Somerset House as it now exists began as a centre for the arts and for learning. It was unfortunate that over the door in Greek was written:
  "Let no stranger to the Muses enter."
  That was in Greek, be it noted, so presumably no one who was a stranger to the Muses could read it. I hope that my right hon. Friend can so arrange things that all those who are strangers to the Muses will be able to come and be refreshed by what they see there. Other notable events took place. It is worth while mentioning that the Admiralty was there for a long time. It is said that Lord Nelson's ghost still struts across the courtyard and haunts the place. With the removal of the Admiralty and the departure of the Royal Academy, the Probate Registry moved in, and at about that time, because of the rising tide of hooliganism—a famous contemporary phrase—the terrace was closed to the public. In modern times Britons deserve another chance, and after a century of censure they might be allowed to enjoy at least the terrace of Somerset House.
  Many other historic things happened there, matters of historic interest connected with present day activities. The Registry contains wills which are of great public interest. In defence of the Board of Inland Revenue, I might say that they
  404
  are in their way artists. They are not just concerned with dreary facts and figures. They are artists in the system of taxation which we have built up, and eminently civilised gentlemen. Perhaps a corner for them might be found in all these plans which we have for this building in the new age.
  When we on this side of the House were in opposition we made a thorough inspection of this great building and we formed the conclusion that here was, at least in part, a wasted asset. The Ministry of Public Building and Works, as it then was, took great care—and that Department still does take great care—not to allow further injury to the fabric. But the great rooms on the Strand front present a sorry sight, cut up by partitions to form offices. Other great rooms are used but infrequently.
  Having, I hope, made a case for moving certain people out, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest who should be moved in, but there obviously are in this country an enormous number of people concerned with improving the quality of life, and many institutions both public and private. I believe that at Somerset House there could be a place where they could have a community of interest, a meeting place where they could get together and perhaps as a result be much more effective in their work.
  I am not suggesting that a great new bureaucracy should be set up and installed in offices there. But we have the Historic Buildings Council, the National Buildings Record, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments, great private institutions like the National Trust, the Civic Trust, the Government's Countryside Commission, all the learned societies, the Historic Houses Committee of the tourist authority, societies concerned with conservation, the C.P.R.E., the S.P.A.B., the Country Landowners' Association, the Victorian Society, the Georgian Group, the more civilised activities of the R.I.B.A., the Arts Council, the British Council and the College of Arms. We could have an informal society of societies where they could hold their meetings so that they could keep in touch and reach a much wider public.
  We badly need a new centre from which Britain can be presented to the growing number of visitors from overseas, and where our own people can have

  405
  new interests awakened. Public and private efforts to improve life need a focal point. Much good work is being done by Government, societies and individuals. If they could meet together on equal terms and on neutral ground, a great deal more could be achieved.
  I am sure the Government would not want to create a new bureaucracy, but they would, by dedicating Somerset House to this new purpose, enable the arts and all of those who try to help them to flourish. The new role of this great place should be allowed to evolve in the next few years, and perhaps by the time of the bicentenary it could be playing a significant part in our national and international life. Here, of course, we have an enormous responsibility and a great opportunity as we look towards Europe. Britain could lead the way in European cultural appreciation.
  I have great hopes that our eminently civilised Minister will be able, with the Parliamentary support from all sides which I am sure he needs, to bring about this welcome change. He is busy rescuing fine buildings in Whitehall from years of neglect and grime; he is getting a move on there and elsewhere, where others just talked. I believe that, with a little encouragement, my right hon. Friend will be able to rescue Somerset House from a living death.
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Fanlds: It is a rare occurrence, and a pleasurable one, when I can rise and support wholeheartedly the arguments put forward on any subject by an hon. Member opposite. This is such an occasion—although the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) exhibited his usual meanness of mind in seeming to suggest that it is only his party which is concerned—if he reads his speech tomorrow, he will see that this is what he said—about the misuse of Somerset House.
  I do not know how he presumes to know my taste in sculpture. Many modern sculptures give me the vapours which the speeches of the hon. Member on other subjects usually give me. But we are not here to discuss the hon. Gentleman but the future of Somerset House.
  It is outrageous that the octopus of the Civil Service should ever have been
  406
  allowed to entwine and entrap in its tentacles the entire premises of one of the finest blocks of Georgian buildings in London. I am sure that the Minister will listen sympathetically to the arguments of those of us who hope to see the building restored to purposes more fitting to its grace and history and its unique position on the river.
  It is only fair to commend the Evening Standard for the part which it played in the campaign of bringing this matter so much to public attention recently.
  I should like to mention what I see as the three aspects of the redemption of Somerset House—first, that the Strand and River blocks should be cleansed, like the Augean stables—moving civil servants will probably require fairly Herculean efforts by the Minister—so that those premises could then be used for an art gallery, exhibitions or concerts.
  Second, the central courtyard should be cleared of cars. It is ridiculous that such a gracious square should be full of these awful modern tin boxes. The square could then be used for exhibitions of sculpture, for son et lumière performances, or even for concerts on summer evenings. Some of us might even get to a few.
  Third, the riverside terrace should be opened to pedestrian traffic, for those who wish to wander along the river as they will, be they lovers, sightseers or workaday Londoners on their way to work. That happy outcome could be achieved simply by a rearrangement of the floodlighting equipment installed on the terrace, and the blessing of the Minister.
  It is that blessing which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bestow on the efforts of those of us who wish to see Somerset House restored to uses more appropriate to its elegance, and returned to the public, both the ordinary Londoner and the British and foreign tourists whom it will undoutedly attract. I hope that the Minister will consider our suggestions. He will undoubtedly earn the kudos which will accrue to a positive response to these suggestions. Let us hope that we will get that positive response.
  11.34 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for

  407
  Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for raising this important issue and to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for the constructive suggestions he has made.
  Over a number of years I have had doubts whether Somerset House, with its magnificent view across the river, was being put to the best use. My grandmother, who lived in London before the terrace was closed to the public, often deplored the loss of this amenity and I was brought up to wonder whether it was being properly used.
  As soon as I became Minister of Public Building and Works, as the office was called last year, I made it my business to go and see for myself. On 19th May this year, I expressed my concern in answer to a Parliamentary Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). I have continued my inquiries and paid a second visit to Somerset House with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who as the House knows, is responsible under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the Civil Service Department. I think that my best course would be to report my findings to the House.
  The East block of Somerset House, adjoining King's College, was completed as purpose-built Civil Service accommodation in the 1780s. It has recently been modernised at considerable expense and I do not think that its rooms would be suited for other than office purposes. The same is broadly true of the two West blocks, linked by a bridge and occupied by the Inland Revenue. Here again, the rooms are essentially offices in character, some of them indeed falling short of what I might call Fulton Report standards.
  The South block, overlooking the river and now occupied by the Principal Probate and Divorce Registry, contains rather better rooms, most of which are used for legal hearings. As such they are accessible to the public and have appropriate dignity and setting. Whether the departments occupying the rooms are the most appropriate is a matter for argument, but they have been there a long time, the Registrar-General since 1837, the Probate since the mid-1800s and the Inland Revenue since 1790.
  My visits have, however, led me to form considerable reservations about
  408
  three aspects of Somerset House: the terrace, the courtyard and the North block. With the construction of the Embankment and the growth to maturity of the plane trees, the terrace no longer has quite the Venetian quality that it once had, but it is still in a very attractive setting, close both to Trafalgar Square and the National Gallery, and the more modern cultural complex on the South Bank. I am at present studying how it could again be made available to the public.
  There is a minor problem of reciting the floodlights, to which the hon. Member for Smethwick referred, and there are slightly more serious structural problems regarding the strength and safety of the terrace and the security of the Probate Registry, the windows of which are at ground floor level.
  I will report the result of those studies to the House as soon as they are complete. I do not want to delay any longer than is necessary the day when the hon. Member for Smethwick can fulfil his recently expressed ambition to invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to stroll along the terrace with him by moonlight; but whether my right hon. Friend will accept is, of course, a matter for her to decide.
  The courtyard of Somerset House is one of the finest in London. As the hon. Member said, it is at present mainly used as a car park and, as such, is no doubt convenient to those who use it. It is, of course, open to the public. It is, however, arguable, as the hon. Member argued, that it could be used, at least on special occasions, for Son et Lumiére or similar activities, and I should welcome suggestions on this account.
  My chief concern is about the North block, overlooking the Strand. This was completed to the design of Sir William Chambers in 1780, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, but unlike the rest of Somerset House which was purpose-built as offices, the North block was designed to provide accommodation for learned societies, notably the Royal Academy, the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries. Those bodies occupied it until 1837 when they moved out, finding the premises too restricted for their purposes.
  In the North block there are seven fine rooms, six on the first floor and one, the

  409
  old Royal Academy room, on the second floor. One of these rooms, looking on to the courtyard, is the Registrar-General's office and the second serves as his conference room. In between there is a library, which is now intersected by registry bookshelves to a point which makes enjoyment of it impossible. The three rooms opposite and the Royal Academy room above have been well maintained, I admit, but are used as what I can only describe as a caricature of open-plan clerical offices in a series of clerical pools intersected by filing cabinets. This is a prostitution of the use to which such fine rooms should be put.
  I have discussed the whole matter with my colleagues concerned and they have agreed that those four rooms, with the Library, should cease to be used for clerical and registry purposes as soon as alternative accommodation can be found for the staff concerned. The Government will then consider how these five rooms, along with the Registrar's office and conference room—seven rooms in all—could be used, having regard to the enjoyment of the public as well as to the efficiency of the public services.
  A number of suggestions have been made on this score: that these rooms might be used as a museum or gallery, that they might return to their original purpose and serve as accommodation for learned societies—for their conferences, lectures and receptions—or for specific and temporary exhibitions.
  Yet another possibility is that, along with some of the adjoining accommodation, they might serve as a cultural centre, whether in the national or the European context. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend suggested about the possibility of a European use for them.
  In due course—I hope that that will be soon—the Government will consult interested bodies as to what would be the best solution. Meanwhile, we would welcome expressions of opinion from the public at large.
  As a first step, I am arranging for those right hon. and hon. Members who have formed a Somerset House Committee to visit the premises themselves and let me have the benefit of their advice.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the Minister sits down. He has
  410
  already indicated that the South Block contains many fine rooms which are occupied by the Registrars. Would it not be infinitely preferable for those courts to be closer to the Queen's Building and the Royal Courts of Justice than situated at the back of Somerset House which is inconvenient not only for practitioners but for the courts themselves? Documents have to be taken from the Principal Probate and Divorce Registry over to the Queen's Building and the Royal Courts of Justice. This is a great inconvenience, particularly when dealing with cases requiring great expedition—injunctions, and so on. Are these not points worthy of consideration?
  Mr. Amery: Certainly I will look into and discuss with my colleagues the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am not closing my mind to any variation of use to which they could be put. At the moment I think that there is a good argument in favour of them remaining as courts. They are in a fine setting. Courts should have a certain majesty about them and an impressive character. They provide for this. However, it may be that a better use could be found for them. They are not of the same category of quality as the rooms in the North Block, but I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
  Mr. Ernle Money: Although, as the Minister said, they are courts, they are not open to members of the public since nearly all the hearings which take place in them are in camera.
  One other point which concerns hon. Members deeply is the hope that my right hon. Friend will have consultations with his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General about some of the difficulties of our museum needs in this capital city which has the greatest opening for museums in the world. I hope that he will mention to his right hon. Friend some of the problems connected with the proper exhibition of British art, British sporting art, theatre collections which so badly need exhibition, the Dutch marine pictures at Greenwich and a large selection of sculptures which, unbelievably in this day and age, are part of the applied art exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum.
  Mr. Amery: I am already in close touch with the Paymaster-General on some of these matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. He

  411
  was not able to attend with the deputation which came to see me on behalf of the Somerset House Committee, but I am always available to him for suggestions in this matter. We must work out between us the best possible use of these fine rooms. What I am announcing today is that they will no longer be used for the scandalous purpose to which they are put today. This will be changed. It will perhaps be some weeks before we can find alternative accommodation for the staff concerned, and in those weeks we must decide what is the best use to which the accommodation can be put. This is not a matter on which I or the Government would wish to lay down the law or dictate to the House. We would like opinions from all sides, to discuss among ourselves, to discuss with learned societies and others, and to come forward at the end with constructive proposals which I hope will be generally acceptable.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: I was not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether
  412
  I was in order in trying to catch your eye so late in this remarkable Adjournment debate, when we have had the pleasure of seeing the Secretary of State come in to hear his Minister and when nearly 20 hon. Members are present on this remarkable evening for a remarkable debate on this subject, which has been received with such a remarkable reply from my right hon. Friend.
  It only goes to show that when the House sets its mind to an important subject, feeling the pressure of public opinion behind it, it does not fail to stir the conscience or the activity of members of the Government. My right hon. Friend is strongly supported by his adventurous Secretary of State, who has joined him tonight. We are most grateful.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for letting me draw your attention to what the House has done this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Sickness Certificates (Trade Unionists)
  Sickness Certificates (Trade Unionists)
  Cigarettes (Filters)
  Cigarettes (Filters)
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Hospital Ethical Committees
  Hospital Ethical Committees
  Battered Children
  Battered Children
  Social Security Offices
  Social Security Offices
  Benefit (Entitlement)
  Benefit (Entitlement)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Disabled Persons (Registration)
  Disabled Persons (Registration)
  Health Service (Advertising of Vacancies)
  Health Service (Advertising of Vacancies)
  Disability Pensions
  Disability Pensions
  Prestwich Hospital
  Prestwich Hospital
  Pension Rights (Transfer)
  Pension Rights (Transfer)
  Ex-Far East Prisoners of War
  Ex-Far East Prisoners of War
  Community Development
  Community Development
  Unemployment Benefit (Waiting Period)
  Unemployment Benefit (Waiting Period)
  Northern Region (Completion of Projects)
  Northern Region (Completion of Projects)
  Mrs. Joan Mary Sheldon
  Mrs. Joan Mary Sheldon
  Severely Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Severely Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Artificial Limbs (Unqualified Prosthetists)
  Artificial Limbs (Unqualified Prosthetists)
  Welfare Benefits (Purchasing Value)
  Welfare Benefits (Purchasing Value)
  Contributions (Refund)
  Contributions (Refund)
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Hospital Casualty Departments (London)
  Hospital Casualty Departments (London)
  Appendicitis
  Appendicitis
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Lung Disease Pathology
  Lung Disease Pathology
  Children (Lead Poisoning)
  Children (Lead Poisoning)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospitals (Cold-Store Equipment)
  Hospitals (Cold-Store Equipment)
  One-Parent Families (Allowance)
  One-Parent Families (Allowance)
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Pension Collection (Travel Difficulties)
  Pension Collection (Travel Difficulties)
  A Guide to Social Security
  A Guide to Social Security
  Hospitals (Manchester)
  Hospitals (Manchester)
  Community Nursing Services
  Community Nursing Services
  St. James's Hospital, Portsmouth
  St. James's Hospital, Portsmouth
  Anti-Emetic Tablets
  Anti-Emetic Tablets
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Hospitals, Nottingham
  Hospitals, Nottingham
  Children's Spectacles
  Children's Spectacles
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Hospital Doctors and Nurses
  Hospital Doctors and Nurses
  Welfare Accommodation
  Welfare Accommodation
  Hospitals (Younger Chronic Sick Patients)
  Hospitals (Younger Chronic Sick Patients)
  Single Persons (Pensions and Allowances)
  Single Persons (Pensions and Allowances)
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beckford Brook, Worcestershire
  Beckford Brook, Worcestershire
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Salmon Catch (Drift-Netting)
  Salmon Catch (Drift-Netting)
  Soil Structure (Report)
  Soil Structure (Report)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment (Deputations)
  Unemployment (Deputations)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Jobs)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Jobs)
  Unskilled Workers
  Unskilled Workers
  Industrial Court
  Industrial Court
  Working Population
  Working Population
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Consumer Council
  Consumer Council
  Low Flying Aircraft (London)
  Low Flying Aircraft (London)
  Canada (Exports)
  Canada (Exports)
  Wool Textile Exports
  Wool Textile Exports
  Meadowfield Industrial Estate
  Meadowfield Industrial Estate
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Canada (Exports)
  Canada (Exports)
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
DEFENCE
  Interrogation Techniques
  Interrogation Techniques
  Electronic Noise Machines
  Electronic Noise Machines
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Changi Murals
  Changi Murals
  Training Aircraft
  Training Aircraft
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Students (Numbers)
  Students (Numbers)
  School Places
  School Places
ENVIRONMENT
  M4 (Berkshire)
  M4 (Berkshire)
  Water Extraction Licences (Totford)
  Water Extraction Licences (Totford)
  A3 Trunk Road
  A3 Trunk Road
  Motorways (Accidents in Fog)
  Motorways (Accidents in Fog)
  Commercial Vehicles (Loading Practice)
  Commercial Vehicles (Loading Practice)
  School Transport (Rate Support Grant)
  School Transport (Rate Support Grant)
  Departmental Accommodation
  Departmental Accommodation
  Planning Inquiries (Literature)
  Planning Inquiries (Literature)
  South-West (Capital Expenditure)
  South-West (Capital Expenditure)
  Regional Economic and Social Problems
  Regional Economic and Social Problems
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Precautions Act, 1971
  Fire Precautions Act, 1971
  Electronic Noise Machines
  Electronic Noise Machines
  Hotel Fires
  Hotel Fires
  Prisons (Conditions)
  Prisons (Conditions)
  Police Headquarters (Croydon)
  Police Headquarters (Croydon)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Vote Office
  Vote Office
  Table Office
  Table Office
  Catering Department (Prices)
  Catering Department (Prices)
SCOTLAND
  Health Centre, Gorbals
  Health Centre, Gorbals
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Contracts Preference Scheme
  Contracts Preference Scheme
  Sixpences
  Sixpences
  Land Prices (South Hampshire)
  Land Prices (South Hampshire)
  South-West (Capital Expenditure)
  South-West (Capital Expenditure)
  Tax Remissions (Dependent Children)
  Tax Remissions (Dependent Children)
  Tax Rebates (Married Women)
  Tax Rebates (Married Women)
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
WALES
  Employment (New Jobs)
  Employment (New Jobs)
  Roads
  Roads
  Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Collcon Feasibility Study
  Collcon Feasibility Study

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The VISCOUNT HOOD on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

DISABLED PERSONS' AIDS AND VALUE ADDED TAX
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): 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 consider the exemption of aids and equipment for the disabled from the proposed value added tax.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet ready to announce detailed decisions on the coverage of value added tax, but the suggestion of the noble Baroness has been noted.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is most important for the disabled to be able to choose from a wide range of equipment and that it should be as cheap as possible? Is the Minister aware that many items of equipment, such as patients' hoists and wheelchairs and a lot of medical equipment, are not at present subject to purchase tax? Would he therefore agree that, although a value added tax may be less than purchase tax, the overall result, if there is not an exemption, will be a rise in the cost of equipment for the disabled?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I appreciate all that the noble Baroness says, and it is perfectly true that there are a number of reliefs from purchase tax. Certainly these considerations will be borne in mind by my right honourable friend when he is making his decisions on value added tax.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, if we join the Common Market, these items will be excluded from the value added tax on the Continent?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot answer that question and say whether these items are excluded from the tax on the Continent.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the blind world the Royal National Institute for the Blind, aided by St. Dunstan's, provides talking books, wireless sets for the blind, with the co-operation of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and a vast amount of Braille literature, together with typewriters and other apparatus? Is he aware that these blind charities have never been subject to selective employment tax and have paid very little purchase tax, and that it would be rather sad if the change of the form of tax should lead to blind people's being punished and penalised? Would he represent these aspects of the matter to his right honourable friend?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly do as my noble friend suggests. I am sure that these representations have already been made to the Customs and Excise Department, but I will certainly draw their attention to them again.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, if other European countries have such exemptions, will the Government consider having discussions with them about this matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, all these matters will be taken into account when my right honourable friend takes decisions.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am not quite clear. Am I to understand that no medical or surgical equipment is to be exempted? If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, will he tell me what medical and surgical equipment will be exempted?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has completely misunderstood me. I said that no decisions had yet been made.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the position will be in view of the fact that value added tax is supposed to be added at various stages of manufacture? Will there not be difficulties in sorting out different articles which go to make up a single item in the end? Will any system of rebates be provided, in order that effect may be given to what is required?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think this is going rather wide of the original Question. I would ask the noble Lord to wait until a decision is announced.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if these goods which the noble Baroness and I and others are asking should be considered are given what is called a zero rating, then one can claw back, or grab back, whatever tax is imposed?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, reverting to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Blyton, can the noble Lord make it quite clear whether Her Majesty's Government in this matter will be a free agent, or will they have to tax the disabled if the other members of the E.E.C. say they must?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to put down a separate Question on that point. It is rather different from the original Question on the Order Paper.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House what is the normal policy in the Common Market. Do they tax disabled people in this connection?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a point on which I answered the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. I am afraid I cannot give a direct answer now, but I will certainly let the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, know.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my question specifically referred to articles of this kind where it would be difficult to sort out the value added tax? What is to be done about it, because the tax will obviously be added at various stages of manufacture? Even if the Government
140
wish to do so, how are they going to provide that the relevant amount can be credited against the finished article?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are entering a debate on value added tax. There are different methods, I believe. There are the type of goods on which no tax is charged all the way along, and there is a type where the tax can be reclaimed at the last stage. I do not think we should enter this sort of debate on a very simple Question, to which I hope I have given a very simple Answer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Too simple.

EIREANN CITIZENS IN GREAT BRITAIN
2.41 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many citizens of the Republic of Ireland there are at this moment in the United Kingdom and how many of these—

(a) are permanent settlers who have come over since the war;

(b) have been here temporarily for a year or more;

(c) are here on a visit intended to last between a year and six months;

(d) are here on such a visit of three to six months; and

(e) are here on such a visit of three months or less.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the only relevant information is drawn from the 1961 Census of Population in Great Britain, which showed that 684,000 persons enumerated had been born in the Irish Republic. and 42,000 in an unspecified part of Ireland. Of the total, 709,000 were resident in Great Britain; and this figure is estimated to have risen to 739,000 at the time of the 1966 Sample Census. In the Northern Ireland Census of 1961, 53,000 people enumerated had been born in the Irish

141
Republic. The results of the 1971 Census are not yet available.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this question? If there were 964,213 registrations and re-registrations (not counting those who do not bother to register) between 1951 and 1967—and I refer here to the Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, to a Question which I asked in 1968—would it not be a conservative estimate to say that about one and a half million have come here from the Republic since the war, a period of 26 years, as against the former period of 16 years? If that is the case, and in view of the recent happenings on both sides of the Irish Sea, how can the Government logically explain away, say, to a Jamaican or an Asian from East Africa with a British passport, the restrictions imposed upon him under the Immigration Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot speculate on the statistics given by the noble Lord. I believe the only accurate information is that contained in my Answer. As regards the question of immigration control between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, there are, of course, geographical, administrative and political implications which do not arise in the case, mentioned by the noble Lord, of the rest of the Commonwealth.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that this is a two-way traffic; that while people are coming here from Ireland, some people go from here to Ireland, and that in many of those cases they are of the utmost benefit to mankind and to this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The traffic in the Common Travel Area is two-way; very large numbers of people, particularly visitors during the summer months, do travel from the Republic of Ireland to this country, and from this country to Ireland.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I was not thinking only of those who go in the summer months but also of those who go in the month of November.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to "the rest of the Commonwealth". Is he aware that the Republic of Ireland is not in the Commonwealth?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I had noticed that.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many citizens of the Republic of Ireland make use in a year of the facilities for entrance into the United Kingdom which they share with citizens of that realm.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I regret that this information is not available.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer may I ask him whether, based on the facts as reported by the police, 5,000 people marched in Hyde Park a month ago under the banner of the Republic? Is it the fact that four out of five of those arrested in the recent London arms cache find gave their addresses as County Cork, or that the Kilburn battalion of the I.R.A. claim responsibility for the Post Office Tower explosion? Can the noble Lord further tell the House whether the Government have any estimate of the percentage of visitors referred to in these two Questions whose loyalties lay with the I.R.A. and what facilities the Government have for repatriating them?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, citizens of the Republic of Ireland are subject to immigration control, and they are liable to deportation proceedings, so the courts and the Home Secretary have powers to deport in those cases where it is appropriate. The I.R.A. is an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland, and Mr. Lynch has firmly declared himself against violence. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are well aware of the concern of Her Majesty's Government in relation to these matters.

