Sitting of 4 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ULLAPOOL PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Parks, etc.); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Iceland
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Iceland.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now seek to pay an official visit to Iceland.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): My right hon. Friend has at present no such plan; but if we can get
    504
    negotiations going again, he would certainly be ready to take part in them.
    Mr. Reed: If the Belgian authorities can reach agreement with Iceland and the German Chancellor can take a special initiative to try to reach agreement, is it not time that we did the same? Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate the strategic significance of Iceland, or does he not care if we blow a damned great hole in the defences of NATO?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend will realise that negotiations in Reykjavik between the Germans and Icelanders have made good progress, but they have not yet by any means come to a conclusion. The German Chancellor will be stopping in Reykjavik on his way to Greenland, where he is going fishing, but entirely within territorial waters. It is important to realise that we are not comparing like with like. The German fishing fleet fishes for ocean perch, red fish, or coal fish, whereas we are concerned with cod. The Germans fish at a distance from the Iceland coast different from that at which our fishing fleet operates. One cannot exactly compare the two sets of negotiations, but we hope that any progress the Germans make with Iceland will lead to similar progress in our case.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not tiresome, now, in 1973, to be told in this Chamber that we must do what the Germans are doing, when for 12 months or more Government Ministers and some of us from our constituencies have gone to Iceland and attempted to obtain a settlement, and, indeed, have had five separate sets of talks on this matter? Nobody can chide us about not attempting to get a settlement.
    Mr. Amery: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for what he has done on this subject.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he said in answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) does not rule out the possibility of the Foreign Secretary's visiting Reykjavik for direct talks if he thinks that such talks would be helpful to a solution?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to reaffirm that if we can get negotiations going

    505
    again my right hon. Friend is perfectly ready to take part.

    EEC Council of Ministers
    Mr Jayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects are on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): The estimate of subject headings likely to come up for discussion in the Council this month was lodged in the Vote Office on 28th June.
    Mr. Jay: Did the Government agree. in the Council of Ministers, to a document which sought to lay down conditions for the GATT talks this autumn, and which stated that the principles and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy should not be called ino question and were therefore in no way matters for negotiation? Is this not a complete breach of all the pledges we have been given about a thorough review of the CAP?
    Mr. Davies: No, Sir, indeed not. The principles of the CAP have always been stated by us clearly to be matters that we would not seek to vary. The mechanisms are, in themselves, the methods by which the principles are applied. If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will look a little further at the document he will see that it is provided that should there be arrangements covering commodity arrangements, or something in the nature of good conduct arrangements, there would be an adaptation of the mechanisms concerned. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that chapter in the document.
    Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister promised the House yesterday that the whole common agricultural policy would be under review and that he also said that, if necessary, the Council of Ministers would discuss this complete review in the autumn? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not only necessary but essential for the Council of Ministers to discuss this matter, because it is within their power to bring to an end these import levies on food, which, in the case
    506
    of food that is not scarce in the world—and many foodstuffs are in that category—is artificially putting up the price of food in this country? Should not the British people have their point of view expressed to the Council of Ministers on this vital issue?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is creating a certain amount of confusion between the document that is there to set the scene for multilateral negotiations and what may transpire in the Council of Ministers on its own initiative. They are different things. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right in saying that the whole matter of the CAP is being and will be reviewed, and nothing prevents the Council from doing what it wishes in that respect, provided that there is agreement in the Council so to do. But that is different from setting the scene for multilateral negotiations, where the Community is seeking at the outset to set out the basis upon which it believes the negotiations should take place. The Community has not been unforthcoming in this matter. It has clearly postulated its desire to meet precisely the point made by my hon. Friend with regard to certain commodity agreements on an international scale, good conduct arrangements, and so on. My hon. Friend has perhaps not read the document through to its end.
    Mr. Douglas: While acknowledging the importance of the CAP, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an indication of the Government's view on a common energy policy? We have the Commission's views, and what we lack are the Government's views on such a policy.
    Mr. Davies: The Government consider that there would be great value in a concerted view being developed within the Community to face the problem of the supply of energy in the coming years. The Government have taken that view in their discussions within the Council. The matter is still under discussion—it has not by any means come to an end—and we are waiting for the Commission to put forward further proposals, which we hope it will shortly do, to carry the matter further in the Council.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it the hope and expectation of my right hon. Friend that the