AIR FARES IN EUROPE
2.47 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 are in a position to make a Statement concerning the introduction of cheaper air fares in Europe and, if not, when they expect to be able to do so.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the IATA negotiations on European air fares have been resumed in Geneva to-day. If the discussions lead to an agreement, early details should be available before Christmas but full details may not be available until January.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer may I ask him whether, when agreement has been reached, a Statement will be made in this House and whether we can be informed in advance? May I secondly ask him whether the Government are giving full support to the B.E.A. application, which I believe is for a 50 per cent. reduction on the normal tourist fares in Europe?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would not be normal for a Statement as such to be made on this matter, but if the noble Baroness would care to put down another Question after the conference has ended I am sure we shall be able to give her the information that she requires. Her Majesty's Government are giving support to B.E.A. and the other representatives at this conference.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask one further question on that? I am very glad that the Government are giving support to B.E.A., but is the noble Earl able to say whether this support is conditional upon advance notice being given by customers who wish to purchase these tickets, or whether customers will be able to purchase the tickets, as they can across the North Atlantic, without due
144
notice, under the agreement recently reached?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is of course a detail which the conference will be discussing; but it is the Government's intention to give support for any proposals for lower air fares consistent with the viability of the operation.

BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLAND OF ROCKALL BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No.43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (DEEP SEA VESSELS) (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1971
2.50 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971 be approved. This Scheme gives effect to the announcement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made on August 3 last, about continuing for a further two years the subsidy arrangements for the deep sea fishing fleet which the previous Government introduced in 1968 and which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, piloted through another place. These arrangements provided subsidy for deep sea vessels on a new basis related to profitability. They were to run for a first period of three years and the industry was given an undertaking that a corresponding level of financial support would be available for a further two years after that. The Government have reviewed the situation, and have provided for an increase in the level of support.
As your Lordships will recall from the approval given to the previous Scheme, the total amount of subsidy which the industry may receive is related to a profitability formula of £4 million over a 12 months' period. If total profits exceed £4 million, the basic subsidy of £2 million is reduced by one half of the excess. On the other hand, if the profits fall short of £4 million, the basic subsidy of £2 million is increased by half the shortfall. In reviewing the level of support, the Government have considered the views put forward by the trawler owners' Federations in Great Britain. The Federations referred to the considerably increased costs of building new vessels and higher operating costs—in particular the costs of meeting the new vessel safety measures which will arise from carrying out the Holland-Martin Committee's recommendations. Therefore, bearing in mind the absolute need to keep the fleet's capacity and efficiency in good heart, the Government have accepted that some extra financial support is necessary, and they have accordingly increased the profitability norm, as it is called, from £4 million to £4.8 million. That will have
146
the effect of increasing the subsidy which the industry can receive by £400,000, subject to the operation of the ceilings on subsidy provided for in Paragraph 9 of the Scheme. In the present Scheme, we have increased the ceiling on operating profits plus subsidy from £7 million to £7.8 million. This Scheme, of course, provides a guarantee of support when profits are low. Your Lordships will know that this year the industry has had considerable benefit from a general revival in world fish prices and earnings have been very buoyant. Costs have, of course, increased, but, even so, the industry's profits are likely to be higher than last year and the call on the Exchequer for subsidy will be correspondingly smaller. That, we think, is good news for everyone concerned. It is our real hope that this situation will continue and that the industry will thereby be placed in a better position to meet the need for capital replacement.
Apart from minor drafting matters, the Scheme is otherwise unchanged. The method of distributing subsidy to individual owners will continue to be in relation to the efficiency of their vessels as measured by their "added value". This is the sum of a vessel's operating profits and crew costs, including training. Some vessels and some ports have, of course, done less well than others under this Scheme, but that is an inherent feature of the Scheme and one which the industry has accepted as a fair and sound arrangement. As I have said, the Scheme we are now considering will continue for two years until July 31,1973. Before then, we shall be reviewing the question of further support arrangements for the industry, taking into account the implications of our joining the European Communities.
As your Lordships know, further discussions, very difficult discussions, on fisheries policy began yesterday with the members of the European Economic Community. I regret that it is impossible for me to say anything while the talks are still going on, but a Statement will be made very soon. The Government are certainly trying hard to ensure satisfactory arrangements for the industry. Among the uncertainties facing the deep sea industry is Iceland's proposal to extend her fishery limits next year to 50 miles. We have reminded the Icelandic

147
Government of their obligations under the 1961 Agreement and have made clear to them our determination to defend our rights under the Agreement and in international law. We are, of course, prepared without prejudice to discuss the possibility of conservation arrangements to meet Iceland's concern about the threat of overfishing, and we are now having informal discussions with the Icelandic authorities on that basis. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhehie.)
2.57 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Motion the noble Baroness has moved, and obviously I should not object to it as it was my job a few years ago to introduce this Scheme in another place. I am grateful to hear from the noble Baroness that the Scheme has worked very well, because many efforts were made to devise a scheme to meet the needs of the fishing industry, and at last we have apparently succeeded in so doing. I should say that I not only approve the Scheme but also approve the changes. I wonder whether the increase from £4 million to £4.8 million to meet the needs of the industry to implement the recommendations of the Holland-Martin Report is a figure agreed between the industry and the Government. Did the industry feel that this proportion was the right one? Because when the Holland-Martin Report was adopted, it was specifically spelled out that the cost of implementing the Holland-Martin recommendations would be shared by the Government and the industry.
I was grateful to hear what the noble Baroness had to say about what was happening in Iceland. I myself went to Iceland rather more than a couple of years ago and I found the people there very pleasant indeed. We all realise how important the fishing industry is to Iceland. Without a fishing industry I dread to think what their economy would be. But obviously we have considerable rights—I think "rights" is perhaps the correct word—to fishing off Iceland, and this provides a considerable proportion of the catch of the distant water fleet, the very fleet concerned by this Scheme, because
148
it affects no other section of the fishing industry but the deep water fleet. If we have entered into negotiations, it will be interesting if the noble Baroness can keep the House informed on how they are going. The Icelanders need have no fear about conservation. Indeed, if every other country had engaged in conservation as actively as we in this country have, many of the problems with which we are now confronted would have been avoided.
As to the negotiations in Brussels, it seems that they have come to a fairly difficult point. As I understand it, the negotiations went right through the night to six o'clock this morning and were resumed at half past ten, and so far no solution, apparently, has been found. I realise that the Minister has laid it down quite clearly—of this there can be no doubt—that if there is no agreement on fishing, there will be no signature so far as E.E.C. is concerned. That is what he has said. So this industry, which is important to us, takes on a much greater significance when one thinks that all that has been done in connection with negotiations might at the end of the day have to go by the board because of this particular industry. I recall this point to your Lordships to remind you how important it is in the European context. If agreement is reached, I hope that the Government will take steps to make an announcement to this House. It is extremely important that we safeguard considerable sections of our country where again, like Iceland, fishing plays such an important part in their economic wellbeing. Having said that, I am very happy to be able to support the Order moved by the noble Baroness.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in replying to the points raised by the noble Lord, may I say how glad I am that he has welcomed this Scheme; indeed, it was all his hard work which helped to make it operate successfully in the first place. He asked me some specific questions about the cost, in particular, of carrying out the Holland-Martin recommendations on greater safety for deep sea vessels, and the stability test costs. If it were necessary to undertake any construction work, this expenditure would rank for the normal capital improvement grant of 25 per cent. If, on the other hand, such matters as, for instance, reater manning or more

149
rest periods had to be taken into account, they also would qualify for the operating subsidy calculation.
The noble Lord in particular asked me whether I could keep the House informed about what is happening with Iceland. I certainly will see whether that can be done, and what is the best way of doing so, although there is nothing to report at this moment. On the negotiations in Brussels, the noble Lord asked whether it was still the fact that, because these negotiations have run into such difficulties, the Government still stand by their pledge not to sign the Treaty of Accession if they had not reached satisfactory arrangements on fishing. My Lords, that is still the case. I cannot possibly give any more details because my right honourable friends are at this moment about to fly back from Brussels, but I understand that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to make a Statement in another place tomorrow, and I have been asked to repeat it here if it is convenient to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Tweedsmair of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Eradication of brucellosis]:
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("by") insert ("reasonable")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No.1. I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not in any way
150
wish to delay action being taken in these particular cases. Our concern is that there may be farmers in remoter areas who may find themselves in some difficulty if in fact they do not receive adequate notice. I had even thought of suggesting a specific period, perhaps seven days or something like that; but having then concluded that the Minister might wish to act very speedily, we did not want to take any steps which would prevent that action from being taken. But we must show some sympathy for the farmer who may be affected in a case of this kind. Indeed, perhaps I may say to your Lordships that whenever I had the job of introducing a Bill, those who then sat on the Conservative Opposition Benches always took occasion to put the word "reasonable" into every clause that we moved. Therefore, I reached the conclusion that the Government of to-day really meant the word "reasonable" to be included, that this in fact was their intention, but that obviously the draftsman had not carried out his duties fully. It is with a fair degree of confidence having made the case for the Amendment that I hope the noble Baroness will think it worth accepting this Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OE BELHELVIE: When I saw this Amendment I thought I could certainly accept it, but those who are more legally qualified than I am informed me that it is not exactly in the right place. Therefore, I wonder whether perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord by telling him that in fact both under the Compulsory Eradication Scheme and under the Voluntary Incentive Scheme we give 21 days notice. I think, perhaps, that ought to cover his point, which we perfectly accept, on the remoter areas.
LORD HOY: May I say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness for meeting this point. When she said "21 days" I thought perhaps she was going a little too far, but if the word "reasonable" is not in the correct place I am certain that the draftsman will put it in the right place. I am glad that this has not been overlooked by the Government. Having that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I just ask a question here? Am I to understand, then, that if a farmer objects on

151
the ground that reasonable notice has not been given, the Government always regard 21 days as being reasonable?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords. We have had no complaints on the period of time for which notice has been given.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I do not want the farmer to be given any longer than 21 days. Am I to understand that 21 days is reasonable, and that the Government do not say, "Well, under the circumstances, we will give you another few weeks"—that they stick their toes in?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We think that 21 days is a reasonable period of time. We do not extend it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 22, after ("his") insert ("reasonable")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment standing in my name, which refers to the same word, "reasonable". The Minister has the right, under subsection (5), to deduct his expenses. I do not suggest that any Government Department would seek to make a profit out of this particular chore, but perhaps I am a little more trusting than the Opposition were in the days when the Conservatives were the Opposition. I thought it might be as well if we spelled out quite clearly what we meant; that is, that it is right that these expenses have to be met, but that they ought not to be more than "reasonable", so that at the end of the day the person who owned the animal would in fact be getting some compensation. If I could have the same assurance from the noble Baroness—and I do not care whether the word "reasonable" is in the 22nd or 23rd line; for my purpose that does not matter at all—that she is willing to act in regard to this Amendment as she did in the first Amendment I shall be very happy.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The noble Lord will be delighted to hear that I think the Bill would be improved if his Amendment were
152
accepted, because I understand that if this word were inserted in the place in which he has, if I may say so, correctly put it, it would be in line with a similar provision of Section 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act. Therefore I am very glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.10 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I wanted to put down an Amendment to cover the proposals I made on Second Reading, but as this is a money clause I find that that would be out of order. However, I should like to ask either the noble Lord, Lord Denham, or the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, whether they will recommend to the Minister the substance of my proposals. I am making these proposals not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the all-Party Brucellosis Committee of this House, and also on behalf of the National Farmers' Union. The National Farmers' Union is very sceptical about how a small farmer in a compulsory eradication area may be affected, and they think—and so do we—that the compensation is entirely inadequate. Therefore, I am asking the two Members on the Front Bench opposite to put the case very strongly to the Minister, and I should like their assurance that they will do so.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Before we leave the subject of brucellosis under this clause, I should like to refer to the sale of reactors. This matter was raised on Second Reading, which I unfortunately missed, when the noble Lord, Lord Denham, replied to a question put by my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme, who asked for some assurance that reactors would not be allowed to be put on sale. His question was:
"Surely reactors cannot be accepted in the market",
and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is reported to have replied:
"Yes, my Lords."
I understood that reply to mean that they could be accepted in the market. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, then went on to say:
"The technical answer is that these reactors are not reactors which show that they are

153
infectious from their excreta."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/11/71; col.642.]
From that, I understood that unless a beast showed that it was infectious from its excreta, it was permitted—although it was known to be a reactor—to be offered in the market. If that is the case, surely it is quite wrong. I wonder whether the Government spokesmen can elucidate what exactly is the position with regard to the sale of known reactors.
LORD BURTON: May I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has said about compensation? I think that the present rates of compensation are stopping many people, particularly beef herd owners, from coming into the scheme. I have not had this problem, but I understand that great financial difficulties are caused. Not only do owners have the loss of a cow; they probably have the loss of the calf, the possible loss of the hill cow subsidy, and also the loss of the calf subsidy. So the expense bears very heavily on them if they have to do away with a beef herd. I hope that the Government will look again at this matter.
LORD HOY: May I ask one question in connection with valuation, because I know how important it is? Any farmer is going to run into pretty considerable expense and it will be for the Government of the day to decide what compensation will be paid. But subsection (5) states:
"Where by virtue of subsection (4) of this section the Minister causes an animal to be slaughtered he shall pay any sum received by him on the sale of the carcase."
It was said to me only this forenoon that a problem always arises with regard to a sale of this sort. Does the sale of the carcase, technically and legally, include the offal which, I am told, can be quite valuable? Merely to mention the sale of the carcase, without including the offal, leaves some doubt in the minds of those who know their own business. So I should like to be assured by the noble Baroness that when we talk about the carcase, technically and legally it includes the offal.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I should like to thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, and of my noble friend Lord
154
Burton, about the level of compensation, but one cannot consider the compensation, which is paid under both the voluntary scheme and the compulsory scheme, without considering the incentives also, which are very important. In the case of the compulsory scheme, the herds—which really means all dairy and beef herds—are all eligible for the incentives. The replacement grant is either £30, if the calves have been vaccinated with S.19, or £15 if they have not, and the owner retains the carcase value.
I should like to refer to this in connection with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about the sale of reactors in the market. A reactor which has not had an abortion—in other words, a reactor which is not a dangerous contact—can be sold in the market. Due notice is given, a certain part of the market is laid aside, and these animals are slaughtered there. Noble Lords who have spent so much time on the Committee know that, in these circumstances, carcases can be eaten. These three weeks, to which we referred earlier, give the farmer an opportunity to get a better price for his animal, and that money, also, will help him make replacements. But when it is an animal which is a dangerous contact, when it has actually aborted, it has to go direct to the slaughterhouse under very stringent conditions. Therefore one has to take into account the fact that one has the carcase value which, if it is a reactor only, can be much more valuable than that of an animal which goes direct to the slaughterhouse. On top of that, if an animal has been vaccinated with S.19 the grant is £30; and, in addition, one has the incentive scheme. I should also say that farmers are still eligible for the subsidies, which is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton. That being so, I think that, taken all in all, it is a fair scheme.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. But will she now confirm whether offal is, legally and technically, included?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am sorry, but I did not write down the word "offal" in my notes. Offal is included in the carcase and, as the noble Lord said, that can be very valuable.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Control of zoonoses]:
3.19 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 39, after ("organism") insert ("which shall include the disease or brucellosis")
The noble Lord said: At first glance, this Amendment appears unnecessary. But as this clause is broadly in the interests of public health, we should like to know whether it makes clear what diseases or organisms are included. I did not have time to look at the 1950 Act, but I have no recollection of brucellosis being in the list there. But as this clause follows Clause 1, which refers specifically to brucellosis, and as that disease will be in everybody's mind, we should like to know what are the Minister's intentions. There is a considerable lobby which feels that brucellosis ought to be treated as an identifiable disease, and when one remembers its effect on even the vets. of this country one realises how important t is. I am bound to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that since this Bill has been printed the National Union of Agricultural Workers have said they consider this to be of considerable importance, because in fact their members may well be the people who are going to be affected by brucellosis, and they themselves would like to see it specified in his way. It is because of that that we have put down this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I should like briefly to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I think it is very sensible.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: As one who has been interested in this subject since it became rather more public knowledge, and without making a speech as one easily could—about it, because as one easily could—about it, because I am quite sure the Minister is aware of the situation, I also want to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I say just a word on this Amendment? The noble Baroness may well say that it is quite unnecessary because all organisms are included here, and obviously the organism of brucellosis would be embraced by it. What my noble friend is saying—and I think I agree with him—is that the agricultural workers. who have
156
just been mentioned, have for years been ignorant of the symptoms of brucellosis, and the doctors have found it very difficult to diagnose. Indeed, there has been a general apathy in the world of agriculture about tackling this disease. What my noble friend wants to do, I think—and I agree—is to emphasise the fact that brucellosis will be included, with a view, of course, to focusing attention on this particular disease and, we hope, stimulating people to greater effort, particularly to get it notifiable. Of course, the agricultural workers have for a long time asked for it to be a scheduled occupational disease. This Amendment would ensure that it is kept in the forefront of any information which it is proposed to give to these various people.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I can see that the fact that this Amendment is on the Order Paper has been of assistance to the Committee as a whole, because I think it has been universally supported. But I must say that, as the noble Baroness anticipated, the Amendment is in fact unnecessary, because the clause as a whole covers all organisms, and it would be perfectly possible for my right honourable friends to designate this particular disease. As I think I said on Second Reading, it was thought at the start that we should try to deal only with Salmonellosis, mainly because the disease can be. rather in the same way as paratyphoid, of epidemic proportions. Brucellosis is a very difficult disease and can continue to affect people for a very long time, but it is not potentially of such an epidemic character. However, I should like to refer to my right honourable friend the general feelings which have been expressed by four noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, about this particular disease. As I think my noble friend Lord Denham said on Second Reading, the proposal that this should he made an occupational disease has been referred to the Committee which is discussing these matters.
LORD HOY: I should be less than grateful if I did not accept the noble Baroness's offer, and we shall look forward to having a further comment perhaps at a later stage. I would simply add that I have never yet been on a Bill in relation to which the Members opposite did not always assure me that, while it did not

157
add to the Bill, it did not do any harm. If it does not do that, then the Minister ought to have no difficulty in accepting it. But I am grateful for the offer, and I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KILBRACKEN: There is one point to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, and it is this. If, as I certainly hope will be the case, brucellosis is made a designated disease (and I certainly think it should be) then it would be as well to include the word "milk" in line 32 of page 3 as being one of the samples that a vet may take on entering a man's land. It would be required if he wished to take a milk ring test to see whether brucellosis was present. So perhaps the noble Baroness would consider the word "milk" being added there.
LORD HOY: I have one question affecting three parts of this clause. I first thought of putting down Amendments, but then I thought it might perhaps be better to raise the matter in debate and to have the Minister's opinion about it. On page 3 subsection (3) says:
"The Ministers may by order make provision for requiring a person who, in such circumstances as are specified by the order, knows or has reasons to suspect…"
I must say that I find it difficult to see how you can prosecute someone because you have reason to suspect that he might have known something. I should have thought that this was a very dangerous line to be taking. It may be that I am quite wrong, but this is how I read it.
Then, if one goes to line 38, subsection (5)(b) says that a veterinary inspector may
"require any person on the land who he has reason to believe is the occupier or a servant of the occupier …".
I do not need to tell your Lordships how difficult the situation will be for the employee. The employee might get instructions from his master to convey no information at all. The master might even say, "If you do, you will have to bear the consequences of your action", and the consequences might be his removal from work. But this man who is an employee may be prosecuted for not giving certain information, because if your
158
Lordships turn to subsection (6)(b), at the top of page 4, you will see pointed out quite clearly that if these instructions are not carried out then he—that is, the owner or his employee—shall be guilty of an offence. I think that this really is placing a considerable burden on the employee; and while it may be quite all right for the owner of a property who does not give the information required, I think it is taking it a little far to say that the employee of that particular person shall in fact be guilty of an offence. These three points all seemed to link up together, so I did not put down an Amendment to cover them, but I was hoping that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord could give us an explanation as to why they are there.
LORD BALERNO: So far as I can interpret this clause, I understand it to mean that the concrete case of the abortion of a calf does not necessarily mean the disease of brucellosis. It could well be that a farmer or his employee would spot the abortion of a calf—say, that it was coming at an early stage, or something like that—and, on examining the after-birth, conclude to his own satisfaction that it was not brucellosis. But at the same time in that particular case I think he would have reason to suspect brucellosis, and that failure to call in a veterinary surgeon and to have the test carried out could be a means of spreading the disease very quickly. I know from my own experience of keeping a clear herd that we carry out this procedure automatically whenever a calf is aborted. Occasionally, of course, you get a cow aborting in a field but you may not pick up the calf until later on; and then one tries to trace it back. In the long run it is always best to have the test carried out, but I am afraid too many farmers try to cover up.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is the whole trouble. It is so easy to persuade yourself, to rationalise and say that this is an ordinary abortion, and there is no way of knowing unless you call in the experts. We are trying to focus attention on the importance of telling the farmers, the farmworkers and the veterinary surgeons. They know it, of course, hut they cannot do anything unless the farmer calls them in. We want to emphasise the importance of this, so in no circumstances should we allow the