    507
    GATT negotiations will result in a liberalisation of the CAP?
    Mr. Davies: I think it would be the Government's wish that multilateral negotiations should result in a broad liberalisation of trading movement world wide in every field, and I do not exclude agriculture from that.
    Mr. Richard: May we take it that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the whole matter would be subject to review he meant that the Government's position is that they do not accept in perpetuity either the principles upon which the CAP is based or the machinery which the Commission has so far devised for the purpose of implementing the CAP? As one who is and always has been a pro-Marketeer, perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that being in favour of entry into the Common Market does not necessarily mean that one endorses every scrap of the CAP.
    Mr. Davies: I believe that the work now being undertaken by the Commission in reviewing the CAP does not exclude anything. Principles, mechanisms and systems can be reviewed. I underline the fact that changes in those are not a matter of a desire of one country. They are clearly matters for discussion between all partners.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the answer to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall arise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Pakistan (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an early meeting with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Ai-fairs (Lord Balniel): President Bhutto, who is of course his own Foreign Minister, would always be welcome in this country, but there are as vet no firm arrangements for a visit. My right hon. Friend had a useful meeting with Mr. Aziz Ahmed, the Pakistan Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Defence, during the CENTO meeting in Teheran last month.
    Mr. Mitchell: When. the Foreign Secretary meets President Bhutto will lie make representations to him about the number of Bengalis in preventive detention in Pakistan, several of whom have British wives who are living in this country with their families?
    Lord Balniel: The Indo-Bangladesh joint declaration of 17th April proposed, among other things, that those Bengalis in Pakistan who wished to return to Bangladesh should be allowed to do so. Although the Pakistan Government have expressed some reservations about the proposals in the joint declaration, exchanges of messages are taking place between the Indian and Pakistan Governments.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon Friend that the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Teheran Conference reaffirmed support for Resolution No. 307, passed by the Security Council on 21st December 1971, which, inter alia. called for the return of Pakistani prisoners-of-war as part of an overall settlement in the sub-continent?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend will know that all the leaders in the sub-continent have made it plain that they do not want outside mediation and intend to settle their differences between themselves. I am sure that that is right, but we are ready to help if it appears that we can usefully do so at the wish of the parties concerned.

    World Population Year
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the Government at the conference to be held as part of the World Population Year 1974.
    Mr. Amery: A decision on the composition of the United Kingdom delegation will be made in due course.
    Mr. Dormand: I wish the delegation well, but when it is appointed at this important conference will it not be placed in an embarrassing position, because the Government are refusing to adopt a population policy for this country, even when one is so necessary? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will be offering greater assistance for the solution of the world's

    509
    population programme than the present totally inadequate amount that they give? If not, in what way do the Government hope to make an impact at the conference?
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said—on, I think, 21st May—that the Government considered that time should be allowed for public opinion to crystallise before announcing their conclusions on the recommendations of the Population Panel.

    United States and France (Mr. Brezhnev's Visit)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States and French Governments on matters of mutual concern following Mr. Brezhnev's recent visits to them.
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Nixon and President Pompidou about matters of mutual concern following the recent visits of Mr. Brezhnev to Washington and Paris.
    Mr. Amery: We are in close touch with the United States and French Governments at all times and both Governments have kept us informed of their talks with Mr. Brezhnev.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is satisfied that no arrangements were made between President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev that will be prejudicial to the security of Europe? With regard to the French visit, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Brezhnev has had an invitation to visit London, or is it the policy of his Department that President Pompidou should be the spokesman for Europe?
    Mr. Amery: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that to the best of my knowledge that is the case. Mr. Brezhnev would always be welcome in this country. Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Kirillin have been here. Diplomatically, the ball is in the Soviet court, but we do not attach undue
    510
    importance to protocol in these matters. The way is open for reciprocal visits by one side or the other at any time that the Soviet Union is willing to make one.
    Mr. Sproat: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these visits increase the need for the closest co-ordination of Western tactics in dealing with the Soviet Union at the CESC talks at Helsinki? Does he not also agree that one of the best results to come out of Helsinki has been the unity of attitude between the Nine and NATO?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to say that there has been close co-ordination, both in NATO—which includes the United States—and the EEC, with the other eight European countries about the attitude that we should adopt at Helsinki, and I have every reason to believe that that co-operation will continue.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: That was a remarkably evasive reply by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member asking a question?
    Mr. Allaun: Was not that a remarkably evasive reply by the Minister? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect Mr. Brezhnev or anybody else to come here without an invitation. Why is it that America, France and Germany can do it, and we cannot?
    Mr. Amery: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel jealous about this. There are good reasons why the two super Powers should talk among themselves. We very much welcomed the visit of reconciliation marked by Mr. Brezhnev's visiting Bonn, and the relationship between France and Russia goes back to well before the First World War. I was merely saying that in ordinary diplomatic terms it is their turn to ask us. We have had two of their senior Ministers in this country, but we should not stand on protocol in these matters. There is close contact between the two Governments in both London and Moscow. At the appropriate moment I am sure that a visit could be arranged. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a very positive intervention about the matter during a recent speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

    Heathrow (Security)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority his Department instigated the relaxation of security measures at Heathrow Airport in the case of Sheikh Omar Saqqaf, Minister of State at the Saudi Arabian Foreign Office.
    Lord Balniel: No action was taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this case. Sheikh Omar Saqqaf spoke by telephone to a senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who explained the purpose of the security precautions and apologised for any inconvenience which they might have occasioned. Sheikh Omar Saqqaf did not ask that any official approach should be made to the authorities at Heathrow.
    Mr. Kaufman: I accept that aircraft security arrangements can be waived reciprocally for diplomats by prior arrangement, but is it not a fact that in this case the waiving of these security arrangements took place as a capitulation to the most disgraceful threats of this petulant princeling, including the threat to have this aircraft detained at Jedda airport unless the airport authorities did as he demanded? Remembering that the Khartoum massacre took place with arms smuggled into the Saudi Arabian Embassy, ought not these security restrictions to be most stringently maintained?
    Lord Balniel: In general, the Government believe that it is unavoidable and right to ask even the most distinguished passengers in commercial aircraft—both in their own interests and in the interests of all passengers in the aircraft—to submit themselves to security checks. British Ministers are doing so when they travel. But the implementation, and the judgment as to how the security checks should be implemented, is a matter for the decision of the individual airlines.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while no one should be above any rules, regulations or laws, there is a case for tact and discretion being used by the authorities at the airport, whether in relation to a person who happens to be a sheikh of an oil kingdom or, on the other hand, a woman who, perhaps, is pregnant?
    Lord Balniel: Yes. I feel that tact and discretion should be exercised, and my impression is that, generally, this is the practice of individual airlines. But I hold to the view that Ministers and other dignitaries should be aware of the grave dangers that now exist on the airlines and should be prepared wherever possible to submit themselves to this kind of search.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take a new initiative towards settling the dispute with Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Rhodesia.
    Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 27th June.
    Mr. Taylor: As the chances of an agreed settlement with Rhodesia now appear to be less bright that at any time since 1965, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the Government do not have a closed mind about the indefinite continuation of sanctions?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend takes a very pessimistic view about the situation—and, indeed, the prospects are not all that good. But as my right hon. Friend told the House very recently, there are some signs that the two sides are increasingly aware of the desirability of reaching a settlement. We should like to consider the position further in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend. We may be making a statement before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: As this matter was discussed by the Prime Minister and General Gowon, does the right hon. Gentleman see the opportunity of an initiative being taken by his Government and, perhaps, by other Governments at the Heads of Governments Conference in Ottawa, with a view to its being a Commonwealth matter?
    Lord Balniel: This matter must now be settled by the peoples within Rhodesia. No other agreement would be stable in