159
Bill to pass without making every effort to emphasise it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: First of all, if I may refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I think that the provision to look at is subsection (5)(a). This is designed so that a veterinary inspector can make whatever tests and take whatever samples he thinks are necessary in carrying out an investigation into an outbreak, or even a suspected outbreak, of disease. It might well he important that one would have to include milk to be tested, and there is nothing in this wording that would preclude milk from being tested, if necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, backed up by my noble friend and the noble Baroness opposite, asked questions about subsection (3), subsections (5)(b) and (6)(b). I think I should make it clear that normally, as your Lordships will see if you look at subsection (3), responsibility for making a report will lie with the veterinary surgeon who undertakes the test or submits material for test by a laboratory. Subsection (5)(b), although it says "servant of the occupier", does not really mean that it is the servant who is asked to give information. If the noble Lord will look further on he will see that the servant is requierd,
"to take such reasonable steps as the inspector may specify for the purpose of collecting or restraining any animals…"
It is on that side that the servant is asked to operate; to collect the animals. He is not made liable to the considerable offence in subsection (6); therefore it is only if the owner refuses to comply that he would he subject to the last part of subsection (6).
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Application of provisions of Diseases of Animals Act 1950 to further animals]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No.4:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: This is a preparing Amendment for No.5, and I hope it will be for the Committee's convenience that they be considered together. I must say that Clause 3(1) has
160
presented a great deal of difficulty to me. It has the effect of extending to other animals those which may be included in the definition for the purpose of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. This is an enormously long and complicated measure laying down various rules and regulations towards animals of many different kinds. Where there are not specified in particular it is stated that,
"the Minister and the Secretary of State … may … by order extend this definition".
to any other kind of four-footed beasts besides those that are named. The Government are now proposing to leave out the words,
"any other kind of four-footed beasts", and to allow the definition to be extended instead to
"any kind of mammals, except man, and any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal…".
As soon as I read this I began wondering to what animal the Diseases of Animals Act would apply to which it does not apply at present. I began by trying to think of four-footed beasts which are not mammals—four-footed reptiles such as the alligator, the crocodile and the lizard. Then I realised of course that these are already four-footed beasts and therefore are covered by the existing legislation. Then I set down, rather like two algebraic equations, those animals that are already covered and those that would be covered in future, and by subtracting one from the other I was left with those that would be covered for the first time.
The definition under the existing Act applies to all four-footed beasts whether mammals or not, and the new proposed legislation would apply to all four-footed beasts whether mammals or not, and to all mammals. Subtracting one from the other you find yourself left, perhaps to your surprise, with all animals that have fewer than four feet or more than four feet. As to mammals with more than four feet, I have not been able to think of one, nor has the curator of mammals at the London Zoo with whom I was in communication this morning.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: What about the duckbilled platypus?
LORD KILBRACKEN: The duckbilled platypus I think has four feet and two wings—or is it two feet and two wings? This Bill may be invented for the

161
protection or otherwise of the duckbilled platypus. I myself believe that the duckbilled platypus has four feet and two wings and a duck's bill.
When we come to consider those mammals that have fewer than four feet, I have been able to come out with a list. The existing mammals, so far as the curator and I could list them, are the whale, which has no feet—and with the whale we included the dolphin and the porpoise—and then there are bats, which eluded me for a long time. Bats are mammals and have two feet and two wings. Finally, there is the pintailed tree shrew of Borneo. And then monkeys. I was in some doubt about monkeys. I could not make up my mind whether they had four feet or four hands, or two feet and two hands. When I asked the curator about this he was not at all certain. He said that in so far as monkeys used their limbs for walking they were legs, and in so far as they used them for eating, they were hands. So I do not know whether monkeys would be covered, but it is a very fascinating subject. The Encyclopœdia Britannica seemed to indicate that they were mostly two-footed. For instance, the gibbons do not run on all fours but hold the body erect, raising their long arms above the head. The orang-outang is extremely specialised for arboreal life using the suspension grasp of the hands and feet. This seems to indicate that monkeys would be covered for the first time.
If the Government want to extend the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act to whales, bats and the pintailed tree shrew of Borneo and two-footed monkeys. I suppose they are at liberty to do so, but it seems to me that the wording that they have used can lead one into some rather complicated labyrinths and that the wording I propose, while not affecting, I think, the meaning of the Bill, would be simpler to follow, and in the interests of simplicity I beg to move my Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. When they come to an Agriculture Act which deals with animals, the Parliamentary draftsmen inevitably put their feet into it. They seem to be incapable of getting a
162
systematic description. A very good description of the law regarding animals and their definition was made in the great Animals Act about a hundred years ago. Since then most of the Acts have been perfectly clear and based on definite zoological classifications. It is only in comparatively recent times, and more particularly with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, that there has been introduced this dreadful attempt at classification using "four feet" which is completely and utterly illogical. One would have thought that when they came to deal with this clause the Parliamentary draftsmen would at least by now have decided to use a proper zoological classification. Lord Kilbracken's Amendment is a definite improvement and I hope it will be taken up. In view of the complexities of the examples given by Lord Kilbracken, I wonder whether the Government might not just take this matter as avizandum and see whether it could not be re-drafted in a more logical form.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for introducing some light relief into these proceedings. I cannot say that at the end of his speech I felt the matter was any simpler. I fear that I shall be unable to accept the Amendment for the reason that I think the present wording of the clause is much better, and I will explain why. Perhaps neither the noble Lord nor my noble friend realises that the effect of this Amendment would be to put in doubt the application of diseases control measures (for example, zoonoses) to some four-footed creatures which are not mammals. That these powers are needed, I am sure the Committee accepts. An additional reason for retaining the clause as it stands is that the actual wording of the Amendment is very repetitive of that in the 1950 Act.
When I saw the clause I also felt it needed a little explanation in order that I might be quite clear on what it was designed to do. Therefore I too had a little research made and I think the best thing I can do is to see whether I can make the matter as clear to the Committee as it now is to me. Section 84(1) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 defines "animals" as
"cattle, sheep and goats and all other ruminating animals and swine".

163
There is a proviso in that section which allows the Minister to extend this definition by order so that it will cover
"any other kind of four-footed beasts".
In other words, it would cover the horse family. In the present Bill, Clause 3(1), removes the reference to "four-footed beasts" in Section 84(1) and substitutes two things: first, "any kind of mammal, except man"—which covers warm-blooded animals like lions and tigers and, as the noble Lord will recognise, the aquatic animals like seals, dolphins and whales. It covers also apes and bats which I think he would agree it is doubtful to describe as four-footed beasts. The second substitution is: "any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal". Again, the noble Lord is correct, because this covers four-footed reptiles such as crocodiles and tortoises in pet shops. While on the subject, I may say that the later reference in this Bill to coldblooded creatures of any species other than fish, reptiles and crustaceans covers amphibia such as frogs, and molluscs such as snails, oysters, cuttlefish; and also insects. I felt that we had to extend this definition much further in order to control the zoonoses, which is the object of the clause as a whole. I hope I have made it clear. Perhaps I have not done so; but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I have no intention of forcing a Division on this point, but I must say that I do not quite follow the noble Baroness in all her remarks. It was certainly not my intention that my Amendment should change the sense of the Bill. If the wording in the Bill is retained, then the definition of "animal" may be extended to cover any kind of mammal except man and any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal. If my Amendment were accepted, the definition could be extended to mean any other kind of four-footed beast and any kind of mammal except man. I do not ask the noble Baroness to agree on the spot that those definitions cover exactly the same sort of animals, but I think that if she looks at it afterwards she will find it does and that my wording is perhaps clearer. I do not intend to take this point any further,
164
and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.46 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No.6:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("comprise") and insert ("include").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.6. This is purely a matter of semantics. In the new paragraph to be inserted the Minister and Secretary of State may by order extend the same definition so that it shall "comprise fish, reptiles, crustaceans" and so on. I know that the word "comprise" can occasionally have the meaning of "include" but I suggest that the word "comprise" more usually means "consist of". Therefore, the fish, reptiles, crustaceans and all the other cold-blooded creatures would be the only ones covered by the definition. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that "include" is the word used in a similar context in line 20 on the same page; and because I think "include" is more accurate I beg leave to move this Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Like the noble Lord, I. too, am very interested in words. I suppose that one could say that between the word "comprise" and "include" there is not all that difference. The reason why we have used the word "comprise" deliberately is because it makes the wording of the clause consistent with Section 84 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 in which it is used several times. I am advised that to use the noble Lord's word would not have any advantage. Moreover, I feel that a certain consistency in legislation is important for otherwise people may think it means something quite different. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HOY: I think that is the first disappointing reply that we have had from the noble Baroness. Regarding the argument about consistency I only wish that she had listened to her right honourable and honourable friends in another place during discussions in Standing Committees when it was argued by the Government, "We are being consistent in doing this. The word appeared in Acts in 1901,1907 and 1950 and if we changed

165
it now it would cause such a reaction that the courts will not know where they are". Against that it was argued that that is what Members of Parliament are for, that is what Parliament does. If the Committee feel that "include" is a much better word than "comprise" we are entitled to insist on that word being used, or at least to divide on the matter—not that I am suggesting we should do so. But we have to remind ourselves that the power lies with us.
I think that there is a great difference between the two words, and I agree with the interpretation of them given by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. He said that if we talk about something being "comprised of" we could then specify, which is something quite different. My noble friend is saying that in this instance it should be made clear and that the word "include" should be used instead so that there shall be no doubt about the definition. From that point of view the word "include" is much better than the word "comprise".
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think that the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, comprised some with which I did not agree at all. If being consistent is such a virtue may I suggest that the word "comprise" should also be used in line 20 of the clause instead of "include". If it is a matter of such importance to remain consistent that does not provide a very good example. However I do not think that I could carry this matter through the Division Lobbies and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.7:
Page 4, line 32, after ("species") insert ("and birds").
The noble Lord said: It has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and others that this clause adds two-legged mammals, fish, and shellfish to the definition of "animals" in the 1950 Act. I have not checked whether birds may be covered in any other Statute but we thought it as well to put down this Amendment. Epidemics of fowl pest have played havoc with the poultry industry all over the country, and for this reason we put down the Amendment so that we may be assured that birds are included. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment is to secure an assurance, and I am very glad to reassure him that by Section 84(2) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 Ministers are empowered to extend "for all or any of the purposes of this Act" the definition of poultry to other species of birds. That being so, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HOY: I am certain that your Lordships will be grateful for that explanation. Many people have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of fowl pest, and we arc grateful for the assurance which has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Seizure of milk etc. liable to spread disease]:
3.57 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.8:
Page 4, line 46, after ("cream") insert ("powdered milk, cream and eggs").
The noble Lord said: On the whole we support this clause. It is in the interests of public health. It may well be that the bacteria is all destroyed in the process of conversion to powder, but I am not sure about that. I have no doubt however that, as a result of putting down the Amendment, whoever is to reply from the Government Front Bench will be able to assure the Committee about what it does. I think it as well for the Ministry to make the clause perfectly clear, and we should be grateful for an assurance. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Can the Minister say whether there is any need for yoghurt and cheese, especially cream cheese, to be included in this list?
LORD DENHAM: We were not sure, but we assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was referring to powdered cream and powdered eggs. I have tried to get advice about where powdered cream is used. I must confess I have never heard of it and I have been unable to find out. But I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord, because although it is likely that

167
the bacteria would be destroyed by powdering, presumably these substances would be kept on a farm only for use as feeding-stuffs and they are already covered in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. This provides for the seizure and destruction of and the payment of compensation for, contaminated feeding stuffs. I would bring to the attention of the Committee the fact that this clause applies only to passing on diseases to animals and not to a risk to the health of human beings. Any substances such as yoghurt or cheese which might give rise to risk to human beings is covered by section 9 of the Food and Drugs Act 1959.
LORD ROYLE: I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said about powdered cream, because when I travelled by air to Scotland last week—the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, may have had the same experience—I was served with powdered cream with my coffee.
LORD DENHAM: I hope that the noble Lord suffered no ill-effects.
LORD HOY: I was beginning to accept the answer by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, until my noble friend Lord Royle intervened to point out how wrong he was. I have enjoyed powdered cream frequently when travelling by aeroplane and I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has—or maybe she does not travel by the best service. But this is not a great point, and I will accept the reply which we have heard and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Furnishing by milk marketing boards of information derived from tests of milk]:
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.9:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Minister will pay the board a fee for any information so obtained.")
The noble Lord said: From inquiries I have made, I understand that the whole of Clause 5 has the agreement of the Milk Marketing Board. One has to consider their view, even from the point of view of covering oneself in your Lord
168
ships' House, because there are some noble Lords who play an active part in the Board. The Board, after very careful consideration, have agreed that this clause is all right. However, the Minister may ask the Board to undertake a considerable amount of work—and work which might well prove to be expensive—to provide them with information. While I do not want to fall out with the Minister, maybe the Board are a little too reticent about making a claim, and it seems to me in fairness that if the Minister asks the Board to undertake investigations and to supply him with information, some reasonable provision ought to be made for compensating the Board for the work they have had to do.
I put down this Amendment in the hope that the Government would think it reasonable. The Board might have to undertake work quite frequently and might find themselves involved at the end of the year in a considerable amount of expense. The Government might like to give us their opinion of what the expenses are likely to be and, as a result of having this matter drawn to their attention, they might be prepared to accept the Amendment. Even if the wording is not correct, if they are prepared to accept the content of the Amendment I shall be happy. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: I can assure the noble Lord that the Milk Marketing Boards will not be greatly out of pocket as the result of furnishing this information. Much of the information needed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the enforcement authorities in Scotland is already available to the Boards for their own purposes. The cost to the Boards of supplying it is therefore unlikely to be sufficient to make charges worth while. However, if experience proves this to be necessary, there is power under existing legislation to reimburse the Boards for any additional costs which they may incur. It is a question of seeing whether there is any vast additional expense or any noticeable additional expense to the Boards. My right honourable friend has agreed with the Boards that if there is this sort of expense, it will be made up to them under his existing powers, and I repeat that undertaking to the noble Lord to-day.
LORD HOY: I am grateful for this information, because it was not available to any Members of your Lordships' House and not even to the Milk Marketing Board. I am certain it is correct, but when the noble Lord says that there are powers under existing legislation to make these payments and that this has been accepted by the Milk Marketing Board, surely it is for the noble Lord to tell us under what existing legislation. so that we may be as fully informed as the Board.
LORD DENHAM: Yes; the existing legislation is Section 126(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, so far as England is concerned, and Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, so far as Scotland is concerned. But I should like to make it clear that the point is that if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would be necessary for the Boards to be paid. They might be out of pocket by a very small amount, and in order to make a claim they might have to go to a great deal of work. The Minister and his Department might also have a great deal of work to do to agree it with them, whereas under existing legislation only if The amount is of a notable size will they apply to my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State; and the undertaking has been given that this application will be favourably received.
LORD HOY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.7 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON LORD DULVERTON moved Amendment No.10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause:
Grey Squirrels
"( ) In the proviso to section 8 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, after the word ('vermin') there shall be inserted the words ('including grey squirrels')."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I have first to say that the Public Bills Office have asked me to explain that owing to some misunderstanding my name has been joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. This was a mistake, and I should like to take the
170
opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord in absentia for any inconvenience it has caused to him. Before speaking to the Amendment itself I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if this Amendment is accepted, Amendment No.20 will be consequential upon it and will amend the Title of this Bill to include the amendment to the Protection of Animals Act.
The clause in the Protection of Animals Act is one that deals with the use of poisons against animals and prohibits them except in the case of certain poisons which may be used against
"insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice and other small ground vermin."
When that Act was first drawn up in 1911—it was amended in 1927—the grey squirrel problem had not emerged. It was not with us. As many of your Lordships will know, the grey squirrel was an introduction from North America. It was released from a number of zoos and private collections and became established in this country in a wild state in the early part of this century. It gradually spread over the Midlands and during the late 'twenties and the 'thirties its spread became more marked. The grey squirrel now has a territory extending right through England up to the far North and across the Border into Scotland and over the Border of Wales, whence it has ousted the native red squirrel, which has now become an extinct animal except in distant parts of the North and in some parts of Wales.
It ousted the red squirrel in fact by cold-blooded murder, because it disembowelled the red squirrel. By its introduction from America, the balance of nature has become upset and it has adopted anti-social habits in which it did not appear to indulge in its native America. Apart from the fact that it has extinguished the red squirrel in large parts of the country and is still spreading its territory and encroaching into the territories still held by the native red squirrel, it causes damage to a number of birds, taking their eggs and their young; and particularly, some people think, with good reason, it is responsible for the gradual disappearance of our three species of native woodpecker. They nest in hollow trees and are being ousted from their nests by the grey squirrel

171
But by far its worst crime is that it is attacking our younger hardwood trees all over the country. It attacks them by stripping off the bark of the tree, either at ground level or anywhere up the trunk—because of course it can climb the tree. I move this Amendment because it climbs the tree. If I may return to the phrasing of the 1911 Act, it refers to,
"rats, mice and other small ground vermin",
and one might have thought that grey squirrels could be described as such; but because they can climb up trees it has been held that legally they are not "small ground vermin". I wish I had known of Lord Kilbracken's interest in the distinction between feet and hands before to-day, because I suppose that when the grey squirrel climbs a tree it is open to argument whether it has four hands or four feet. Anyway, it is excluded from the interpretation of that section. It is damaging the young pole stage trees of the species of beech, oak and sycamore. This has become a phenomenon which has increased markedly over the last decade or so: so much so, that it is really a much more serious problem than the elm disease of which we have heard a lot recently. I believe that some of our native species of hardwood could be doomed to extinction over another hundred years or so unless something far more effective is done about the grey squirrel than we have been able to do up to now. And it is extending its attacks to other species than the three that I have named.
Of course it is hardwood trees that the public want to see planted. The conservationists and the amenity societies are clamouring that the Forestry Commission and private growers should plant more hardwood trees. Well, many hardwood trees are being planted, but I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to what happens when you plant them. For the first few years all is well, but when the tree reaches what foresters term the "pole stage", which is a height of about 20 to 30 feet, and is between the age of 15 and 25 years, the grey squirrel goes for it. He eats off the bark, and this either ruins the tree as a timber tree or, in many cases, actually kills it, because if the cambium is removed from all round the tree, the tree of course dies.
The Timber Growers' Organisation, to which I belong, were so concerned about this that about a fortnight ago they sent out a questionnaire to selected members of the organisation to try to collect facts and figures about the extent of the damage that is going on. Unfortunately, there has not been time to get all the answers back, but those that have been received reveal real and widespread concern. Many of them are couched in much the sort of words that I have just used to your Lordships. I cannot give your Lordships many actual figures, except that the National Trust have told me that I may reveal that they estimate that they lost over 100,000 young trees during the last forest year. They have also authorised me to reveal that their bill for vermin control—which they themselves confess was not entirely successful—amounted to £8,000 in one year. That gives the background of the problem as it affects forestry. I can give your Lordships one further figure, if your Lordships will bear with me, in regard to one particular estate with which I am intimately connected. We took sample plots last week to check up the exact figures of damage, and we found that in our medium-aged beech 72 per cent. of the trees were damaged, in the sycamore 77 per cent. were damaged (of course many of them, though not all, will die) and 32 per cent. of the oak.
Trapping and shooting are the only means we have of controlling these animals at the moment, and it is ineffective and expensive. The Paper produced by the Forestry Commission in 1967, called The Grey Squirrel—Its Control, says that normal methods of trapping and shooting are ineffective: and one knows that that is the case. Yet one goes on trying, although one is fighting a losing battle. There is one means of control which is legal in Scotland and has proved effective and helpful there, and it is the use of the rat poison which is sold under the trade name of "Warfarin". It cannot be used in England because of the wording of the Act to which I have referred. The Bill before us to-day provides a possible vehicle for making legal the use of Warfarin against grey squirrels in England and Wales. I am aware, as your Lordships may be aware that the Forestry Commission have been carrying out trials with the use of this poison for

173
about 18 months to two years under the direction of Miss Rowe, and I understand that they are very close to completing the trials and publishing the results. Therefore it is, to some extent, premature to move this Amendment. On the other hand, as I have said, this Bill provides a vehicle, and if we do not seize the opportunity to-day we do not know how long we shall have to wait for another opportunity to amend the legislation. It is on that account that I decided to put the proposal before your Lordships to-day.
I would add that I have consulted with the Country Landowners' Association, the Timber Growers' Organisation and members of the National Farmers' Union and I think they are all completely behind the general purpose of what I am asking your Lordships to consider. I have spoken also to the Deputy Director of the Nature Conservancy, who has expressed his grave concern over the ecological problem created by the grey squirrel, and also to the officials of the Forestry Commission, who, as is well known, are most concerned about this problem. Finally—I am afraid it has taken me a long time to explain this, but I felt that it was necessary to do so fairly fully—the very existence of future generations of our hardwoods is at stake. I hope we can preserve sentiment (because sentiment there is about grey squirrels) to our native red squirrel. Apart from the measure that is before us this afternoon, I would ask the Government seriously to consider devoting funds to the National Environmental Research Council, the Forestry Commission and others, to make a concerted attack upon this whole problem of grey squirrel control, because it is of that order of importance in our countryside. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give me some encouragement over this matter. I beg to move.
4.20 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I rise to support my noble friend, who has left the Chamber, in no doubt at all of the seriousness of this pest to forestry. Shooting grey squirrels, and poking out their nests, has over a number of years totally failed to keep them in check. Here there is no distinction between agriculture and fores-
174
try. Sometimes I have heard it said from the Front Bench, when either a Forestry or an Agriculture Bill is being discussed, and an Amendment which goes over the boundary between forestry and agriculture is moved, that it is the wrong place or time. I hope that no noble Lord on the Front Bench is going to say to-day that this is the wrong place for this small Amendment. There is no distinction between agriculture and forestry because the grey squirrel does substantial damage in orchards to fruit trees and fruit, as well as widespread harm to our native hardwoods, beech and sycamore.
My noble friend mentioned a number of societies who would like to see this Amendment included in the Bill. I think I can say that I have been a member or a member of Council of all of them, if I am not still a member, and of one more—the Royal Forestry Society—of which I am now Vice-President. The Royal Forestry Society is concerned not only with trees for the production of timber, but also with our forests from the point of view of amenity. Foresters are charged all too often with failure to pay sufficient regard to amenity: that is, to plant our native hardwoods in sufficient quantity. To-day they find in many counties of England that when they try to establish hardwood plantations, particularly beech and sycamore, and to a lesser extent oak, in appropriate soils they will meet extensive damage against which they have no effective defence, and they can even run into total failure.
There is nothing very novel in this Amendment. What my noble friend is asking for is already allowed in Scotland, where the problem is much less acute. There are many differences in the law between England and Scotland, as I well know, living on the Border. Some are historic, and some have constitutional bases which we should not like to see changed, certainly not without good reason. Others have no apparent reason, and here is one example. Why should a grey squirrel that lives in Dumfriesshire be exposed to this poison, when others a few miles South, with a home in Cumberland, arc not so exposed? In this particular instance the law is an ass, and my noble friend is trying to introduce some sanity.
Those with a good memory will remember a Question that was asked by the

175
noble Lord, Lord Henley, on May 18 last year—unfortunately he is not in his place to-day. He asked the then Government to introduce legislation to permit the lawful use of Warfarin to control grey squirrels. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his reply, said:
"My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is currently conducting field experiments to develop a safe and efficient method of presenting Warfarin to grey squirrels without risk to other wild life. If these trials are completed successfully, Her Majesty's Government will be better placed to consider the desirability. or otherwise, of introducing appropriate legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,18/5/1970; col.891.]
They have had 18 months in which to carry on these experiments and to consider the results, and I think that is a sufficient time. I therefore sincerely hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will be able to say that, after all the experiments and all the consideration, he has decided to extend the law as it now is in Scotland to be effective South of the Border—that is, into England, too.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There are squirrels at the bottom of my garden. They are a great joy to me; they make my day when I see them gambolling along from branch to branch, and from tree to tree, as I stand at my bedroom window each morning and gaze over the forest. I have a kind heart. I am not a farmer or forestry owner, but I sympathise with those who are and see damage caused to their property. Noble Lords who have supported this Amendment want us to poison these pretty little creatures. They want these little' creatures to be seen writhing in agony at the foot of the trees where they have their homes. It is inevitable that that should be so if they are given rat poison. It has been said that the squirrels have probably exterminated the woodpecker. When I lived in a house in the country I used to have woodpeckers and squirrels running about the lawn at the same time. I agree that this is an animal, pretty, delightful, charming though it may be, a source of joy to many young children, that probably does some damage to trees and crops. If that is so, and if it is felt that they must be exterminated, or drastically reduced in number in the interests of our national food supplies, then let us shoot them. Let us kill them
176
humanely, quickly, suddenly, at a stroke, and not leave them writhing about in agony until the poison does its work.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: I want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dulverton, and thank him for his initiative in moving this Amendment. I am President of the Timber Growers' Organisation and I am happy to join with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who is Chairman of the Forestry Commission, in supporting this Amendment. At the moment, approximately 4,000 acres of hardwoods are being planted de novo each year, and approximately 90,000 acres of conifers. The low proportion of hardwood being planted is a matter which depresses people. Quite apart from the slow growing nature of hardwood, one of the great inhibitions which prevent people from planting hardwood in the Midlands and the South is the damage which is done by grey squirrels, and the enormous cost of replacement.
These foreign animals, which were introduced from North America some time ago, have, as the Nature Conservancy will tell you, ousted the native variety, the red squirrel, which people are more fond of than the foreign North American animal. The grey squirrels are much more akin to rats, and that is why they respond to Warfarin, which my noble friend is seeking leave to introduce as a control measure in England. The Pests Division of the Ministry of Agriculture has determined that there has been a cycle of increasing numbers and declining numbers since their introduction some 40 or 50 years ago, and each time there is a cycle of increase in numbers the peak gets higher, and the average number in the countryside gets greater. This is a problem which is getting more and more acute.
Many of your Lordships will know of the efforts of four county councils in the Chilterns to establish a pattern of perpetuation of hardwood beech crops on the Chilterns in the interests of amenity and the Chiltern countryside. Timber growers are happy to go along with this voluntary plan on a voluntary basis, but they ask for some help in controlling grey squirrels. Without their control it will be impossible to achieve the desires of these four Chiltern county councils.