    513
    the long term. We look to the people of Rhodesia themselves to reach agreement.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the present demands by Bishop Muzorewa's ANC for parity now and majority rule in the very near future are well outside the settlement terms negotiated and will, therefore, make a settlement more difficult and increase the drift towards South Africa?
    Lord Balniel: The longer the delay that occurs before reaching agreement and a settlement, the greater are the dangers that face all peoples in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Fernyhough: What was the purpose of the recent secret visit by top Foreign Office diplomats, which had suddenly to be made public? Was the visit really necessary? Did it serve any purpose? In view of Mr. Smith's subsequent remarks, is it not about time that we did everything we could further to strengthen the sanctions that we are imposing against Rhodesia?
    Lord Balniel: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. The purpose of the visit was to maintain contact with all sections of Rhodesian opinion, in accordance with our policy since the Pearce Report, which has general support. The visit was designed to obtain an up-to-date assessment of the situation there, and so that Sir Dennis Greenhill could explain to Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa the views of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Dennis was not recalled prematurely, and there was no subterfuge about the visit.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from non-governmental bodies in Rhodesia regarding a return to legal government.
    Lord Balniel: During his recent visit to Rhodesia, Sir Denis Greenhill and the two officials accompanying him saw a number of prominent Europeans and Africans, including members of non-government bodies, and heard their views. Many people of both races were concerned to see a return to legality through discussions between the two sides.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now people
    514
    of all races, black and white, who urgently want Smith off their backs? As the regime is illegal and there are people of all races who wish to return to legality, should not the Government now declare that they support those people and promise that they will give them all the aid that they are required to give to see that Rhodesia returns to the status it held before the illegal thieving by Smith and his associates'?
    Lord Balniel: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question aright, I can certainly assure him that we want to see a return to legality.
    Mr. Dykes: In spite of the excessive drama of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), is it not now clear beyond all doubt that Mr. Smith is leading Rhodesia to a disastrous situation? Is it not long overdue that the British Government made that clear beyond all doubt to Mr. Smith and his colleagues?
    Lord Balniel: I noticed with satisfaction one aspect of Mr. Smith's speech recently, namely, that Rhodesians must get together to find a solution to their own problems. That is what we have been urging for a very long time.

    Religious Persecution
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will submit to the United Nations Economic and Social Council a programme for a decade of action against religious persecution.
    Mr. Amery: Her Majesty's Government have no plans to submit such a programme to the Economic and Social Council.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that in, perhaps, half the world Christianity, Jewry and Islam are persecuted by Powers that lead the movement in the United Nations and elsewhere against apartheid and, indeed, against the non-racial policy of Portugal? Should not our attention and the attention of the United Nations to human rights be free from these double standards'?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to say that the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations has produced a draft declaration

    515
    and a draft convention on religious intolerance, and both items are included in the provisional agenda for the next session of the General Assembly. We shall then give our support, wherever possible, to those drafts.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us would like to see some hon. Members on the Government side refrain from double standards? Hon. Members of the Opposition have opposed Russian policy in Czechoslovakia and, equally, American policy in Vietnam, and that should be supported on both sides of the House and not by the sort of question that is an indication of the double standards of some hon. Members.
    Mr. Amery: I hope that nothing that the hon. Gentleman said implied that he was supporting Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I was not. That is a typical example of double standards.
    Mr. Fell: May I ask my right hon. Friend why it was not possible for him to answer my hon. Friend who posed the Question with the words "Yes, Sir"?
    Mr. Amery: For the simple reason that we think that a declaration passed by the United Nations and a convention would come better, before calling for a "decade". We are not very sure that these decades—
    Mr. Fell: Ten years.
    Mr. Amery: —are all that useful. We should like to see the passing of a draft declaration and draft convention on religious intolerance.