177
In the forests and woods around Windsor, there are 3,000 acres of hardwood, and 4,000 acres of soft wood. The Crown Commissioners, out of a staff of about 70 who are engaged in those forests, employ something like three men trapping grey squirrels constantly. Something like 8,000 grey squirrels a year are trapped. The Crown Commissioners are perpetuating crops of hardwoods in the forests of Windsor with great success, but the cost is enormous. The trapping and shooting methods which they use are inadequate, and the help that they get from the general public surrounding the Windsor forests is not as good as it might be. With the addition of the measure that my noble friend is suggesting, it may be much easier to perpetuate hardwoods in this country in the future than it now is.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I point out that, while I support this Amendment very warmly—because anyone who tries to grow, say, sycamore trees knows that when they reach about 10 ft. high the grey squirrels come and strip them from the top; and in fact one cannot grow sycamore trees because of grey squirrels—nevertheless grey squirrels do some good from the point of view that they take pigeon eggs and therefore to a certain extent keep down wood pigeons. If we do away with all the grey squirrels we shall probably get a lot more wood pigeons. We cannot have it both ways, and on the whole I would rather do without the grey squirrels.
LORD ALLERTON: I join with my noble friends on this side of the Committee in supporting my noble friend Lord Dulverton in his desire to see the end of the grey squirrel. He has made out a very powerful case and produced many statistics which prove his point admirably. However, I personally am very allergic to poison—or, should I say, the use of poison? Warfarin, I have been told, does not harm anything other than rats. I do not believe it for a moment because I lost a big dog which I believe died from it. Therefore, I should like to know from my noble friend how it would be proposed to use Warfarin, and whether the results in Scotland have proved it to be really effective.
LORD BURTON: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Dulverton but I would
178
disagree with him in one respect. He says he feels that this legislation might be premature; I feel that it is well overdue, not premature. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to the forest in front of his house. But is he not looking to future generations in whose time there could well be no forests if these pests are allowed to continue? These animals are killing the hardwood all over the country.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? These squirrels have been there for a long time; the trees have been there for hundreds of years. The squirrels and the trees seem to get on wonderfully well together.
LORD BURTON: The very old trees will not succumb to them in the same way, but these trees have an inevitable end to their life sooner or later. What has been pointed out by several noble Lords already is that the young hardwoods that are coming on are the ones which are being killed, and if there are no trees to replace the old trees, sooner or later we shall come to an end of hardwoods in this country.
Recently I went on an excursion to Shropshire and I was horrified to see there how acres were being planted with softwoods because they could not plant hardwoods from a practical point of view because it was known that they would be killed by these pests. Another point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, about Warfarin. He spoke about these animals, attractive little creatures—indeed they are—writhing in agony. This is not what happens with Warfarin. Warfarin is what is called an anticoagulant and affects the blood in such a way that the animal dies quite painlessly after having eaten a quantity—I think it has to eat practically its own weight of the poison before it is affected. I believe that that is why some rats have become immune—because they have been given insufficient poison. It was said that this substance might be dangerous to other creatures, but I know of a farm worker who found a packet of this stuff and, thinking it was oatmeal, made his brose for his breakfast out of it, and suffered no ill-effects.
LORD HOY: I can hardly believe that we are to accept that last story, but it

179
made a good peroration. May I ask one question before I say anything further? I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton—he will correct me if I am wrong—say, I think, that while Warfarin could be used in Scotland, it was prohibited in England. Is that what the noble Lord said?
LORD DULVERTON: The answer is that it is legal to use Warfarin against grey squirrels in Scotland, but not in England, because the law in Scotland is worded in such a way that there is no question, such as the one I have just explained, attaching to the wording of our own Animals Protection Act.
LORD HOY: I should like whoever is going to reply for the Government—possibly the noble Lord, Lord Denham—to explain how the situations differ; I am sure it would interest your Lordships to know. Warfarin is used in Wales and other parts. This is how we tried to attack the rat problem. Because of this (not because of the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, gave) we created a rat resistancy to the use of Warfarin. If this preparation may be used in Scotland, and certainly used in Wales, why is its use in England confined to the destruction of rats? I am sure that your Lordships' Committee would be grateful for an explanation.
4.36 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: As my noble friend Lord Dulverton said, it is illegal to use poisons against grey squirrels because, as dwellers in trees, they are not included among the rats, mice and other small ground vermin which poisons may be used to destroy under the English Acts for the protection of animals. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the damage that grey squirrels do to our woodlands, particularly young plantations of hardwood, deciduous trees. My noble friend went into this point extremely thoroughly. The importance of having effective means of controlling them cannot be disputed, and I do not think it has been disputed to-day, even by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. In spite of what noble Lords have said, the traditional and legal methods of control by shooting and trapping are effective—the Forestry Commission have a pamphlet on it: Pamphlet
180
No.31, which I think noble Lords should have a look at—but they require much labour. The employment of suitable poisons, if this were to be permitted by the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Dulverton, could prove a valuable additional weapon to the armoury for squirrel control. However, as the Committee will readily appreciate, the Government would be reluctant to agree to the extension of the use of poisons in the countryside unless they were satisfied, after full discussion with the interests concerned, that this could be done safely.
My noble friend particularly wishes to legalise the use of Warfarin, the standard rat poison, against grey squirrels. However, his Amendment is drafted much more widely than that and would also open the door to the use of other poisons which might be more dangerous to wildlife, to domestic animals, or even to people. Even though Warfarin has proved itself as a comparatively safe rat poison, we must be satisfied that it could be used safely in the particular kind of circumstances attending its employment against squirrels, and that this would entail the minimum of risk to wild life, before even this one poison could he sanctioned. My noble friend Lord Allerton asked in what form this preparation would be fed to squirrels. This is one of the difficulties that is being looked into at the moment, in that it must be in a form which is attractive to this particular animal. This is one of the important points, because Warfarin is so readily available at the moment for controlling rats and mice that, if this Amendment were accepted, Warfarin could well be widely employed before suitable formulations, accompanied by the right kind of safety precautions printed on every container, could be made available. Thus, it would be premature to legalise squirrel poisoning at this particular moment.
If any poisonous chemical is used in the countryside to control a pest there is some risk that harmless, or even desirable, species of mammals and birds would be harmed. But such is the importance of squirrel control that, as your Lordships have heard, the Ministry of Agriculture arranged some three years ago for research to be done by scientists in the Ministry and in the Forestry Commission to see whether a safe and

181
efficient method could be found of presenting Warfarin to grey squirrels without significant risk to other wildlife or domestic animals. I understand that these efforts have met with some success and my right honourable friend expects to receive a report on the work very soon. I think one noble Lord suggested that we should have heard about this before now. Three years is not in fact a long time for a research programme involving the study of animals in their natural haunts, which presents a certain amount of difficulty. After the report has been considered, the Government will be better placed to judge the desirability of introducing appropriate legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, there is not always consistency between English and Scottish law. No doubt a considerable list of differences could be drawn up. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked how this difference came about. As regards the law on squirrels and poisons, the difference in the texts is such that the English Act, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 as amended by the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1927, does not preclude the use of poisons against small ground vermin, whereas the corresponding Scottish Act—the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912—omits the qualifying adjectives "small" and "ground". Thus, while in Scotland there is no express prohibition of the poisoning of squirrels as such, it would be for the courts to decide in any given case whether the squirrels in question could be regarded as "vermin". To the best of my knowledge this issue has never been tested, so the difference between English and Scottish law on this point may not be so great as has been alleged. Nevertheless, if effective safe methods for controlling grey squirrels come out of the research soon to be reported, the Government would doubtless wish to consider whether any desirable revision of the law should be made to apply equally throughout Great Britain.
Her Majesty's Government believe that this Amendment is too sweeping in its scope, in that it would legalise not only Warfarin in any—and perhaps in an unsuitable—form, but also other poisons that might be too dangerous for squirrel control. After the Government have received the report on the search for a
182
safe method of using Warfarin for squirrel control, and after they have consulted with the interested organisations, the possibility of an appropriate amendment of the law will be most carefully considered. I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press this Amendment to-day.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Can the noble Lord explain why it is that Warfarin is perfectly safe for rats but not for squirrels?
LORD DENHAM: It is not actually very safe for rats. It is put up for rats in such a form and with such warnings on the labels of the container to explain to people so that its use may be effective in the safest possible way.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think everyone in the Committee will have been impressed by the very strong case made by my noble friends who have spoken on this subject from very great knowledge indeed. Undoubtedly we are dealing with a great pest. I agree with my noble friend Lord Denham that one has to be exceedingly careful about poisons, and I realise that the Government want to wait for the result of this piece of research, and that research takes a good long time. However, I did not seem to detect quite the note of urgency in the Minister's reply that I believe this pest justifies, and I hope that as soon as the Minister can move he will make his consultations as speedy and as short as they can possibly be and will produce some positive action which will at least go some way to deal with this menace.
LORD HOY: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, replies may I ask two questions? As I understand it the issue is concerned with Scotland, and while we have had some words about how it has affected National Trust property in England and Wales there is of course the National Trust of Scotland. I wonder whether there are any figures available from the Scottish Office as to what has happened in their area. I also want to know whether there has been a trial with Warfarin in the woodlands belonging to the National Trust of Scotland, and if so, to what effect? I think I heard it said that some area had been used for an experiment of this kind, but that is not of much use unless we know the result of the experiment.

183
I accept the point about the squirrels climbing up trees in England but apparently running along the ground in Scotland, so that we are able to use Warfarin on them there. I should like to ask whoever is going to reply, how much of this poison has been used in Scotland, if in fact it has been used on these properties controlled by the National Trust of Scotland, and whether there is any lesson to be drawn. The Committee mentioned by the noble Lord has apparently been sitting for three years, and when he says that it will be reporting "soon" I am bound to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who said that if it has been sitting for three years it might be speeded up a little. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Denham, could be a little more forthcoming about the meaning of "soon", because soon another year will have departed. Is he in fact saying that the Committee has now got on so well, after three years, that before Christmas this report will be available to your Lordships?
LORD BURTON: Before the noble Lord replies may I explain the situation in Scotland? North of the Tay all the original grey squirrels became extinct as a result, I think, of the depredations of the pine martens and the buzzards, and they were re-imported from Scandinavia. The red squirrels that were imported were not the same as the English red squirrel; unfortunately, they are slightly larger and slightly more destructive and it may well be that they would hold their own against the grey squirrel. However, in Scotland we have planted many more softwoods than hardwoods, and consequently the numbers of grey squirrels in Scotland are very much smaller. This I noticed around Fife and particularly round Dunfermline, where I believe some were let out. It might be possible to get some figures, but it is not so easy to give the figures for Scotland which are required by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.
LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me that the whole point of this matter is one of considerable urgency. We arc now going to have the results of the experiment and the consideration which has been going on. I gather that this will shortly be reported to the Government. What worries me about this is that it
184
takes a long time for legislation to be brought in; to find a little slot into which one can slip a miscellaneous agricultural provisions Bill is an extremely difficult thing to do. I wonder whether it would be possible for us at a later stage to insert some enabling provision which will permit the Minister to bring in by regulation something which will cover the point which might emerge from the considerations which are now going on. I rather hope that this might be done in order that a regulation might be made. Quite clearly such a regulation would have to be under the Affirmative Resolution procedure in order that everybody who might be knowledgeable about the matter could thoroughly consider it. I rather think that such a power would be advantageous to the Minister, and certainly to the interests that arc involved in this matter.
LORD DENHAM: Perhaps I may just reply to the few questions I have been asked. To confirm what my noble friend Lord Burton has said, I am afraid it is difficult to give figures for Scotland. In fact I have no records, and I think my noble friend Lord Burton has explained that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked what "soon" meant, and asked when the report would be available. I understand that it will be a month or two, but I cannot go further than that. Obviously it is no good hurrying the publication of the report if it is not going to be right. We must have the right report. But this is of course a matter of urgency, and that fact is appreciated by Her Majesty's Government
My noble friend Lord Amory and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked me to urge my right honourable friend to deal with this question as urgently as possible. Of course I will pass on those comments. I think it is very unlikely that it would be possible to do anything to the present Bill while it is on its passage through Parliament. But it would be quite possible to put something into a Home Office Bill, because the control of poisons is a Home Office matter, or an Agriculture Bill or a small Bill on its own, if it were so decided. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked why we do not have an enabling clause now. There would have to be discussions, including

185
consultations with interested parties, before the Minister would wish to take powers of this kind. The result of the research should be available before this took place; but if squirrel poisoning ought to be legalised, enabling powers, rather than the kind of Amendment put down by my noble friend, might be suitable, since they could allow the Minister concerned to specify permitted methods of use. I am grateful for that suggestion, and, without any commitment, I will certainly convey it to my right honourable friend, and also convey to him the extreme interest and concern which your Lordships have shown in this matter. I hope that, in view of what I have said, my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to intervene after the Minister has spoken, but I still do not see why in. this Bill there should not be an enabling clause. I quite understand that the Minister might not want to do anything about it when he has received his report. But surely it would be perfectly possible, at the next stage of this Bill, to insert an enabling clause.
LORD DENHAM: This was the point I undertook to consider.
LORD DULVERTON: Before I go on to say anything else, may I address the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, particularly, in the matter of his worry about not having nice little grey squirrels hopping about outside his windows. I suggest to him that if he could create the circumstances where he saw the far more beautiful and native red squirrels hopping about, that would be better.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Does not the noble Lord fear that if he puts down this poison, with the intention of encouraging grey squirrels to eat it, his beautiful red squirrels also might eat it?
LORD DULVERTON: That is the point; we have to get rid of the grey squirrels before we can get the red squirrels reintroduced.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Amory for the words he said, because I share with him the feeling that perhaps the Government are not giving this matter quite as much urgent attention as we should have liked. I believe that such organisations as the Timber
186
Growers' Association, the C.L.A. and the National Farmers' Union would feel the same. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for suggesting another way of attacking the problem. I am sorry that my noble friend has not been able to give greater assurance that this might be done. I do not wish to press this Amendment, and I will let it rest, with the leave of the House, on such assurance as we have received from my noble friend on the Front Bench: I can only say that I wish it were a stronger assurance. I hope that he will not let the matter rest and that the aim of my Amendment really will be achieved before the next growing season, by which I mean May, June, July of 1972. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Repeal and amendment of certain enactments relating to slaughterhouses in England and Wales]:
4.53 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No.11:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("the following conditions are satisfied:—

(i) that the requirements relating to slaughterhouses, of regulations under section 13 of the principal Act, of construction regulations under section 4 of the Slaughter of Animals Act 1958 and of byelaws, if any, made by the authority under section 68 of the principal Act are, or within a reasonable time will be, complied with in respect of the premises, and

(ii) the slaughterhouses facilities available in the district of the local authority are not adequate for the time being having regard to the reasonable requirements of persons making use of such facilities and that additional facilities are required".)

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hoy and myself. We are coming now to the slaughter of a different type of animal from the grey squirrel, and, if I may use the term, so far as I am concerned we are getting to the meat of the Bill. We regard this as a very important Amendment. May I begin by apologising to the Government Front Bench for the fact that they are faced with a Starred Amendment? This is due to the fact that at weekends my noble friend Lord Hoy goes to the distant parts of the realm while I am closer to London, and therefore all contact is

187
lost. It was only late this weekend that I was able, on his behalf and my own, to put down this Amendment.
I am very conscious of the fact that the Amendment I am now moving is not sufficiently comprehensive; it was prepared in a hurry. But in substance this Amendment is a re-enactment of part of Section 76 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and therefore I am relying on the words of that section to press the Amendment which I am now moving. The two items which appear in the Amendment are conditions as safeguards, safeguards against a reversal to the situation which applied before legislation was passed in the 1950s on the question of slaughterhouses. If I may say so. in round terms my main objection to the present clause is that there ought to be a detailed study of the future pattern of the meat trade and of meat inspection and slaughterhouses, including consideration of what goes on after we join the E.E.C. Their needs might be very different indeed, and we might be face to face with a very different question altogether from the one that now applies. Therefore I should have thought it inadvisable that a Government should be proceeding at this moment to legislation of this kind in regard to slaughterhouses and slaughter of food animals before we know full well what will go on if and when we enter the Common Market. These overall decisions, the ones in Clause 6 as it is before your Lordships at the moment, in my view should not have been come to at this stage.
It may well be that we—my noble friend and I, and perhaps some other noble Lords—might be tempted, when we get to the Question, That the Clause stand part, to say something of a wider character than I will have to say at the present time on this Amendment. But for all that, this is a complete reversal of the policy of more than one Parliament. It has been under consideration by Labour Governments and by Conservative Governments. I recall the hours and hours that we spent in Committee Rooms of another place discussing these important questions of charges, to ensure that in the future hygiene should be highly regarded, that there should be none of these back-street slaughterhouses that could not possibly be visited by the meat
188
inspectors and the veterinary surgeons; they were engaged in the larger places, and therefore there could always be neglect of the smaller and more remote ones.
Following the experiences of the last war, the opportunity was taken to provide that butchers who wanted to establish their own slaughterhouses, in much better conditions than had previously applied, should have an opportunity over a named period of making application for these slaughterhouse licences, under proper conditions, which would be approved by local authorities and by Ministers. That has been established by the previous legislation, and to-day we are asked to go back completely on everything that was done in that regard. I want to know why the change should come about now. We members of the Labour Party are often accused of being doctrinaire, but it seems to me that in this present Parliament, and with the present policies of this Government, it is they who are doctrinaire. They are constantly turning back the pages—pages which have been written for the benefit of the people of this country. Even the Liberal Party, in the days gone by, have given up laissez faire, but it seems to me that the policy of the present Government is getting back to laissez faire.
What is the demand for the change that is now being proposed in this clause? Who has made the demand? May I ask the noble Baroness what evidence she can produce that there has been any demand at all from people who are interested in these matters that the clock should be set back, and that we should go back to the pre-1958 situation? The 1958 Act has proved to be a great success. Private traders who wanted their own slaughterhouses had plenty of time to open new slaughterhouses or modernise their existing ones, and this they have done. There is no need at all for power to be given for the opening of unlimited numbers—because that is what this means—of slaughterhouses. Why establish at this time a free-for-all; a free-for-all to the detriment of the municipal abattoirs? This is a very important point.
As a result of the 1958 Act, and before that time, Governments pleaded with local authorities to establish good municipal buildings where the conditions of slaughter were perfect, and where traders

189
could go, if necessary, and hire floor space to kill their own cattle. The one I obviously know best, with this accent of mine, is in the place that I come from, Manchester. Manchester complied with the desire of the Ministry, and have built what I believe is the largest and perhaps the best abattoir in Europe. At the moment it is under-occupied, and the Town Clerk of Manchester tells me that they are losing something like £400,000 per annum in the running of that slaughterhouse, and that they could use it more and more. Yet the Government are suggesting that more slaughterhouses might be established in the area, which would take away more and more from the Manchester Corporation. And what applies to Manchester applies also to quite a number of other municipal authorities in this country.
I am concerned about consultation. I had the temerity to ask the noble Baroness, when she introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, what consultations had taken place with local authorities. She confessed in reply to me that several of them had expressed their concern about the provisions of Clause 6. Discussions did take place with Mr. Stodart, the Under-Secretary, on these matters, but he never gave the people he was talking to any assurances that what they were saying would be either seriously considered or put into effect; and I have read some of the correspondence relative to those talks. I am suggesting to the noble Baroness that it is the bigger companies, the big people, who want to open large slaughterhouses up and down the country who are making this effort to get the Government to go back to the situation as it was prior to 1958. It is not the small man, the man who wants to kill his own cattle in his own slaughterhouse. These people are fixed up; they have done their job, and do not need any more slaughterhouses.
The new buildings suggested in the Bill are subject, at the moment, only to planning consent, and the very minimum hygienic standards. I suggest that this is not sufficient. We arc living in an age when we must protect our people in a fully hygienic way, and we should not allow slaughterhouses to grow all over the country. Let us limit them. There has been a tremendous limitation since 1958, and those that are in existence are
190
good. Do not let us open a door for something which is not nearly so good. I beg to move.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I rise to support my noble friend. I feel rather sad about this, especially as in another place over a number of years I spent many hours in Committee discussing the problem of slaughterhouses, and it was then more or less agreed on both sides that in these days of vast conurbations and huge increases of population we needed first-class conditions for our slaughterhouses, and first-class hygienic conditions for the marketing of our meat. We read here quite blatantly in Clause 6 that it repeals certain provisions in the Food and Drugs Act 1955, so that local authorities in England and Wales will be relieved of any duty to secure adequate slaughtering facilities in their districts. I think that just that piece of phraseology in itself is devastating. The Minister will no longer have power to require the alteration of charges made for the use of public slaughterhouses, and certain virtually inoperative provisions regarding the restriction by local authorities of the number of private slaughterhouses will be removed.
The clause also amends the Slaughterhouses Act 1958, so that local authorities will no longer need to seek the Minister's approval of the grant of new licences for slaughterhouses. Those sentences alone are devastating so far as the future of the meat trade is concerned. I will be brief, because on both sides of the House there are many noble Lords here who are occupied in agriculture, occupied with food production, and in this plastic age of artificial colouring matters of all kinds slipping into the food we consume it really is a retrograde and atavistic step to relax the regulations on one of the most essential products of mankind—fresh, clean, and good meat. My noble friend used the word "doctrinaire". This is a doctrinaire retreat to laissez faire in the meat trade. It is going back to the 1910s. I do not want to go too wide, but I do not want to see again what I saw in the streets and in the butchers' shops and slaughterhouses of South Wales in the hungry 1920s and 1930s. Sweat meat sold in the market at 11 or 12 o'clock at night in Cardiff, or up the valleys, to people who walked miles to

191
buy 3d. or 6d. worth of meat that had been produced under the worst kind of conditions. I do not want to paint too lurid a picture and suggest that we could get back to that situation, but unless we keep these regulations, there are "Johnny come latelys" who will come into the business and who will not be concerned with the decency of production. I really and truly believe that this is giving an impetus to speculation of the worst kind in this trade. I shall finish there, because I do not want to bore the House by reiterating platitudes and obvious facts. I shall end with this appeal. Please do not let this arid clause go forward like this, unamended. I beg the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, who ticks as humanely as any of us, to take note of the Amendment put down by my noble friends.
5.10 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I have certainly taken very careful note of the Amendment, because I could see during the Second Reading debate that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, was not at all happy about this provision, but I have to say to him that I cannot accept the Amendment, because it does the opposite of what we intend to do under Clause 6. This is really a question of policy. The noble Lord was quite right to ask why we are making a change now when, so far as he knew, the 1958 Act had worked well and when there had been great problems at the time in trying to devise the right policy to undertake. I think I owe it to the Committee to try to explain as briefly as I can why Clause 6, and the corresponding one relating to Scotland, are in the Bill, before I refer specifically to the Amendment itself.
Looking back over all those years since 1958, your Lordships will remember that that Act was introduced because it was thought that it would create the right balance between public and private slaughterhouses and would also prevent the proliferation of too many unhygienic slaughterhouses. It is interesting to note that in 1956 there were 4,500 slaughterhouses in England and Wales, while there are now only 1,734, so in that respect the Act has done its job. But the point to make here is that not only have slaughterhouses been disappearing quite rapidly,
192
but there have been very few applications to build new ones of any kind. The applications which are made are to change and modernise existing slaughterhouses. The difficulty is that for some reason or other—and it is very hard to find out why—many of the local authorities operate their own slaughterhouses at a loss. Of course there are private slaughterhouses which are very much in need of modernisation, and because it costs about £60,000 to build a new slaughterhouse up to modern standards the applications are for modernisation.
We have introduced this clause because we feel that, instead of the Minister, or the local authority, having the final responsibility to control the new licences, which also includes control over the granting of licences to premises which are being enlarged or renovated, we should take the better course which is to free licensing from control. I suggest that if we accepted the Amendment and left the power in the hands of the local authority, the authority would be in a very difficult position. If the owner of a private slaughterhouse asked the local authority for a licence to renovate and modernise, it would be very difficult for it to have to refuse the application, because the authority would be in the position of refusing a competitor the right to modernise his own premises. That is why we believe that this responsibility should not be placed on either the Minister or the local authority, and why we should revert to the free market, whereby the local authority will grant a licence subject to planning permission and subject to the necessary hygienic qualifications. I did not agree with the noble Lord when he said that the hygienic qualifications are not sufficient. I should have thought that in this country they were in this field pretty high.
The fact that there are fewer slaughterhouses is, I think, a good thing. If, as we propose under Clause 6, control of this nature is removed, it will mean that local authorities whose slaughterhouses are operating at a loss will consider whether to go on operating them, or whether to lease them to a consortium or to one operator, as the noble Lord suggested. The point is that the local authority ought to have as much freedom as anyone else to do what it thinks fit. The noble Lord mentioned Manchester,

193
in particular. I do not know whether the one at Glasgow is bigger, but I can assure him that a very good slaughterhouse is due to start operating there next year. It is not that one does not understand these problems, but we feel it is fairer to give local authorities freedom to lease, to sell or to go on operating slaughterhouses, than to put this very difficult duty upon them. I cannot accept the Amendment because it merely substitutes the Minister's authority for that of the local authorities.
LORD HOY: I have listened to what the noble Baroness has had to say, and I must say that I find her answer extremely disappointing. She said that local authorities will be free to do as they like, to operate slaughterhouses themselves or to sell to a consortium or a private entrepreneur, and that that will be all right. That argument has no logic at all. As my noble friend behind me has just said, it is a kind of take-over bid from a local authority. One must remember the capital that has been invested in slaughterhouses at the behest of central Government amounting to something like £20 million over the last 15 years. It was not that the local authorities decided that they were all going to have new abattoirs, but that, because of the appalling conditions, the Government of the day thought it right to get rid of a considerable number of the small slaughterhouses. I am certain that during his Ministerial period the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, supported the abolition of considerable numbers of small slaughterhouses and their replacement by much larger ones with good hygienic conditions. The food consumers, at least, were then assured that they were going to be supplied with meat about which they need have no doubts; in fact, the quality would be superb. It was the Government of the clay, and successive Governments, which persuaded local authorities to make this change. The noble Baroness said that the slaughterhouse at Manchester is big. I think that Manchester spent some £4,500,000 on providing a service.
It is no use the noble Baroness saying to us, "If they put the prices up they will solve their problem", because, as I said on Second Reading, if the prices have to be put up then someone, somewhere, has to pay those increased prices, and if it is in this particular field the
194
only way in which these increases can be reflected is in the price of meat purchased by the housewife. There is no other way out; and to suggest that this is a way of solving the problem does not impress me, and I am certain that it does not impress my noble friends.
We might perhaps go a little further into it when we come to the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, because then we shall be able to deploy all the arguments about it. But I tell the noble Baroness that we do not accept what she has said. What she says is, "All right; let us have a period of laissez faire. Let us have a free market; let everybody do as they like; and out of this morass will come some kind of order". The noble Baroness does not believe that. I know her too well; and, like her, I have had to read these briefs. I have no doubt at all that on the brief she has just read there is written the name of my noble friend and the number of his Amendment, and typed in the left-hand corner there is one word, "Resist". So it does not matter what argument we put forward: the noble Baroness has received her instructions; she is not free to take any other line. But I say to her quite seriously that, because of that, I would say to my noble friend that we shall do less than justice if we do not divide your Lordships on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I rise only because the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has mentioned my name. I have been trying to think back to the dim past, about 15 years ago, to the days when I no doubt wrote "Resist" at the top of a brief. I remember the circumstances then. The situation was that there was a tremendous number of very poor slaughterhouses indeed, and we had to do something about it. At that time private enterprise did not show any inclination to come along with the capital investment required to put those slaughterhouses in the condition in which they should be, so we welcomed a reduction in their number and a situation in which the existing slaughterhouses would be capable of dealing with the situation and would be of the right standard. That, I think, came to pass, and it has worked pretty well.
As I understand the present proposals, they are that the situation will remain as

195
it is at present, with the local authorities fulfilling their responsibilities, unless private enterprise comes along with proposals and the necessary capital investment to operate these slaughterhouses at the right standards. There will be no question whatever, I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, hinted there might be, of lowering standards and of going back to the lamentable conditions of the past. I could not agree with him more that that would be absolute disaster, and I know that my noble friend the Minister would not dream of putting forward proposals if he thought they might have that effect. Therefore, I think that the proposals are not dangerous at all. If any projects are brought forward by any private enterprise source, supported by the necessary capital and with the assurance that they would operate under the standards that are absolutely essential, then good luck to them, and perhaps the result might be that some of the municipal slaughterhouses which are today operating, or appear to be operating, at a very heavy loss might find some way to avoid that loss. If I felt that there was any danger to the consumer or unfairness to the trade in these proposals, I would be very much against them, but I do not think I see that danger or unfairness in them.
LORD ROYLE: I hate to be in disagreement with the noble Baroness because (I say it with bated breath in the presence of her husband) I like her so much, but on this matter she has not given us any satisfaction at all, and I am most disappointed. May I make one or two comments on what she has said? First she tells us that there are very few applications for new licences. If there are so few applications, why on earth are we legislating? We do not need any more slaughterhouses. This has been proved by virtue of the fact that people are not applying. On her point about hygienic conditions being very high at the moment, we are in complete agreement there. But the Bill repeals several provisions which ensure those hygienic conditions. That is what Clause 6 is doing. With deep respect, I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that he must have forgotten that under the terms of the Bill the Minister would not have the powers referred to by the noble Viscount. He tells us that the Minister
196
would be certain not to allow us to go back to those bad conditions; but under the terms of the Bill the Minister has no power to do anything about it, and it is to get that power that we want these terms. I am sorry (I do not want to go on arguing; I made my arguments in my opening speech) but I agree with my noble friend Lord Hoy that we just cannot let this go, and I would therefore ask noble Lords to go into the Lobby with us in support of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding arising between us, for I know that he is a great authority on all these matters. All I meant by my reference to the Minister was that the standards of hygiene would be maintained and supervised. I think that that is the most important thing of all, and if there were any slipping there I should certainly oppose the proposals.
LORD RAGLAN: May I ask a question? My noble friend Lord Royle says that the standards of hygiene would not be maintained: the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, says that they would be maintained. Can the noble Baroness tell us, with the full authority of the Government, whether the standards of hygiene would be maintained or not?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, I am very glad to have this opportunity to assure noble Lords, including, above all, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, who takes such an interest in this subject, that they will be maintained. What the clause does is to remove from local authorities the duty to provide adequate slaughtering facilities, that means, in the number of premises that they have to ensure are in a particular area. It does not in any way alter the duties which they have at present for meat inspection, which is of course their responsibility, and which are carried out either by public health inspectors as part of their general responsibility for food hygiene or by authorised meat inspectors. They will remain as they are now.
LORD ROYLE: If I may have just one more word, I am sorry but the very repealing of some of the previous legislation means that the noble Baroness cannot possibly guarantee that the present standards will be maintained.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.11) shall he agreed to?
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: I do not intend to take up much of your Lordships' time. Clause 6 we find quite unacceptable in every way. It is very difficult to understand how any Government, having had all the benefits we have had of concentrating our slaughterhouses, could reach a decision to go back to the pre-war position. Before the war we had thousands of slaughterhouses. Indeed, the noble
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henley, L.

Royle, L.

Archibald, L.

Heycock, L.

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Byers, L.

Wade, L.

Champion, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Albemarle, E.

Dulverton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Margadale, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Birdwood, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Green way, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reigate, L.

Burton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Tnclewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness, in the last debate on the Amendment, pointed out that, whereas we had 4,350 slaughterhouses in 1956, we had only some 1,700 to-day, and she was saying that this is all to our credit. This is what she was claiming credit for—and rightly so. Yet this proposal by the Government seeks to reverse that completely, because if no more slaughterhouses are to be built, the noble Baroness would not want to make provision for them in Clause 6. If there is provision in a Bill, surely it must mean that the Government expect more slaughterhouses to be built; otherwise they would not bother to take the power. This seems

199
to me to be simple in its logic. If they do not expect it why take the power at all?
I think what is quite wrong about this is that the noble Baroness, in replying to the, last Amendment, said that local authorities will still have the power to supervise. One might think this was an honour that the noble Baroness was conferring on them. In fact, of course, they have that power at the present time. The noble Baroness is saying something other than that. She is saying, "We propose to allow slaughterhouses to be set up. We propose to do nothing about it. Let them build slaughterhouses wherever they like." All this clause does is to say, "The only duty which we will place on the local authorities is the duty of supervising them after they have been built". In other words, expenditure in this connection will have to be carried by the local ratepayer. That is the only privilege which the noble Baroness is conferring on the local authority: the right to spend the ratepayers' money to see that hygiene is maintained in these additional slaughterhouses. I can find no justification for it.
I should like to have the answer to one question. As I have already said, some £20 million has been spent by local authorities in providing these abattoirs; this money has been spent at the request of successive Governments. The noble Baroness says that the Manchester abattoir was big but that the one for Glasgow will be even larger. I think those were her words. To save time on the next clause (which applies to Scotland what the noble Baroness perpetrates on England and Wales) perhaps she can tell us how much the Glasgow local authority will have to spend. What is going to be the total expenditure in connection with that abattoir, an abattoir built at the request of the Government—and the Ministry is "up to its neck" in this—because of the conditions that prevail in Glasgow and the West? The Government said to Glasgow, "You must do this job". They having done it, the Government now propose to desert them. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what is going to be the cost to the people of Glasgow.
I cannot think of a single reason to support this clause. It is an appalling
200
clause. I hope that we shall show our distaste of it in the only way left open to us; but I will say to the noble Baroness in conclusion (and I am not saying it to her personally; we have known each other for too long) that if the Government think they can get this through easily, they are wrong. Some noble Lords opposite appear to have departed since pleading the case of timber—all the "timber merchants" have gone. But I can assure the noble Baroness and I can assure those noble Lords in absentia (which I suppose is the phrase to be used) that it will take a very long time to get this Bill through its Committee stage; and when it gets to another place there will be one or two Scots there who will have a word or two more to say than I have said so far. Perhaps they will keep it going long enough for us to have the Report that the Government expect in the next few months; so that there will be plenty of time in which to put down Amendments. And in regard to this clause in another place, I could not estimate the time that will be required for the Government to put it through. That is the way we feel about it. I said this on Second Reading and I repeat it now to the noble Baroness. This is not for us in any circumstances!
5.43 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: I do not want to say much more in regard to this matter; but I should like to ask the noble Baroness for an assurance now that before the Report stage she will consider putting into the Bill wording to ensure that the local authorities in considering slaughter licence applications shall, first, have full regard to hygienic as well as to constructional requirements; second, be sure that there is proof of inadequacy of slaughterhouse facilities within, say, 30 miles of any proposed new slaughterhouse; and third, see that there are consultations between themselves and neighbouring local authorities with the latter point in mind. I think that this is important for, otherwise, one local authority may grant a licence for a slaughterhouse which would deeply affect an area next to them. Effective consultations between the two authorities could prevent the establishment of a slaughterhouse which was against the policy of one of the authorities. If the noble Baroness could

201
give an assurance that this might be written into the Bill, then I should be happier than I am at the moment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It is not my intention to delay the progress of the Bill, but there are three points which should be noted. As my noble friend Lord Hoy has pointed out, the local authorities will have to bear the financial burden of inspecting; but there is something else to be taken account of. As one who dealt with these problems locally some years ago in a slum area—though I hate to use the word "slum"—I should like to assure noble Lords that when slaughterhouses were scattered like mushrooms in the field the approaches to them were distressingly unhygienic. The passage of the cattle through the streets, and their droppings, made this so. The cost of cleaning these approaches was borne by the local authorities. Who is going to pay when these new "mushroom slaughterhouses" spring into being? They cannot be put up anywhere, willy-nilly. There are the problems of drainage and the disposal of blood and offal to be considered. The cost will fall on the ratepayers and a problem will be created for the sewerage authorities. All this has not been thought about.
I hope I have not been dogmatic in what I have been saying. I may be wrong; and I have tried to check the facts. Are we sure that the same regulations will apply—even with the modern, first-class lorries which are in use? Who is to have the responsibility to see that these vehicles are hygienic and are proper instruments for the carriage of good clean food from the farm gate to the slaughterhouses? This factor alone is enough to cause us to say, "Let us not have this political atavism! Let us look into it!" We beg the noble Baroness to impress on the Minister the feeling on this side of the Committee (and even perhaps on the other side) that there is a constructive case to amend the arid rigidity of this clause.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer than is necessary, but there is one point that I should like to raise. My noble friend brought up the case of the cleanliness of the lorries from the farm gate to the slaughterhouse. I should put it
202
the other way: from the slaughterhouse to the farm gate. I should like to see facilities for lorries to be washed down hygienically at the slaughterhouse after they have discharged their load.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I realise that I cannot satisfy noble Lords opposite, because they feel this is a very mistaken act of policy. I can only try to explain, perhaps better than I have done, the reason behind it. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that we do not expect a very large number of applications for new slaughterhouses. Since the 1958 Act came into force there have been only 123 applications, of which only 10 have been for new slaughterhouses. What matters is that the present facilities, many of them of high standard, are well used and properly used. This, of course, applies to the local authority slaughterhouses, which in many cases are under-used. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked who pays for everything. The local ratepayer is paying for the losses on the slaughterhouses and local authorities have this obligation regarding hygiene. I could not agree more with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Hoy, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Nunburnholme, about hygiene being absolutely vital. But, as I think I said earlier, this clause in no way alters the hygiene regulations which local authorities have the duty to enforce. On the contrary, it states that in approving licences local authorities shall have full regard to the regulations—that is in subsection (2)(a).
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked how much the Glasgow slaughterhouse would cost. I think that altogether it will be about £3 million. The real problem is that if slaughterhouses which are not up to standard the kind of slaughterhouses we are trying to remove from the country—are brought up to standard, and a license is approved for them, they will be in direct competition with local authority slaughterhouses—for example, those at Glasgow or Manchester. The more licences that are approved, and the more existing slaughterhouses are improved and modernised, the more competition will he created. The removal of the duty on local authorities to provide adequate slaughtering facilities means that if they wish they may lease their premises, or

203
they may see whether they can operate the premises successfully themselves. I do not expect that local authorities even if they are given the freedom to do so, will raise their charges more than those of the private operator, because obviously, if they did so, the capacity of local authority slaughterhouses would be even more under-used, and that is the last thing they want to happen. I think, therefore, that the fears, though genuinely expressed, have no substance.
One has to take into account that the meat trade is changing in character, as is well known by noble Lords who have taken a personal interest in it. Many companies slaughter and process on the same premises, and they have the highest standards of hygiene. I realise that I cannot persuade noble Lords opposite, but I ask them, since they have been very
Resolved in the affirmative, and clause 6 agreed to accordingly.
fair to me, to consider this question as it appears to the Government and to see whether they do not think there may be something in our view. I realise that they are not happy with this clause, but I hope that I have managed to explain the thinking and the reasoning behind it.
LORD HOY: I should be less than courteous if I did not say that we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given. The fact that it does not convince us is no reflection on her; it is just that this is a bad clause. And because it is bad we shall divide on it.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dulverton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amory, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Poltimore, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Thorneycroft. L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ilford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

Jessel, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Heycock, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Royle, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wise, L.

Henderson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under

Henley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Lyne, L.

Clause 7 [Repeal and amendment of certain enactments relating to slaughterhouses in England and Wales]:
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: Clause 7 does for Scotland what the Committee have just done for England. I regret to say that we shall not be taking this clause to a division, although with the encouragement of the figures on the last two votes, perhaps we should try a third time to see whether we are lucky. However, we shall resist that temptation. But though we shall not divide the Committee over this clause, we feel about it with exactly the same seriousness as we did about Clause 6, and no one should accuse us of agreeing to it just because we are not taking it to the Division Lobby.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Amendment of law relating to improvement of live stock]:
6.2 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.12:
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In Clause 9, the Minister is taking power to withdraw the licensing of bulls and retain the licensing of boars. Personally, I am not confirmed in my view about this. I have listened to a number of people, one of them, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, may like to know, was one of our up-and-coming geneticists in his area. He said that you should get rid of licensing together. because it now plays no part; it has played a useful part, but the stage has now been reached when we can get rid of it.
It is a little difficult to understand why the Minister has made two decisions in one. Many will argue that if one system of licensing ought to go, both ought to go. The Minister is really having an "each way" shot, like a racing bet. If he has it each way, he might end up by winning something. This is a weak position for any Minister to take. It has been suggested that his advisers have said to him that he should take a certain course and he has gone against their advice. I do not know; it is not for me
206
to say. But if this is so, he has to give good reason why he refused to accept their advice. It is also said that this is due to the tremendous strength of the breed societies in this country, who have told the Minister that it does not matter what is good for the industry as a whole, to remove the licensing of bulls will create a great deal of trouble for the breed societies. As a consequence they insist that whatever the Minister does in the pig world, he must retain bull licensing in the cattle world. This may be so.
I put down this Amendment so that noble Lords who are well informed in this matter may have a word or two to say about it and so that the Government might make an explanation of why they have split their decision down the middle. I am sure that they will be grateful to us for giving them the opportunity. I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: May I intervene at the beginning of the debate, because this is a subject with which I have been concerned most of my working life. I am an animal geneticist. Indeed, I was the only cattle geneticist in the country and was consulted as such by the Department of Agriculture and by the Ministry at the time of the bringing in of the 1931 Act. Therefore I have come to regard the Act as one of my particular preserves, and I have watched over how it has grown and has become more useful up to a certain point.
At the time of that Act, consideration was given to the licensing of boars as well, but they were not included, partly because of the cost and partly because the need then was not nearly so great. However, when the Small Pigkeepers' Scheme proved so important during the war and was so successful, under the presidency of a Member of another place, Sir Cedric Drewe, and with him Mr. Hobson, it became necessary to ensure that proper boars were distributed throughout the country and they were included under the scheme of compulsory licensing as a war-time measure.
A great deal of scientific water has flowed under the bridge since then. Whereas at the time when this legislation was passed there were large numbers of herds from which the sires for future generations—not just for that generation—were taken, it has now come about that

207
throughout the industry only a very small proportion of the boars and bulls that are required for a subsequent generation are in existence: in other words, the use of bad bulls or bad boars works itself out almost at once.
It is because of that (it could be expressed in more scientific terms, I feel) that the present generation of geneticists believe that all sire licensing should be done away with, and almost without exception have so advised the Government. I do not find myself altogether in agreement with this younger generation, but I think that they definitely have a point as regards boars.
The difference between the boars and the bulls, so far as meat is concerned, is this. Some years ago the Pig Industry Authority was set up, and they have established (it is now part of the Meat and Livestock Commission) progeny and performance testing stations. The whole of that industry is now looked after by these progeny and performance testing stations, and all the testing is paid for by the industry, with the result that a completely new set of ideas has come into being. The reason for having the Act was, in a way, the same as for having the Weights and Measures Act namely, to see that the purchaser of the stock got value. But now, with the certificate of quality of live weight gain, as well as the quality of the carcases, which can be obtained only through animals tested at these stations and their recorded progeny, immediately the necessity for the licensing is removed, because the licensing, which is done by the inspectors, bears little or no relation to the economic factors of the efficiency of food conversion or the quality of the meat afterwards. So this constitutes a step forward.
This argument does not apply to cattle. The beef stations are still only in their infancy; they are not out of their teething troubles, and it is a much more difficult and slower process to have testing stations for beef cattle. There is a great deal of difference between the two. The inspection of the boars costs quite a bit of money, and I think the Government are thoroughly justified—in fact, I think they would be wilfully negligent if they did not do it—in removing boar licensing and so saving the amount of money that
208
is expended, because it is doing no good for the future of the industry.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: Much to my surprise, nobody has mentioned the pedigree cattle of this country, which are very much dependent on the licensing of the bulls. If you remove it a big disaster will occur among the big pedigree herds of Herefords, Friesians and all herds that are dependent on the licensing of their bulls. The bull will not be passed by the licensing authority now, even if its pedigree is as good as it possibly can be, unless it measures up to the conformation and the standard they require. This applies particularly to beef, but it applies also to the Charolais milk cows. I think it ought to be mentioned in this debate that the licensing of beef stock in the cattle line is very different from the licensing of pigs.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In view of what the noble Viscount has just said, I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because my Amendment No.13 refers to bulls and the licensing of bulls. In view of the fact that they were included in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hoy, I was wondering whether to make my observations now or to wait until the next Amendment. I decided to wait until the next Amendment, when I hope that the question of bulls will be considered.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I was about to say to my noble friend Lord Daventry that if he would speak on the next Amendment he would have an opportunity to deploy his arguments about bull licensing to greater effect, because we are now on a limited Amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, he put down in order to try to find out why the Government have felt it necessary to give the breeder the right to choose the boar which he needs rather than to have a strict licensing regulation, as has previously been the case. I am advised that the application of selection techniques—I think this was referred to my noble friend Lord Balerno—has made a great deal of difference, because these techniques are based upon performance, and they have advantages, in particular, for a very prolific species such as the pig. I understand that these techniques are

209
widely used in pig breeding. That being so, it has of course reduced the importance of assessment on the basis of conformation on which licensing is based. This is the reason which has really removed the need, and indeed the justification, for having statutory licensing arrangements.
We had consultations with the industry earlier in the year, and the National Pig Breeders' Association were prepared to agree that boar licensing should end. I will try to keep off the question of bull licensing at the moment, and merely say that, so far as pigs are concerned, I understand that the British Lop Pig Society, the British Landrace Pig Society and the Association of Pig Breeding Companies were all represented. There was some opposition, notably among the British Landrace Society but, generally speaking, the National Pig Breeders' Association agreed that boar licensing should end. The National Farmers' Union thought that it would be necessary to see what voluntary arrangements could he made "to safeguard the commercial pig breeder". But I think the whole question was put much more ably than I could put it by my noble friend Lord Balerno, from his personal experience. I think we are right to remove the licensing of boars.
LORD HOY: In view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No.13:
Page 9, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: We now turn from boars to bulls. I should like to go briefly into the history of bull licensing. It was first introduced in 1931, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has already referred to that Act. That Act stated, in Section 2(2):
"The Minister may refuse to grant or may revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be—

(a) of defective or inferior conformation and likely to beget inferior progeny; or

(b) permanently affected with any contagious or infectious disease; or

(c) permanently affected with any other disease rendering the bull unsuitable for breeding purposes."