    Law of the Sea Conference
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he anticipates making public the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the Law of the Sea Conference of 1974.
    Mr. Amery: As I explained to the House last Thursday, Her Majesty's Government have already expressed views on the major topics with which the conference will be dealing. These are contained in statements made by the British delegation to the United Nations
    516
    Sea Bed Committee, which is preparing for the conference.
    Summaries of those statements are in the Library of the House.
    I have nothing to add to them.
    Mr. Archer: As the United Nations has already recognised that the wealth of the seas is the common heritage of mankind, will it not be a tragedy if the great bulk of that wealth is now appropriated by the most powerful, the best situated and technologically the most advanced countries? Will the Government at least say that an enclosure movement is not a method of enforcing law and order but its negation?
    Mr. Amery: A comprehensive solution can emerge only through negotiation at the conference itself. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree that it would be unwise to reveal all our hand before the negotiations have begun, when other countries have not done so.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: What machinery is available within my right hon. Friend's office to receive representations on this subject? Will he assure us that any representations made to the office will be carefully borne in mind, from whatever source they come? I have in mind, of course, the fishing industry.
    Mr. Amery: There is no problem about making representations to the Government. They can be made to the Foreign Office, or, where fishing interests are concerned, to the Ministry of Agriculture, or, where industrial underwater economic interests are concerned, to the DTI.

    French Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the two British Government representatives on Pitcairn Island about the monitoring of French nuclear tests; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: Two RAF technicians were landed on Pitcairn Island in the middle of May. They are now carrying out routine background radiological observations. They will thus be in a position to detect any local effects of nuclear explosions which may reach Pitcairn.
    Mr. Dalyell: In particular, what facilities are available to these two RAF technicians for monitoring the short-lived iodine 131?
    Mr. Amery: I should want notice of the detailed point, but I understand—
    Mr. Dalyell: It is not a detailed point.
    Mr. Amery: I understand that they are very well equipped to monitor all the likely radioactive consequences.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "well equipped"?
    Mr. Amery: Adequately equipped, well equipped. We have been doing this for a number of years. The hon. Member took me to task the other day as a Leonardo da Vinci, but he seems a one-man laboratory in these matters. I ask him to believe that we take these matters seriously. I would only add that I was glad to see that, in spite of the Chinese tests, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) attended the Chinese acrobatics last night and that environmental considerations did not interfere with their study of the acrobatic art of which they stand in great need.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Returning to Pitcairn Island, is my right hon. Friend aware that in answer to my questions the Prime Minister has persisted indignantly in saying that the allegations about radioactive material leading to the reduction of flora and fauna to negligible proportions on the island were not true, that no radioactive presence had been found on the island, and that it was not until last May, as a result of the persistence of my questions, that he put these two observers on Pitcairn Island? Will my right hon. Friend make quite sure that this time evidence is placed in the Library as to the true position about radioactive fallout as a result of the French explosions?
    Mr. Amery: The latest information available to me confirms what the Prime Minister said. It appears that the verdure on Pitcairn Island is lusher than usual this year. It is not our practice to produce day-to-day running commentaries on what the technicians on Pitcairn report, but, as on previous occasions, I shall ensure that, if he wishes, my hon.
    518
    Friend is kept informed, towards the end of the year, of their general conclusions.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that he may wish to answer later? How relevant and how available is the evidence and knowledge gained by the Indian monitoring system for our own purposes of deciding how serious or how innocuous these tests will prove to be?
    Mr. Amery: I should want notice of that question. I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of St. Helena.
    Lord Balniel: The St. Helena development adviser hopes to return to London on 1st August with his proposals. They will be studied urgently and I shall inform the hon. Gentleman of the outcome.
    Mr. Carter: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he take note of the fact that a large percentage of the families on this island live on less than £3 a week for the whole family? In view of the fact that these are all British citizens, will he take immediate steps, before the report is published, to relieve the poverty and appalling conditions in which these people live?
    Lord Balniel: This is a very important matter and the development adviser is giving priority to investigating this aspect of life in St. Helena. I have asked the Governor to consult the development adviser as to the possibility of producing an interim report on the desirability of such measures affecting the poorest section of the community there.
    Sir F. Bennett: If there is such an interim report, will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that it contains urgent consideration of the need for some sort of airstrip or airport? This, above all else, is what the island needs if it is to survive.
    Lord Balniel: The report will of course be studied urgently. Two members of the Civil Aviation Authority are advising on the feasibility of an airfield, but there