210
That was the situation until 1944, when it became more difficult to get a bull licensed for breeding, or indeed for other purposes. The law then stated that the Minister had to be satisfied—this also applied to boars, but I do not want to complicate matters by including them—if the bull was registered, or eligible for registration, as a pedigree bull with an approved breeding society, or conformed to a standard of type laid down for pedigree bulls of that type by an approved breeding society, and was unlikely to beget progeny which did not conform to that standard.
Then, in 1963, under an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Minister was enabled to refuse to grant a licence if he was not satisfied that the bull conformed to such standards of suitability for breeding purposes as might be prescribed. The position for the 40 years since the 1931 Act has been that it has been more and more difficult to get the calf licensed as a bull. Quite apart from that, the standard required in a calf, even if it satisfied those requirements, has consistently been getting higher and higher. Those of your Lordships involved in breeding cattle will remember that ten years ago some inferior calves which to-day would not get a second thought, used to receive licences. That has been the trend of the licensing that I am considering.
Many of us who are involved in pure bred breeding have wished that restrictions of this kind could be applied not only to bulls but also to heifers. If you had a pure bred heifer you would simply notify the Society that she had arrived. You could breed from her and have progeny, pure bred cattle, and she would not have to be examined or passed in any way. If the Government would introduce measures to make it more difficult to use cattle in general for breeding purposes, a great many of us would approve. We should like to see the number of heifers that can be used for breeding purposes reduced by legislation. Instead of that, the Government have gone in completely the opposite direction. They have not gone quite so far as they might because although my noble friend has been complaining about the inconsistency of licensing, in the case of bulls I understand that it had been the Minister's wish to end licensing altogether. He has not

211
gone so far as that. He has gone back to the position as it was in 1931. He is saying that bull calves must still be licensed, but the requirements are those laid down in the original legislation. In other words, when the bull is examined—and I understand this is to be done by veterinary officers—the breeding of the calf does not enter into consideration. The vet would not be entitled to consider the calf's genetic background.
If the calf was the kind of cross-breed that most of us do not like to see—a Jersey Hereford, or something of that kind, that happened by accident—so long as the calf was of suitable conformation and was healthy, then the vet would not be able to refuse a licence for that bull. I cannot help feeling amazed at this and wonder what the Government's reasons are for going back to the 1931 situation. I might be able to understand such a change if all farmers were good. For example, I can understand that some people would like to have a three-quarter Charolais and breed from him. I would never do that because I believe that the bull should be pure bred. Already, under existing legislation, if a farmer wants to do experimental breeding with a crossbred bull, or rear bull beef and not to castrate his bull calves, then he is able to receive special authority to do so. That is not the situation that I am worried about. I am worried about the bad farmer who wants o save a few pounds and, instead of spending £150 or £200 guineas on a reasonably good, or even reasonably bad, pedigree bull, he is going to rear a scrub bull for his own use. Presumably he would not hope to sell it.
Consider a farmer who rears heifers, and wants to get them in calf to sell as springers at 2½ years old or thereabouts. It is going to be a great temptation for him—particularly if one of his Jersey cows get crossed to a Hereford by mistake, and gets one of those bad bull calves which at present one cannot sell in the market for £1—to rear the bull and put him up for licensing. So long as the bull has the right appearance and health, then the owner can get a licence for him. He will be able to run the bull with heifers and sell the heifers when they are seven or eight months in calf. A person buying them would suffer because he would assume that the heifers
212
were going to be in calf to a decent bull. I feel that this is something that is going to get worse as the standard of calves falls. You will get the second generation when the mongrel progeny are being used on the original mongrel progeny, and you will get a double mongrel. I do not know whether the Government feel that any financial saving is going to be involved. I do not see how there can be any saving; if anything, more bulls are going to be licensed and therefore more licensing to be done. I wonder whether the Government have considered the experience at the outbreak of war. Temporarily the licensing of bulls was suspended but, after a short interval, officials reported that all over the country scrub bulls were being used on such a scale that the licensing rules were reintroduced. It seems strange, when we are on the verge of trying to join the Common Market, at a time when the three major countries of the E.E.C., France, West Germany and Italy, are preparing to introduce the licensing of bulls and have greater control over the size of breed in general, that Britain should be allowing the licensing of mongrels.
When I was considering what I should say to your Lordships to-day I felt that I should declare a personal interest, because the breeding of pure bred Herefords is now my principal farming activity, but, after consideration, I came to realise that, if anything, the reverse was the case. It would suit me financially far better if this Bill were to become law as it stands, because I am farming in the Republic of Ireland. This Bill as an Act would not apply to Northern Ireland and there is no intention of introducing similar legislation in the Republic. This means that the demand for pure bred heifers in Ireland is hardly going to be affected, because very few are exported to Britain; but also, of course, it will mean that the demand for, for example, spring heifers and store cattle, which I also produce from my part of the Realm, will, I believe, be far higher, because breeders in this country will know that if they go to Ireland to buy spring heifers they are going to obtain a decent quality. Perhaps that very fact will recommend my Amendment which is in front of your Lordships. I beg leave to move.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Kilbracken

213
in his Amendment, but on a rather different line. I feel that pedigree animals make a big difference, but performance combined with a pedigree is much the most important point. This autumn I attended a sale of Sussex bulls at Maid-stone and the best prices were obtained by those young bulls that had the best live-weight gain. I cannot get away from that fact. Of course, Lord Kilbracken's Herefords may have marvellous live-weight gain; and I think that that must be taken into consideration. I do not like the idea of these scrub bulls being licensed. If we license them, we are setting ourselves back in this country as cattle breeders of the best cattle in the world. There is not much more to add to what I have said already, except that I should like to see the licences of Peers extended to pedigree as well and the abolition of Life Peerage!
LORD BURTON: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and with his Amendment. There is one particular aspect, however, which, if I have the meaning correctly, means that licensing will be clone by one's own vet. I am not sure, but if this is correct I think the position of the vet is rather invidious. We already have the position under the Riding Establishments Act whereby one's own vet licenses a riding establishment. It is jolly difficult for him to come in and say, "This establishment is not up to standard" if he is one's own veterinary officer. I do not like the look of this and I hope that the noble Baroness will give this matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: I support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I agreed with everything he said. Nobody seems to realise the importance to this country of keeping these big Hereford, British Friesian, Shorthorn and Aberdeen Angus herds absolutely tip top. I have heard from several breeders of these big pedigree herds how terrified they are of the licensing of the scrub bull. The whole value of the herd is at risk. Foreigners can come over here and buy them at big sales at Perth and such places, and they would not touch one that was contaminated by another crossbred animal. I should like to register my support of what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have some sympathy with
214
this Amendment, but may I allude to what my noble friend Lord Burton said. He compared the situation with one's vet coming and giving one a licence, when the vet obviously would not want to disappoint his client. One might equally refer to a motor-car. When you have to obtain a test certificate you go to a local garage, and it might equally well be said that it is rather awkward for the local garage to refuse your car a test certificate. I do not think the example was a very good one.
LORD BURTON: I believe that the testing of motor-cars has already proved highly disastrous.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: There is one major factor which has appeared since the 1943 Act, which is where the clause we are considering abolishing comes in. It is a very important factor in the whole of the cattle breeding industry, and if we fail to take it into account we shall get into a muddle. It is one of the reasons why the scientists are virtually unanimous in advocating total abolition of sow licensing. It is artificial insemination. I have not the figures with me, but at the present moment well over 50 per cent. of the cattle of this country are sired by artificial insemination. That applies to both dairy and beef cattle. The hulls used are very highly selected indeed. As regards the dairy bulls, they are used to any extent only after a number of their progeny have been tested and evaluated for milk production quantity and quality, and after the confirmation of their daughters. So the dairy cattle breeding industry is in quite a different position from the position it was in when the 1943 Bill was introduced.
As regards beef, as soon as adequate measures are available for testing the beef bulls only the best bulls will be used at the artificial insemination stations. The work that the Milk Marketing Board has done already for the dairy bull, and what it is doing now in the way of pioneering work for the beef bulls, is of the very highest order and regarded most highly by people in other countries, including North America. It puts a completely different view on the whole position of cattle breeding in this country. A very much more productive set of females are being introduced.

215
One of the main reasons for wanting to extend beyond the pedigree bulls is the fact that the hybrid bull has now been shown to have very definite value. It has not to my mind as yet been completely evaluated on a large enough scale in this country, but if we take the lessons of other countries where the hybrid bull is being used, then we see that we ought not to deny ourselves the same possibilities in this country. The hybrid bull undoubtedly has greater hardiness, greater reliability, greater vigour and perhaps also greater sexual vigour, and is therefore of great use where animals are run on the hill or, as in America, on the range. As I have said, we have still to get more detailed information about it for this country, but it will have to be done on a fairly large scale.
The hybrid bull is utterly and absolutely dependent and can only exist if the parent breeds are bred pure. If the parent breeds are not of the top quality there will he no value whatsoever in the hybrid bull, and the hybrid bull that should be used is one that comes from strains that are tested for their meat. In discussing the hybrid bull I am considering it in relation to meat: the hybrid bull for dairying is a completely different possibility.
The hybrid bull, which may be a first cross or, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken says, three-quarters Charolais, or it may be a blend of three or even four breeds, but possibly not more than that, is unquestionably the animal that makes the greatest contribution towards cheapening our beef production in the future. One cannot get the necessary information merely by restricting it to that nice clause which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, pulled out of the 1931 Act. I can remember getting that clause specially drafted; it came down from Scotland and was inserted in the Bill as it went through Parliament.
I am not worried about farmers using scrub bulls. If a farmer is working in any way to keep his head above water financially he will be gradually increasing his herd. The herds in Britain are now of average size—very much bigger than the herds on the Continent—and from that point of view therefore they are rather more efficient. In the old days we had small herds, but they are
216
now almost out of existence. No farmer with a herd of over 60 cows could afford to use the scrub bull of the type that was in existence before the 1931 Act. His neighbours would know, and the type of bull that he was using would be known when he came to sell his stock, and their bad value would show in the shape of the animals.
There will still be inspection of bulls. I am very glad that the Government have done this, because this is a matter on which I would be in some disputation with the majority of the young scientists. The inspection of bulls will remain so that bulls of the mongrel or nondescript kind would not get licences in the future. I believe this to be a definite step forward, taking account of the developments in animal science throughout the world, lessons from countries like Australia, especially, as well as North America; and I think it would be a great pity if your Lordships did not support the Government in this matter.
LORD WISE: Before the noble Baroness replies, although there is nothing much more than I can add, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I have in fact spoken with several of the leading herd owners in my own locality, and I think they arc fairly unanimous in their opinion that it would perhaps be a backward step to ease the existing regulations. They seem to think that we have gone to considerable lengths to reach the present high standard of breeding which we now have, and that it would be wrong not to continue. This is especially so in dairy breeds. It must be insufficient to rely entirely upon the colouring and conformation of the beast, and it is essential to know something of its breeding background and the records of its parents and ancestors. I think we should seriously consider this Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: May I say one word to support the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in his defence of the scientific approach? The breed societies have, of course, done a great deal in a rather roundabout way to include cattle, but the business of having a number of criteria which are irrelevant to performance is only now beginning to be eliminated. If you have however beautiful a Hereford with a

217
black nose it will get nowhere, and I believe that this House in 1971 ought to stand firm against any form of the licensing of bulls which depends at all heavily upon inspection by eye.
LORD KILBRACKEN: If the bull has a black nose he will not get a licence.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Why not?
LORD KILBRACKEN: Because he is not of sufficiently good appearance.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Exactly; and that, with respect, is ridiculous.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think we all agree that we have had a fascinating debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, can be quite content because he has had a good deal of support. But there has also been almost the same number who have held the opposite view. He has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, my noble friend Lord Daventry and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, but I am happy to say that everybody else who has spoken was in favour of the provision as it stands in the Bill. We seem to have these two divisions of opinion: the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, seems to think that we have gone too far, and many of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, think it is about time—or at any rate it is the right mean. I remember very well on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford saying that it was quite time that we abolished bull licensing completely. We have tried to get a right balance.
The Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, really perpetuates the current arrangements under which cross-bred bulls are not licensed for breeding, but the Government believe that this ban on cross-bred bulls should end, so that the breeder may have more freedom to select a bull which he thinks fits his particular purpose, whether it be pure-bred or cross-bred. On the other hand I should like to give an assurance to those noble Lords who have questioned the results of these arrangements. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues have had full discussions
218
with bull breeders about these proposals on bull licensing, and the bull breeders accepted that the modified bull licensing arrangements will provide the necessary safeguards against damage, which of course everybody recognises might otherwise be caused by the use of bulls with inferior conformation or with hereditary defects, or indeed diseased bulls. Here I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that in the course of these consultations an assurance was given to the breeders that if any crosses gave rise to serious abnormalities or defects the Ministers would refuse to license them; and they have powers under the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931.
The noble Lord asked about the implications of our joining the European Community. No doubt he will know that there is not as yet any agreed policy, or, as they would put it, any harmonisation of livestock improvement policies. In the present Community there are very wide differences in livestock policies. For example, Belgium, France and Germany have bull licensing arrangements, but Holland, Norway and Denmark do not. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, gave a very fair view, I thought, when he said that one wanted to get the right mean between pedigree and performance; and this is really what we are trying to do in this clause. He then, unfortunately, if I heard him correctly, said that he would like to see the abolition of Life Peers, which would be a fearful affair, if we take only the number here at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Burton thought it would be an embarrassment if one's own veterinary officer had to come along and say that one's own premises were not hygienic enough. This point is being discussed with those concerned; we have realised that there is a point here. I thought my noble friend would like this assurance. My noble friend Lord Balerno spoke in a very learned way on what he would technically call hybrid vigour, which is the common term used, and I am sure that he is right. He was the only speaker in the debate who drew attention to the enormous advances which have been made in artificial insemination. It is because the circumstances are changing all the time that we feel that we have tried to get the right balance between

219
those who would have no alteration in the present arrangements and those who would like to have entire abolition of licensing. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I must admit that I took slight exception to the fact that, having listed three or four noble Lords who had spoken in my favour, she then said that everyone else was opposed to this proposal. Everyone else consisted of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and my noble friend Lord Donaldson, so that the "everyone else" was two in number, unless you consider the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who is rather sitting on the fence, perhaps more in my favour than against me.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but if we count them, there was first the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. Then I understood the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to be in favour of this, as was my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. My noble friend Lord Burton was not against it; and, of course, there is me, too.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The noble Baroness had not spoken at that moment, and her noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard did not voice a very positive opinion on the matter. However, let that pass. To take what one or two noble Lords said, Lord Nunburnholme was talking about the great desirability of having not only pedigree, but performance combined with pedigree. I certainly agree that that is desirable wherever possible. If I am buying a bull, as I shall in February, one of the main things I look for is size and bone, particularly size; I want a large bull. This is a factor that an inspecting officer should certainly take into account when deciding to license the calf or not. He will see what size it is and if he thinks it is not big enough he should certainly refuse to give a licence on those grounds. Unfortunately, it is not possible—except when we are talking about artificial insemination, which I will come to in a moment—to know what the bull's performance is going to be, what his progeny is going to be like, at the moment when a decision about a
220
licence has to be taken, because if it is a thoroughbred this will not be known for three or four years, and by then it will be too late.
But this is not the case with artificial insemination, because the semen can be stored indefinitely. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised the question of artificial insemination. It is very important; it has altered breeding habits a lot. I do not like it, for various reasons. I find that my heifers do not look for the bull so quickly when they are on their own, and also the bull knows better than I do what is the right time for service to take place. I find that the females, apart from being much more satisfied with the bull, get into calf more quickly and do not turn to the bull as often. I do not really follow what was the noble Lord's purpose in bringing up the question of artificial insemination, because I do not think he is saying that semen from crossbred bulls should be allowed for artificial insemination; and therefore pedigree cattle are still as important, or more important than ever. Apart from that, and the fact that the existence of artificial insemination makes possession of a bull less important for a number of breeders prepared to use insemination, I do not quite see the relevance to my point of his remarks about artificial insemination.
The noble Lord also alleged that the mongrel bull really badly bred would not be given a licence. On this point I must draw the Committee's attention to the wording of the 1931 Act, and the noble Lord must be already well acquainted with it because he worked on it. This is the Act to which the industry will now be returned. The Act is quite specific; it says that the Minister may refuse to grant a licence for three very particular reasons:
"… if the bull appears to him to be of defective or inferior conformation and likely …"
not "or likely" but "and likely"—
"… to beget defective or inferior progeny, or permanently affected with any contagious or infectious disease, or permanently affected with any other disease rendering the bull unsuitable for breeding purposes."
Therefore, if it is a healthy animal, so long as it is not of defective or inferior conformation the inspecting officer may not refuse the licence. Those are the only grounds on which the licence may be refused.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Surely the inspecting officer will be something of a genius if he can really tell whether an animal is going to breed badly. Nobody else can. Most of the really lethal characteristics are not observable in any way. It is a lot of nonsense.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Does my noble friend mean the Act of 1931?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Yes.
LORD KILBRACKEN: This is the Act to which the Government are determined to return; after all the progress of 40 years they are determined to return to the Act of 1931. If the noble Lord thinks that it is nonsense to do what the Government are proposing to do, he should have been supporting me and not opposing me.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Is the noble Lord telling me that if I say that the suggestion that an inspector can tell whether a bull will breed well or badly is nonsense, I am supporting the noble Lord? I thought he was in favour of keeping this inspection, which I thought the Government were diminishing without altogether abolishing.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The Government are setting up different criteria for deciding whether a bull should be licensed or not. If it is a healthy bull, the only thing that the examining officer may consider is whether in his opinion it is of defective or inferior conformation and likely to beget defective or inferior progeny. That is what the Act says. I did not write it.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I think it is ridiculous, whether the noble Lord wrote it or not.
LORD KILBRACKEN: That is the ridiculous Act, to which my noble friend is referring, to which the Government now wish to return. Despite the wide support that I have received from all parts of the House, I feel that it would be more profitable for me to return as soon as possible to my Herefords. I therefore do not propose to press my Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.14:
Page 9, line 27, at end insert ("and after examination by a qualified veterinary surgeon").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.14. This particular subsection makes provision to allow animals to be imported into Great Britain and to be landed without being slaughtered if they are intended for exhibition or for other exceptional purposes. And it says:
"after the words 'exceptional purposes' there shall be inserted the words 'or, in the case of cattle, sheep or swine, intended for use in breeding'".
We propose to add,
"and after examination by a qualified veterinary surgeon".
We realise of course that when these animals come in there is a check on landing. Here again I do not need to stress the importance of safeguarding against any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, or indeed brucellosis. In addition to the words in the subsection we thought it right to add that they would of course have to be examined by the veterinary surgeon, in order to prevent any further spread or introduction of either of these diseases.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: What about tuberculosis'?
LORD HOY: Of course this applies to tuberculosis as well. If the veterinary surgeon is carrying out the investigations laid down by this clause and discovers any of these things, we think this would help to preserve the health of our own cattle population. Certainly it would prevent the introduction of any of these diseases, if in fact the animals were found to be so suffering by the veterinary surgeon. I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the Government. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The Amendment commends itself in the sense that it is unnecessary because the requirements are already there. Inspection is required under the Animals Importation Order 1930, which requires that they should be inspected by a qualified veterinary surgeon before landing; and every import

223
of animals under Section 27 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 has to be, and will continue to be, authorised by separate Order made by Ministers and providing for all necessary veterinary requirements. I am glad that the noble Lord has raised the point, because he has given me an opportunity to give this assurance to the Committee.
LORD HOY: We are grateful for the explanation. If it does no more than this, it draws attention once more to what in fact are the rules. This is very necessary in connection with this part of the industry. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No.15:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Law relating to agricultural tied cottages.
"Section 99(2) of the Agriculture Act 1970 (which, subject to certain conditions, allows the owner of an agricultural tied cottage to obtain possession as against an occupier under a former tenancy) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the late date at which I tabled this Amendment. It is in fact a Scottish matter. Prior to 1970 there was very little trouble over service cottages in Scotland. Over many years' experience I have never heard of a case of hardship. However, in the Agriculture Act 1970 the last Government saw fit to alter the law. There was a substantial debate in your Lordships' House on this matter, but unfortunately, in spite of the strongest arguments against any alteration of the law, the Government of the day saw fit to makes the changes at present ruling. Several noble Lords can now say to the Opposition, "I told you so. I told you it was going to be bad legislation".
During our debate last week on the Scottish economy I drew attention to this problem, for since the 1970 Act I have no fewer than five men no longer employed by me who have refused to leave my properties. I stress that I may have been unlucky in this matter, but the fact remains that I have had considerable
224
difficulty. I need scarcely stress the disorganisation which this can cause on farms and estates. Indeed, the disorganisation has spread beyond my own property, because I was unable to house a man who was to come to the neighbouring estate. Apart from disorganisation of employers' work it is causing considerable inconvenience to employees.
I have had cases in two different sheriffdoms conducted for me by two different lawyers. Both lawyers have emphasised that the law has been tilted in a quite unwarranted manner against the employer. I should like in particular to draw attention to the word "shall" in the 1970 Act. The Act says,
"the court shall suspend the execution of the order",
which I gather ties the sheriff's hands. I know that the Act has not been long in existence, but, as has been foretold, it has been proved to be bad legislation. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted to allow us to revert to the situation which existed previously for very many years with, so far as I am aware, practically no ill effects. Just now there was moved an Amendment to a clause in which the Government wished to return to the position under the 1931 Act. I wish to return to the situation as it was in 1969. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks about the position of veterinary officers and bull licensing. I hope that she can be as kind over this Amendment. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I support this Amendment. My noble friend spoke of five or six late employees of his who remained in their houses and of the fact that he could not employ others to do the work. This bears extremely hardly on a small farmer who perhaps employs only one or two men. If the man he is employing suddenly gives in his notice and sits on in his house for six months, as he can, or even eight months, it is almost impossible for the small farmer to farm his land. Of course you eventually get the man out of the house, but that may take a year. Then he can appeal against eviction. He may appeal twice, He can appeal against the order. This process can also be very expensive for the farmer if he has to pay the court fees. Therefore, I support my noble friend in his Amendment.
LORD HOY: I hope the noble Baroness will not accept this Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. I am always surprised, when we come to clauses of this kind, that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, produces at least half-a-dozen cottages and people who want to occupy them. The last time we discussed this subject on Scottish employment last week, he was telling us that he could not get people. One of the great surprises of his life, with all the unemployment, was that he could not find workers. If he cannot find workers, he cannot possibly find occupants for the cottages. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is also always producing people of this kind, and all within six months or a year of the Act having been passed.
I would remind noble Lords of some of the iniquities that people who were employees and who were tenants had to suffer. Indeed, just over a year ago—and this case, I think, had a considerable bearing on the Government of the day, in leading them to take this action—a farmer and his wife and son who farmed a tenanted farm in the North had improved the farm beyond all bounds. In the course of their tenancy they had worked so hard that they had converted what was merely bracken into good arable land. It was a first-class job in every way and there was no complaint. Then the father died, and even before he was buried the owner was saying, "Get out" to the son and the mother. This cannot be denied, as it was in the Press. So they were left without any protection at all. I know that there are people who will abuse certain rules, but I beg noble Lords to believe that love can produce evidence of hardship of this kind, and that is why action was taken. I am not arguing that there are not one or two people who will take advantage, and will take over a tenancy under the pretext of doing a certain job and then not do it. But I am certain that in the past many people were the victims of the masters who employed them, and what happened was absolutely unforgivable. That is why the Government took action to give those persons some protection under the law.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I have to say to my noble friend Lord Burton that I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I think
226
he will agree that it is not very long since the 1970 Act was passed, when there was a great deal of discussion about this matter, both in another place and in this House. At the end of the day a compromise was arrived at which sought to take into account the problems about which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, have told your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Burton admitted that he tabled this Amendment rather late. I must ask him to be so good as to withdraw it, not for that reason, or because this is a very difficult question, but because I do not think the 1970 Act has had long enough to work.
LORD BURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is on a completely wrong tack. He was talking about tenanted farms as opposed to service cottages, which is a completely different subject. However, I am most disappointed at the reply of my noble friend because, although the Act has been in operation for only two years, I thought I had made absolutely clear what enormous difficulties it has caused, as was foretold before it became law. Therefore I hope that before Report stage—because I understand that it may be difficult to get some legislation on this matter in the near future, and because this is a matter of urgency—the Government will consult the industry, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the National Farmers' Union and, indeed, the legal fraternity to see what complications have already arisen over this matter. There is also no reason why they should not get statistics from the Agricultural Workers' Union, though I doubt whether they could produce very good ones. I hope my noble friend will do that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Conditions applicable to land where amalgamation or boundary adjustment has been assisted by a grant or loan]:
7.14 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.16:
Page 13, line 12, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to cases where land transactions have taken place. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, rather twitted us about the changes in time that have taken place, and he went on to say how he and some others had pointed out the difficulties. I am bound to say that as we made the changes they always met with the approval of both sides of the House. The Government now propose to substitute five years for 15 years, and we wonder whether this is the correct period. There is always a great temptation to speculators to develop land; they might even want to hold on to it for five years and then dispose of it. Perhaps the Government have a very good reply to this argument, but if they have not maybe they will look again at this matter. Can they assure us that there will be no danger if these changes are made, and that we shall not have a series of troubles from speculators? I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is very difficult to get the period of years exactly right. As the noble Lord said earlier, the original period was 40 years and this was reduced to 15 years. It is really a matter of judgment whether the period should be 10 years or five years. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was worried about speculators, but should have thought they would be able to operate just as well after 10 years as they would after five years. A period of five years is probably just enough to allow an amalgamation to settle down. After all, five years is quite a long time if one thinks of it in terms of one's lifetime, and a great deal can happen. Although I recognise that it is a matter of judgment, I think that five years is about right in view of the experiences which we had earlier.
LORD HOY: I do not want to press this Amendment, but I was not consoled by the noble Baroness's argument that 10 years are the same as five years. As she well knows, a lot can happen in five years. In that time we came from another place to this House, which may have been an epoch-making event for this place or for the other place. I do not accept the noble Baroness's argument, and I do not believe that a restraint of five years is the same
228
as a restraint of 10 years. But in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Increase in advances to Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd.]:
7.18 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.17:
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: I hasten to assure your Lordships that it is millions of pounds that we are discussing under this Amendment. It would be interesting to have some recent figures showing how much the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have had voted to them by the Government, how many applications they have had for loans, and how they have been able to meet them. I understand that there has been a great demand for cash. Indeed, I have never been to an agricultural debate when I have not been assured that we can get expansion only if farmers can get their hands on some capital at reasonable terms of interest. The Government have asked the whole of the farming community to prepare for the changes which may have to take place if we enter the E.E.C., and considerable sums of money may be required if the farmers are to equip their farms to meet the new challenge. If this is so, we want to know whether £5 million is enough. It may well be that it is, but we should be better able to judge if we could see what the demands had been over the past five years and how they have been met.
The Government have laid down the figure of £5 million. We simply take the figure, but we should like an explanation of how it has been reached. We have a feeling that if we are going to develop, if we are going into the E.E.C., it may well be that £5 million is not enough, and that £10 million would be a better figure. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Champion was saying a little while ago, this is pretty much the same argument, "five or ten", but whether one is right or wrong is, of course, a matter of judgment. However, we thought that £10

229
million might be a better figure in this connection. After all, we shall not get too many Bills in the course of this Parliament, because if we go into the E.E.C. obviously a considerable part of the legislative time is going to be taken up in dealing with Bills required for that purpose. So in all the circumstances we thought that if we made provision for £10 million it would take us over the period during which we should be entering the Market. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: I think I can give the noble Lord the figures he wants. Since 1967 the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has been advanced £7 million by the Government, and now we are talking about another £5 million, which the noble Lord wants tentatively to make another £10 million. That £5 million will enable the A.M.C. to raise about £67 million on the market; and £10 million would enable them to raise about £140 million, or a little less. The sort of figures which have been lent out over the past few years are: 1966– 67, £19 million, or nearly £20 million; 1967– 68, just over £21 million; 1968– 69, £31 million; 1969–70,631 million; 1970– 71, £24 million. We reckon that the £5 million, which will enable the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to raise about £67 million, will last them about three years. I am not sure whether the noble Lord's Amendment has been set down because he does not think that £67 million will be enough for the period of about three years, or whether he thinks that we should lend them enough to raise money which will last for a longer period of time. Ten million pounds would last them for about six years. The reason why we want to provide enough money to last three years is twofold. First, there may be changes as a result of our going into the Common Market; and, secondly, because the Wilson Report on Capital and Credit for Agriculture is expected at the end of the year. For this reason we feel that the right sort of figure is £5 million.
LORD HOY: I like the last part of the noble Lord's reply better than the first. I think it is a very good thing to be said, if somebody is working on a subject like the Wilson Report, that we can expect it within that short period of time. We are grateful for the information that it is going to come so quickly, so we do not need to make long-term
230
provision. If it had not been for that, I should have wanted to argue a little further, because as I counted up the sums given by the noble Lord they amounted to something like £127 million over the years he mentioned, so we should be running things pretty narrowly if we did not make changes. However, I accept the explanation. I am grateful for the concluding part of the noble Lord's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Increase of fines]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.18:
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("five hundred").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with penalties in connection with pollution and poisonous substances. It is not very often that I move Amendments to increase penalties, but on this occasion I do so because we all know we are faced with an ever-increasing problem, the problem of pollution. The Government say, "All right; we will face it. For anybody guilty of causing pollution we will increase the fine from £50 to £100". It seems to me that to put it up to £100 as from 1972 does not meet the situation at the present time, and I am fortified in my opinion by an article which appeared in the Observer on Sunday—a couple of days ago—on the rise in river pollution. This is what it said:
"River pollution by oil and pesticides is rising sharply. A survey of 28 of the 33 river authorities in England, Wales and Scotland reveals that the average number of reported incidents of oil pollution rose 12-fold between 1959 and 1970. Pollution by pesticides rose five-fold."
These figures, I think, are taken from a report, but it is a survey by Mrs. Pauline Marstrand of the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, so I do not think the figures are in question.
This is the size of the problem with which we are confronted, and it seems to me, therefore, that a fine of £100 is not going to deter a man. I take the opposite view to this particular article. Here, the lady was producing a report

231
and saying, "We are spending so much on pollution, whereas we should be spending it on research to prevent it." But in fact we could be preventing the pollution itself. It seems to me—and we know this—that people carelessly take an insecticide tin and simply chuck it in the river, and the damage it can do is enormous. if you multiply it two or three times, it is even more enormous. So all we are saying in this Amendment is that perhaps we ought to increase the penalty, not from £50 to £100 but to a maximum of £500. It does not mean that every time an offender appears the man on the bench is going to impose the maximum fine; but we consider that it is rather curtailing the remedy when you say that, no matter how bad the case is, the offender will never be allowed to be fined more than £100.
May I bring in two other arguments to support my case? Quite recently the Government have produced legislation—the Oil in Navigable Waters Act—in which they took considerable powers, and I can tell your Lordships that some of the fines for which they have made provision are really frightening. As against that, I would say that our figure is far too small. I do not know what attention the Government have given to this matter, but it seems to me that £100 as a maximum fine is too small for the purpose. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: Before the noble Lord's Amendment is formally put, may I point out that as I understand it this particular clause does not refer to pollution but to offences about safety on the farm.
LORD HOY: Perhaps I have taken the point too early; I am sorry if I have. I am dealing with Clause 14. This matter concerns the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act and the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, which provide that a person guilty of an offence under either of those Acts shall be liable to a fine. I was saying that a person could be fined up to only £100. I do not want to take up too much time over the matter, but if a man took an empty tin which had contained a pesticide and committed a certain act, then he would be guilty of this offence and he would not be deterred by a fine of that size. When he behaved in this
232
way the fine should be a maximum of £500 in place of £100 suggested by the Government.
LORD DENHAM: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will not press his Amendment on this point. We feel that there are good reasons why a figure of double the existing fine would be right. As your Lordships are aware, the two safety Acts, and the regulations made under them, give rise to a considerable number of possible offences whose effects range from the relatively minor to the very serious. For example, at one end of the scale we have the offence of failing to provide in the first-aid box every single item of the dressings and other equipment specified in the regulation. At the other end we have such offences as failing to guard very dangerous machinery. While the gravity of the latter offence may make it a likely candidate for the maximum penalty, it would be contrary to the established practice to identify the minor type of contravention with the kind of malpractice which may call for a deterrent in the £500 range. I should say that a £500 maximum would not in any case be possible, because under Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the maximum fine which may be imposed by magistrates in England and Wales on summary trial of an indictable offence is £400. That is a minor point.
The noble Lord may think that we should have some form of sliding scale. It might be possible to have some variation in maximum penalties, but if any of the penalties were set at a really punitive level he might contend that there should be further differentials in respect of offences by workers and by employers, both of whom have responsibilities under the legislation. All this could add up to a very complicated structure of fines, and its introduction would undoubtedly involve protracted discussions with the farmers' and workers' unions and other interested parties. Noble Lords are doubtless aware that the Roberts Committee on Safety and Health at Work is investigating all aspects of the safety of workers in all industries, including the agricultural industry, and its Report is expected to be available next year. We do not think it right for the Government to introduce major structural changes in the penalty provisions for

233
safety offences before the Committee reports and before its recommendations have been considered by Ministers.
Moreover, the noble Lord's £500 ceiling soars above the maximum provided for the most serious offences under, for example, the Factories Act, where the upper limit for an employer is £300 and for a worker £75. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that agricultural offenders should not be chastised so much more heavily than those who commit comparable offences in other sectors of industry. Equally the Government are convinced that the present level of the maximum fine is too low and that it would be wrong to wait any longer before doing something positive to redress the situation. The increase from £50 to £100 under both the Acts dealing with agricultural safety proposed in the Bill will restore the penalty to something like the original value when those Acts were introduced nearly twenty years ago, and will also bring penalties for offences in agriculture more into line with those for safety offences in other industries. I can assure the noble Lord that the agricultural Ministers regard farm safety and the enforcement of the safety legislation as very important matters on which we need the wholehearted support of all sections of the agricultural industry. I think we can fairly claim that all parties concerned, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, would go along with the 100 per cent. increase we are proposing, although the farmers' organisations would probably prefer something less and the workers' organisations something more. This in itself strengthens me in the view that we have probably struck the right balance, and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I do not always like taking an average, and saying that as the employers want less and the workers want more, I have got in between and therefore I must be right. However, I accept the explanation of the noble Lord arid beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for intimating the date when we are going to have the Report of one further Committee. If we have done nothing else to-day we have provided a lot of information
234
for the agricultural world which they have failed to get otherwise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Abolition of requirements that dealings and returns relating to corn must be in hundredweights]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No.19:
Page 15, line 29, after first ("order") insert ("but which shall not exceed the weight of one hundred and eighty imperial standard pounds").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.19. I do not know who will reply to this Amendment. The noble Lord will not be surprised to see it on the Order Paper. I raised this point during Second Reading because it was one raised by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. At present, there is a limit laid down as to what they might be allowed to lift. I have had an explanation from the noble Lord by correspondence, for which I am grateful, but I would say that it is the feeling in the Agricultural Workers' Union that we might again be laying down a weight if changes are to be made, and it is solely for that purpose that the Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: The purpose of Clause 17(2) is purely to enable Ministers to prescribe that statutory corn returns shall remain in units other than in the hundredweights used at present. The reason for the change is that trade usually takes place in units larger than hundredweights. The dealing is in say, tons, but the returns have to be expressed as 20 hundredweights rather than one ton. One hundredweight has become inconveniently small and results in unnecessarily cumbersome figures in these statistical returns.
The Amendment proposed would restrict the new unit to a maximum of 180 lb. and would defeat the object of streamlining these returns so that they can be made quickly and efficiently and in accordance with current trade practice as to weights of units of sale. I am aware that in proposing a weight of 180 lb. the noble Lord has in mind the maximum weight, as he explained to your Lordships, that an agricultural worker

235
may carry. I should therefore like to assure him that there is no connection between this piece of legislation and the Agricultural (Lifting of Heavy Weights) Regulations 1939. The corn returns unit is prescribed solely for the purpose of these paper returns and in no way affects sacks of grain which agricultural workers have to carry and which will continue to be governed by the Regulations to which I have referred.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has in mind that at present most sacks are about the hundredweight weight, and perhaps he feels that if a larger weight than the hundredweight is dealt in people may probably find it convenient to have sacks which will hold the larger weight. It is very unlikely that if a larger weight is specified, such as a ton, it would be anything approaching the sort of weight which any man could begin to move by himself. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention of the 180 lb. limit being increased in any way.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I promised the Agricultural Workers' Union that I would raise this point. They have given it considerable thought. It was only recently that they were awarded this protection under a weight-lifting order. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It gives the union the assurance they have asked for, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to. Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Abolition of agricultural executive committees etc.]:
7.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: I wish to raise a point on Clause 19. This clause abolishes the agricultural executive committees. One thing which surprised me was the enthusiasm with which this proposal was greeted by noble Lords opposite. I raised some objection at the time because I felt that, while their work had diminished considerably, they still established a useful contact for the Minister in the areas
236
spread throughout the country. In fact, in a way the agricultural executive committees could convey to the Minister what the areas were thinking. I then raised the question of the liaison officers because I have always felt that whatever else might be said of the work of the committees, the liaison officers were doing a first-class job. I was told that the Minister proposed to set up regional panels. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for sending me the list of regions and of those designated as chairmen of these regions.
I want to know how the panels are to be set up. While this clause takes the power to abolish the committees, it does not take power to set up these panels. Will legislation be necessary, or has the Minister the power to do this and to make the appointments? It seems to me that if he is going to set up regional panels he must have some power to do so. If he does not have the power, here is an admirable opportunity to put in another clause in this Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to give him that power. Unless he does that we are in a vacuum; the liaison officers will have gone and the panels cannot be set up. I shall be grateful to know whether it can be done without legislation.
LORD DENHAM: I can tell the noble Lord that these panels will be non-statutory advisory panels and that there will therefore be no need for legislation to set them up.
LORD HOY: I must say that that does not create a great deal of confidence in them. However, we will look at that reply and perhaps at a later stage I may come back to it. I am not altogether sure that that reply is going to give these panels which are taking the place, in a non-statutory capacity, both of the agricultural executive committees and of the liaison officers, any strength at all. It is the first time that we have had that answer. We do not know quite what it means; but we accept it for the time being and reserve the right to come back to it.
LORD BURTON: May I ask what is the position regarding the brake that the agricultural executive committees previously put on planning authorities, particularly where housing was concerned?

237
This is worrying to the agricultural communities in relation to the withdrawal of the agricultural executive committees.
LORD DENHAM: I will look at that point and write to my noble friend. At the moment I do not have the information he wants.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Abolition of agricultural wages committees in Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: This clause abolishes agricultural wages committees in Scotland. I raised this question on Second Reading and since then I have been in touch with the trade unions concerned. The Government decision displeases them intensely. These wages committees serve a very useful purpose; but the Secretary of State, for some reason that I do not understand, has decided to abolish them. May I say to the noble Baroness that I am grateful for the letter; but even with that explanation it is not very good from the workers' point of view. Here was one point of contact between the workers and the Minister. The noble Baroness says—and I think that what she says should be spelled out in public—that certain functions will be left behind that will be transferred to the Secretary of State and that he will carry out the functions previously carried out by the wages committees. I am certain that those noble Lords from Scotland—and, as I said last week, we are not only good speakers but good listeners—will be grateful to hear from the noble Baroness exactly what the Secretary of State will be taking over from the wages committees after they have been abolished.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think I can do no better than I did before. I tried to put it briefly and in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who raised this question on Second Reading. The agricultural wages committees in Scotland have three main functions. First, that of investigating applications for permits of exemption from the statutory minimum rate in respect of handicapped workers; second, that of recommending for a tied house a different value from that laid down in a board's wages order as its cash equivalent
238
as part of a minimum wage; and, third, that of approving an agreement for a premium to an employer in respect of an apprentice or learner. So far as the recommendations for a tied house are concerned, applications have been extremely rare; and cases of approving an agreement for a premium to an employer in respect of an apprentice and learner have been nil. Therefore, the main function which remains is the investigation of applications for exemption permits and the issue and review of those permits. If an employer and an employee, for example, cannot be brought by the inspector to agree over permit rates, the Inspectorate will consult local representatives from both the worker's and the employer's unions and carry out with them such local farm visits as are necessary.
The wages and safety Inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (of which there are nine district wage and safety inspectorates) will take on the functions of this Committee. I should like to say that the wages board has been broadly representative of the various interests of the industry and its members are drawn from most areas. The board will continue to be under a statutory obligation to publicise in the Press and otherwise proposals for new wages orders and to consider any recommendations before the order is made. I should have thought that there were plenty of opportunities for expression of local views but it is generally thought that however valuable people's services have been—and I pay a tribute to the services that have been made—there comes a time when the situation changes. It is for this reason that we felt it was perhaps wise to do it in this way.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has

239
indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No.43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOWL PEST
7.51 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the recommendations in Cmnd.4797, they will proceed without delay to promote a full scale research programme into fowl pest virus. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question set down in my name on the Order Paper concerning the problem of fowl pest and the White Paper on this Newcastle disease epidemic of 1970– 71. I should first declare my interest. I have an interest in my family farm, where we have large flocks of breeders, and therefore I have a commercial interest in the industry. This epidemic of the past year has recorded nearly 7,000 outbreaks which have involved some 42 million birds. To that must be added an unknown number not notified but certainly large.
The financial loss from this epidemic has not been quantified, but noble Lords may have been interested to see in The Times to-day a figure of £20 million as the estimated loss for the industry over the past year. I would think that it was quite that. This epidemic has of course meant disaster for thousands of poultry keepers who have been put out of business, and it has meant a very considerable economic loss for the country. I make the comparison on these figures with the Oswestry outbreak of foot and mouth disease three years ago. Then the economic loss was comparable; if my memory serves me right, something of the order of £25 million was involved in compensation. This has been a major disaster for the poultry industry.
I should like to thank the Government for the White Paper, and particularly to thank the panel members from the poultry industry who helped the civil servants
240
who made up the panel. Let me say immediately that the White Paper is satisfactory, so far as it goes. My complaint is that it does not go far enough. If I may contrast it with the Report of the Northumberland Committee following the foot-and-mouth outbreak, noble Lords will see what a very mild document it is—compiled, indeed composed, as it was by a Committee inside the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a very different inquiry from an independent inquiry such as that of the Northumberland Committee.
As I say, my Lords, I do not disagree with its findings; my objective is to give emphasis to them and to fill in some omissions. My main objective is to ask Her Majesty's Government to promote a full-scale research programme into this devastating virus. I agree with every word of paragraph 123 of the White Paper which deals with this subject. Of course I accept that it would take, and will take, some time before the fruits of a full-scale research programme mature, but we should get them eventually. May I briefly recall my own experience with this devastating virus? I happened to be Chairman of the National Farmers Union Poultry Committee in 1947 when the first outbreak occurred, and so I was brought into the picture at that time to give a lead to the industry to co-operate with the introduction of the slaughter and compensation policy. Not very long afterwards, in 1951, I became Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, and for several years I had experience of the administration of the policy.
During those years I felt increasing doubt about the wisdom of the policy because I became increasingly convinced that it would be impossible ever to slaughter out the virus from the flocks in this country. The existence of very large numbers of small domestic flocks and all kinds of other creatures made it, to my mind, impossible and therefore money was being wasted. After I was out of Government, in 1960, I took the liberty of giving advice to the Minister of Agriculture of the day on a personal basis—the Minister was my noble friend Lord Blakenham. I advised that he should consider ending this slaughter and compensation policy, which was then costing some £15 million to £20 million, and should introduce vaccination. He set up

241
the Plant Committee, and in due course they recommended that he should do this and so it was done. I mention this, my Lords, because it may show the strength of my interest in this matter, not only from my commercial point of view, but also from the viewpoint of the interest of the industry as a whole.
I think there has been a disposition in some quarters in the Ministry of Agriculture to blame the poultry industry for the current epidemic, on the grounds that it has been caused by the decreasing level of vaccination. I should make the point that this is gross over-simplification. Certainly the level of vaccination had seriously fallen by 1970 when the outbreak occurred. Equally certainly, had it been well maintained, probably the epidemic would not have started, or would not have been so severe. The point is that the reasons for the fall-off in vaccination were far more complex than that. It is a fact that the dead vaccine which was authorised at that time was completely unsuitable for broiler flocks. As my noble friend who will answer the debate well knows, they go for slaughter at 8 weeks to 10 weeks of age. The dead vaccine, which is administered by hypodermic would be physically too large to put into a day-old chick and secondly the dead vaccine—indeed any vaccine—could not be relied on to take in the first two to four weeks of the chicks' life because of the interference of parental antibodies; or this is the belief in a field where research is still very much needed.
The first dose could not normally be given before two to four weeks of age. Then, a further seven to 14 days would be needed before immunity was conferred. All this means that the bird would be about four weeks of age before immunity could be conferred on it. It was therefore understandable that many broiler growers considered that if the bird survived the first half of its life without getting the disease it was hardly worth going to the expense—which is quite significant in an industry which has a very small margin of profit—and the trouble of vaccinating it to cover the second half of its life. So much for the broilers, my Lords, where undoubtedly the incidence of vaccination was lowest.
In the layers, vaccination was much higher, although the cost was high. There were three vaccinations at point of lay
242
and then every three months during laying; and every bird had to be handled and the hypodermic applied to it. So it was quite expensive, but still it could be done for commercial birds laying in batteries, where they could be easily handled. Vaccination was impossible with breeding flocks because they could not be picked up from the floor without putting them all out of lay. Thus, after the breeding flocks had had their injections at point of lay it was impossible to give them another injection throughout their lives. So it is now evident, my Lords, that the dead vaccine, although quite good in theory, had serious practical defects which were not fully understood when it was introduced in 1965. Therefore the conclusion must be that the responsibility for the 1970 epidemic was a joint one: the poultry industry was responsible because of laxity in vaccination and the Ministry of Agriculture because of lack of research into the virus and, more important still, the epidemiology.
To turn to the present position, my Lords, the virus is now endemic; we have got it with us and we shall have to live with it. Therefore an effective vaccination policy is basic to the life of the poultry flocks in this country. They produce something like £300 million worth of food a year. The Ministry of Agriculture has approved now two live vaccines, Hitchler B.1 and La Sota, and these have been of great help to the industry in giving additional protection. But this is very far from providing a complete answer. Live vaccine has the major advantage that there can be mass application, instead of individual application by hypodermic, so it is cheaper, easier and universal in application. But as with all live vaccines, there are dangers of side effects and dangers of incorrect application. Whatever these may be, it is hard to say precisely, but we do know that in the field there continue to be many reports of breakdown of immunity in fully vaccinated flocks, which then go down with the disease. There has been and there still is great confusion in the field and much more needs to be done in connection with the various types of vaccine and their correct application. Here I should say a word of welcome to the new pamphlet that the Ministry has just issued, giving comprehensive advice for the first time on the application of vaccine methods. This should be of great help

243
in due course, though it has come out about a year late. Evidently much more needs to be learned about the types of vaccine and their application before we can feel any confidence in the protection of our flocks.
I turn to the present research effort. Appendix E of the White Paper sets out a schedule of the work being done. These headings, as I am sure noble Lords will recognise, cover everything which a research programme should include. The vital questions are how much work has been done under each of these headings, how many scientists have been working on each project and for how long, and what is the annual expenditure. I have seen a figure that indicates that the total annual expenditure at Weybridge on all poultry diseases is of the order of £150,000, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to give answers to these vital questions.
The only absolute indication I have of the volume of work being done are the publications. I have looked at them and I find that some 14 have been done, of which four were done jointly with scientists outside the Weybridge laboratory. This is mighty little publication compared to the field in which I am interested, in foot-and-mouth disease, where there have been not 14 but literally hundreds and shelves-full of publications over the years. So I should like to compare for one moment the size of this research effort with the research effort on foot-and-mouth. Here I must declare another interest, as chairman of the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pir-bright, where I actually have a direct connection with these matters. There we have a first-class research station, set up to give protection to our clovenhooved livestock. We have some 31 scientific officers, all graduates, employed there on this work and they are mainly employed in research on foot-and-mouth. They do work on other viruses as well, but mainly on foot-and-mouth, on which they spend some two-thirds of a million pounds per annum. There is a comprehensive team of virologists, veterinarians, biologists, biochemists, geneticists, physiologists and epidemiologists, especially since the Northumberland Report, and they are continuously at work. They have done this for some 30 or 40 years
244
and they are still learning. Viruses are very difficult to study and it means constant work by a comprehensive team, so that better vaccines can be evolved.
There is a secondary benefit in that not only is this of benefit to this country but also to the Commonwealth and indeed to the world. Our research station plays a major part—indeed, I suppose it is the leading foot-and-mouth research station in the world. The purpose of this station is to defend us against the virus that we do not have here, where we are able to slaughter it out. Here I am comparing this station and the research effort we put in on a virus we do not have in this country, with the research effort which is being put in on fowl pest, on a virus which we do have in this country, an effort which, in my judgment, compares very unfavourably with it. I think it makes the point that a very much bigger research programme is needed on fowl pest, if we are to have any advance in our understanding of the virus and how to manufacture adequate vaccines and vaccination techniques and a whole epidemiology of vaccine, in order to get adequate protection for our flocks.
My advice on development would be that there should be developed at the A.R.C. research station at Houghton, where there is already a good team of scientists, assembled under my old friend Dr. Gordon—already doing much valuable work for the poultry industry, especially in virology—a fowl pest research on top of their other work on poultry diseases. In my opinion this would make the best use of this very scarce commodity of scientists who are specialists in poultry diseases, because it really comes down to the problem of finding the experts to deal with these esoteric matters. That is the reason for my advice to get the right people on which to develop a full scale programme.
So I would ask my noble friend to urge the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Education and Science if together they would work out a programme for providing the A. R. C. with the necessary finance to set up this research programme. In my judgment there is no field of research which can yield such valuable returns in economic benefit as this, particularly in developing

245
more effective vaccines and a more effective epidemiology. There are other points in the White Paper which I should like to discuss with my noble friend, but at this late hour I think that I must thank him particularly if he would answer what I regard as the essential feature of the Report, an adequate research programme, and ask him to give it his sympathetic attention.
8.7 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have heard an absolutely authoritative presentation of the problem of the poultry industry. There is no one who is better qualified than the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to speak on this matter. As he says, there is a disposition to blame the poultry industry for the troubles which they now experience. Neglect of vaccination may well be an element. The environment in which poultry arc now reared may well be another element. But this is not a matter which we can dismiss simply by saying that the industry is to blame. On the basis of economics alone, I think that the noble Lord is right in saying that we should regard this as a matter of national concern. One may even say that on humanitarian grounds something more should be done.
Can we really be complacent at the scale and persistence of this pest? Is it not a scandal that we have allowed this pest to eat its way on such a scale into the poultry population of this country? I rise simply to say that in my view I think the noble Lord has made his case. There is an unanswerable case for a full-scale programme of research into a virus which has caused such unpleasant and damaging effects in this country, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to give some satisfaction to the case that has been made.
8.9 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for initiating this debate. The seriousness of the problem and the disaster that it has brought to many poultry breeders is hardly reflected in the Report itself. In fact, it really is rather a nice cosy Departmental Report. You would not think that you were dealing with a subject so utterly vital to the
246
livelihood of so many progressive farmers and to the welfare of the human race.
One welcomes the proposals of the Committee and, so far as was possible in the circumstances, their realistic approach. I think everybody would agree with their conclusion that in present circumstances it is not practicable to make vaccination compulsory, because enforcement is impossible. Therefore they discarded that proposal. But I wonder whether we shall gain much by making the disease notifiable. Again, this is something that is almost impossible to achieve with the accuracy that is demanded if action is to be taken on the information which comes in. I think probably it would be best (it sounds callous) to leave it, like the other poultry diseases, for the industry itself to control.
What interests me is that from August 1970 to July last one-third of the working time of the whole of the field veterinary staff throughout the country was spent on fowl pest. This is not the best way to use the field veterinary staff now that the disease has become endemic. If there has to be control of any kind, I think that special consideration should be given to the employment of lay operators to do this, and not to make demands on the high-powered veterinary profession, who could be much better employed in getting on with the eradication of brucellosis in cattle.
Another point that I would question in the Report is how the veterinary surgeon can possibly certify the health of birds or eggs for export when the disease is smouldering all the time. I do not think he can possibly give a clean bill of health in this way. One point that I must mention about Scotland is that there the disease is not too bad, but advice is being given that all flocks should be vaccinated. I welcome the recommendation for the dissemination of information on the situation regarding the disease overseas, and the arrangements that are being made by the Ministry, with the British Veterinary Association, to have this information brought up to date in the veterinary records. I think this is a very sensible suggestion.
The important thing at the present moment, and the way in which we can show our sympathy with these producers, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said,

247
is to get on with the research. That is fundamental. Here we can help. One suspects that very little work has been done in this field. The new lasota vaccine is, I believe, a great improvement. It might have been discovered a little earlier: in fact, one rather suspects that it was discovered by some poultryman before it was fully known to or appreciated by the Ministry. But that is only surmise, and not definite evidence.
I hope that the points listed in Appendix E to the White Paper will be fully considered by the Government, and that real funds will be put at the disposal of this investigation. It needs expert men and women trained in the subject of virology. Supposing we were to get on top of this disease—and I do not think that one can get conclusive results in under quite a period of time—there will always be a massive task for virologists so long as the human race survives.
8.16 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON op KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in a general discussion of the Fraser Report. I shall confine myself to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, which is: can we have more money for research, and a more energetic effort put into research? I knew when I promised the noble Lord that I would support him that I should be left with little to say. It is a narrow subject, and he is not one to leave much for others. So far as I am concerned, I do not want to add to what he has said, but for the sake of respectability I will include a few glosses.
I have an old connection with the industry. Unlike many of your Lordships, I have actually made a living out of inducing hens to lay eggs; and I reckon that about three years ago I got out at just about the right time. I have talked to people I know in the industry (and they are many) and there is no doubt that as a result of this epidemic they are very worried. Intensive methods—which now, I think I am right in saying, cover 80 per cent. of all eggs produced—have come to stay, and I think it is clear that they demand intensive research to protect them against the troubles they produce for themselves. Clearly, the
248
main trouble is the concentration of numbers in one place—the dangers of infection, the sucking in of air and the rest of it.
The Fraser Report contains one paragraph which really says all that needs to be said. Paragraph 139 reads:
"We consider that considerably increased research effort should now be undertaken by the Agricultural Research Council, the Ministry and the industry."
I should like the noble Earl who is to reply to tell me whether that observation is accepted; and if so, in what way has the research been increased. I would refer noble Lords to the interesting Report by my noble friend (or perhaps, as a result of his present employment, I should no longer call him that) Lord Rothschild. In Chapter 2 of his very pithy Report on research he says:
"R. and D."—
which I take to mean "research and development"—
"must be done on a customer-contractor basis. The customer says what he wants; the contractor does it, if he can, and the customer pays."
The customer in this case is the industry, plus the Ministry. The contractor, as the noble Lord pointed out, is the A.R.C. I do not think there should be any difficulty about money. My view is that if a really comprehensive and much wider research was set up the industry would be prepared to pay its share. The A. R. C. not only has its research station, but it also has set up teams in universities with one skilled man, who is particularly known in the business, and a couple of helpers who work on a particular problem. This is the spread of research that we need.
I do not think that there is anything more to say from my point of view, except that the industry is worried about the typing of the strain of virus. I do not know whether they are right in what they think, but there is a view that the Essex 70 virus is not the danger, in particular, to the broiler, but that there is something more virulent. I should like to know whether any work has been done on this matter and, if not, could it be done? The present system works badly we all know that. There has been put forward a solution of a perfectly acceptable kind in the Fraser

249
Report, and I conclude by supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in asking that the Government take active steps to pursue it.
8.21 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend and to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for having raised this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, my noble friend is an authority on this matter, and his views are not only extremely welcome, but they are always very succinct. It is not without a trace of cynicism that I find myself standing here this evening. It was almost 12 months ago (I have looked it up; it was November 24 exactly) when I, sitting on the Benches at present behind me, put down an Unstarred Question on this subject of fowl pest which at that time was on the rampage throughout the country. I am bound to declare an interest, as I did then, that I also keep poultry. I was so anxious to press the Government on this point on that occasion that what more could I do than invite my noble friend to come and support me. But he did not do so. The anticipated delights of some gastronomic engagement. with which he had rightly and sensibly involved himself beforehand, precluded him from taking part. It is not, therefore, without a degree of irony that I find myself standing here in a curious translation, using different but possibly more informed arguments than I might have done in other circumstances.
This is an important question; it deserves and requires the serious treatment which it has rightly received, and the fact that there are only four or five noble Lords present this evening should not reflect the interest and seriousness with which this disease is regarded by many people. Until a short while ago fowl pest was considered by many to be something which occurred in large-scale commercial poultry flocks, and that this was one of the hazards of this type of poultry keeping if you were stupid enough to go into it. The curious fact is that it was only during the past 12 months, when wild pheasants in substantial numbers have been affected by the disease, that the full impact and horror has been appreciated. Many people have realised it to be the disease which it is, a
250
killer, a fast spreader, one liable to affect domestic and wild poultry of all types.
At the outset I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Fowl Pest Review Panel that a considerably increased research effort should be made into fowl pest. I should also like to join my noble friend Lord Nugent in the thanks which he gave to the members of the Committee. I thought my noble friend Lord Balerno was a trifle unenthusiastic. He called it a "cosy Report". I did not find anything cosy in it at all; I found it most alarming. Your Lordships will recognise that all sorts of considerations are taken into account in determining the priorities which should be given to research, and the losses from any particular disease are merely one of the factors which are taken into account. It is an important aspect; the size and cost of the Newcastle epidemic which we have had recently has undoubtedly brought this to the fore.
I thought it might be helpful in discussing what should be done in the future with regard to research that we should be aware of what already has been done. Much of the work on research into this disease has been done at the Ministry of Agriculture's central veterinary laboratory at Weybridge. I suggest that this laboratory has received a good deal less recognition, and less than its fair share of credit for the work which has been done on this disease. The laboratory was the first to identify the disease way back in 1927. Since then it has pursued a distinct programme of research into the disease. Its world collection of fowl pest virus strains is recognised internationally as being unrivalled, and the laboratory has studied and recorded the characteristics of each known strain of virus. It has carried out studies in considerable depth, therefore, on the virus, which has in turn advanced substantially world knowledge of its characteristics. This is extremely important.
In the field of Newcastle disease vaccines the Weybridge laboratory has contributed much to the inactivated vaccine which is used in this country. It has carried out a considerable programme of laboratory research into all of the known live strains of vaccine; it has advanced substantially the procedures and techniques for assessing the

251
efficiency, safety and potency of vaccines. It has undertaken studies into the response to live Newcastle vaccine. It has carried out research into the effects which different methods of applying the vaccines may have on the way the vaccines, when applied, may interact with any latent infections which may be present; on the relationship between the size of the dose and the response to it in the bird and the development of effective vaccination programmes. In addition to this they have done much research into the maternal antibody interference, to which my noble friend referred. As I am sure my noble friend knows, this has caused difficulty with many vaccine programmes and their ability to give an adequate immunity. The true significance of this interference was first discovered at Weybridge.
Important work has also been done on the relationship between the level of antibodies in the blood and the consequent level of resistance to infection. The study of ways in which this disease is spread, which has been carried out by the central veterinary laboratory in conjunction with the veterinary field service, is probably unique. These are all complicated and technical matters, and it is not easy to assess the real importance of these achievements. I suggest—and I draw your Lordships' attention to this—that the laboratory can reasonably claim that the extent of its research into Newcastle disease in the years since 1963 cannot be matched by any other laboratory in the world, save possibly the University of Wisconsin.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to ask him a question on this matter? If such spectacular work in research has been done at Weybridge, why is it that so little clear advice has come out into the field? Why is it that we do not have an effective vaccine to protect our flocks? Why is that there is such confusion right through the industry about even the application of the vaccines that we have?
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the points which the noble Lord makes. He will also realise that this is a changing sphere. He will know that the type and the virulence of the disease of twelve
252
months ago was different from that which occurred earlier on. What I was trying to point out—and I am more than sympathetic to the noble Lord's request that more research should be done into this subject—was what had been done and that this should not be belittled.
Earlier in his opening remarks, my noble friend compared the work that has been done on fowl pest with the work that has been done on foot-and-mouth disease. We ought to be careful about drawing comparisons like that, because it is easy to say that as a lot of work has been done on one item therefore more ought to be done on another. But of course we do not change cattle scientists into poultry scientists overnight. It could be argued—I am not suggesting that it should be—that because so much resource has been applied to foot-and-mouth disease, therefore something else has had to suffer.
The financial effects of foot-and-mouth disease are very much greater when they occur than have been the effects of Newcastle disease in the immediate past. But I do not wish to go into too much of a comparison on this, other than to say that I take the noble Lord's point. He has been at it for thirty years, or his Institute has, and foot-and-mouth disease as a result has been kept out of this country. We unfortunately have this other disease now well established in the country, and it has to be dealt with. I would only say that the fundamental properties of the Newcastle disease virus are fairly well known, and more research has been done at places including St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School, the Royal Post-graduate Medical School, the Department of Pathology at the University of Cambridge and the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick. So research is being done and this is merely an example of how veterinary science has also benefited from human medical research to a very marked extent. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt? He looked as if he did.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry if I am putting off the noble Earl. I am waiting to hear him come to the point as to what extra is to be done.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall come to that point if the noble Lord will

253
be a little patient. I was trying to draw a distinction to show that quite a lot has already been done.
With regard to what will be done, there has already been the reallocation of resources made on fowl pest research. The research projects for 1971/1972 include work in each of the fields which have been listed by the Review Panel as being in particular need of attention. In addition to the field control of live vaccines which are already carried out, the Laboratory are monitoring the efficiency of vaccination in a number of commercial production flocks. They are undertaking research into various aspects of the way in which the vaccine is administered as well as into vaccination programmes and the potency of the vaccine. A good deal of work has already been done on such live vaccines as rowapin and commeroff, and it is now intended to draw further on the experience of other countries such as Israel and South Africa, who use these particular vaccines, to see what additional research may be required here before considering the possibility of full trials in this country with them. This is being done at the Central Veterinary Laboratory.
I should like to say that my right honourable friend has asked me to convey an invitation to my noble friend to go down there and see what is being done, not in order that the Laboratory should justify itself but in order that he, who has shown such an interest in these matters, should see what in fact is being done. If my noble friend would care to avail himself of this invitation I should be more than delighted to make the arrangements for him to go there.
He asked me specifically what the expenditure had been on fowl pest research. It is difficult to break these things up with very much accuracy, but I shall do the best I can. If we take the Central Veterinary Laboratory first, the entire poultry department of 8 veterinarians, 17 technicians and 15 laboratory support staff, are working largely on respiratory diseases of which fowl pest is the most important aspect. Two of these veterinary scientists and three technicians are concerned solely with fowl pest. But the rest of the work that is being done has a relationship with this disease.
254
Broadly, similar numbers have been engaged on research in the field since 1963. The Ministry's veterinary staff in the field and the veterinary investigation side in the regions have also done a good deal of research into the disease, particularly as part of the vaccine trials. The research projects supported by the Agricultural Research Council have employed the services of between two and five research scientists plus supporting staff in recent years.
With regard to the expenditure, taking the Weybridge Laboratory first, I should mention that there is a unit which has been designed for research into Newcastle disease and which was built in 1965 at a cost of £180,000. Since that year expenditure on research into poultry diseases has risen from about £85,000 in 1966– 67 to between £90,000 and £100,000 in each of the three following years. In 1970– 71 it was £133,000, and in 1971– 72 it will be £140,000. About half of this was specifically directed at Newcastle disease and much of the remainder has relevance to the disease. Total expenditure on poultry diseases by all sides of the agricultural departments was of course higher than this. In the current year, including expenditure on the vaccine trials, it will be in all about £220,000. About half of this expenditure will relate specifically to Newcastle disease and much of the rest will have some bearing on it.
Expenditure by the Agricultural Research Council in direct payments in respect of staff, material and equipment used in supportive research by university departments into Newcastle disease was about £4,000 in 1967, £5,000 in 1968, and £10,000 in each of the years 1969 and 1970, and £2,500 in 1971. I should emphasise that these figures take no account of the considerable overheads incurred in the university departments. My Lords, I apologise for such a lot of detail and statistics, but the noble Lord asked me for them, and I wanted to make it, if not as plain as possible, then as full as possible, and it will perhaps make him a little light reading to-morrow.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making it admirably plain and full. He has, I think, made my point; it is not very much.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend said that he thought that Houghton would be a very good place for this increased research to be carried out in. As he knows, whereas the Central Veterinary Department comes directly under the Ministry of Agriculture, Houghton is a research institute maintained by the Agricultural Research Council, and any further research here would be dependent on the Agricultural Research Council's providing further funds. The Fowl Pest Review Panel directed its recommendation specifically to the Agricultural Research Council as well, and it is obviously important that research activities should be co-ordinated. I am glad to tell my noble friend that the Ministry of Agriculture are in touch with the Agricultural Research Council to see what more can be done in this field, and these discussions are being pursued with urgency.
I hope that the Answer to my noble friend will show him that the Government are taking this question of research into Newcastle disease very seriously. The 1970– 71 epidemic has been the most severe and the most extensive on record. It has shown the potentially devastating effect of the disease in a new and even more serious light, and the Government accept that we must do what we can to reduce these effects so far as possible. An increased research effort is not only justified, my Lords, but will be undertaken.
I should like to emphasise just two points. First, one of the suggestions of the Fowl Pest Review Panel was that the poultry industry should itself consider whether to devote more resources to sponsoring or undertaking research into Newcastle disease. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are to have consultations with the organisations representing the poultry industry in order to discuss this possibility. The second is that while it is highly desirable to know more about the virus and to develop better vaccines, the vaccines which have already been authorised for general use in this country are, I suggest, capable of controlling this disease, with two provisos: one is that they should be administered correctly and the other is that they should be administered sufficiently widely. The sad and the hard
256
fact is that the mere act of vaccination will not of itself guarantee immunity to the birds so treated, but it will substantially lessen the effects of the disease on the bird in the event of an outbreak. The only way to guarantee immunity to the disease—if one can guarantee anything—is for a very high percentage of birds to be vaccinated, thus effectively blocking not only the spread but the actual appearance of the disease. In 1964, when the levels of vaccination went up to 80 per cent., we had very few outbreaks; last year, when they went down to 50 per cent., we had the outbreaks which your Lordships know about. I am glad to say that the vaccine sales have been rising again in recent months, and it is essential that the level of vaccination should be raised as high as possible and, having been raised, be maintained in order to keep the disease down to manageable proportions.

  TRADE TALKS WITH SOUTH AMERICAN DELEGATIONS
  TRADE TALKS WITH SOUTH AMERICAN DELEGATIONS
  VISITS BY TRADE OR GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS:
  VISITS BY TRADE OR GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS:
  FARM STRUCTURE SCHEME GRANTS
  FARM STRUCTURE SCHEME GRANTS