    519
    are as yet no firm proposals to build an airfield.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting some pressure on the Overseas Development Administration to see whether some funds can be found urgently to help the people of St. Helena? I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) about the present standard of living there. Will my right hon. Friend give this urgent consideration in advance of any report by the development adviser?
    Lord Balniel: I think that the step that I have taken, of asking for an interim report, is the correct one in the circumstances. But the question of the level of aid to St. Helena must await the publication of that report. Before then, it would be wrong to act.

    Portugal (Duke of Edinburgh's Visit)
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department advised the amendment of a speech which the Duke of Edinburgh intended to make during his recent visit to Portugal.
    Mr. Amery: No problems arose in connection with the drafting of this speech that needed reference to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Mr. Davis: Will the Minister answer the Question? Did the British Embassy withdraw the advance text of a speech that the Duke of Edinburgh was going to make, and, if so, why?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that the hon. Member quite understands what happened. It is quite normal. I do not know whether it happens to him, but it often happens to me. [Laughter.] Any speech goes through several drafts, and in the course of preparation of the speech, the draft alters. This is all that happened. Quite normally, in the course of preparing his speech, the Duke of Edinburgh consulted the ambassador about it and made certain changes.
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right lion. Friend answer this question? Why should British Members of Parliament be so
    520
    eager to make trouble for an alliance vital to the security of the West in this historic anniversary year?
    Mr. Amery: I join my hon. Friend in wondering why. It seems to me very strange.
    Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the gravest charge against the Foreign Office is that it put the Duke of Edinburgh in the humiliating position of having, by implication, to condone Portugal's cruelly repressive policy in Africa?
    Mr. Amery: Any changes that were made were made by the Duke of Edinburgh himself. They were not made at the request of the Portuguese.

    United States Secretary of State
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to hold official talks with the United States of America Secretary of State.
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend will be seeing the United States Secretary of State at the first stage of the Helsinki meeting this week.
    Mr. Chapman: As the Helsinki conference is witnessing a new mood of relations between the European countries, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be appropriate, on this American Independence Day, to seek to redefine our relations with the United States, particularly in matters of trade agreements, while, of course, ensuring that those relations remain close and cordial?
    Mr. Amery: Relations between this country and the European Community and the United States are very close and very good in trade, monetary and defence matters. We want to consider very carefully before we redefine our relations, but we fully accept the proposition put forward by Dr. Kissinger that we must see whether there is any cause to redefine them.
    Mr. McBride: In view of the great United States interest in the matter, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary meets the American Secretary of State will he seek to erect safeguards against the disruption of United States commodity

    521
    markets occasioned by the trading policies of the EEC? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is important, in view of the implications of the disruption of those markets on prices prevailing in Britain?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to commodity markets in terms of agricultural produce, which I understand him to be, perhaps he will recall that the President has restricted the export of agricultural produce from the United States.

    Foreign Governments (Diplomatic Recognition)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider the criteria of recognition by Her Majesty's Government to be applied in the case of foreign countries changing their forms of government.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
    Mr. Whitehead: As, in a moment of unaccustomed clarity, the Greek regime was described as illegal by the Minister's right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and in view of today's news of further arrests in Athens, including the arrest of the former Foreign Minister, Mr. Averoff, will the right hon. Gentleman now describe the regime as what it is, a guttersnipe crew of smalltime fascists whom we should not be recognising? Should not we reconsider the recognition that we so hastily gave after the illegal deposition of King Constantine?
    Mr. Amery: The present Government, like the previous Government, have based their criteria for recognition—
    Mr. Whitehead: It does not enjoy support.
    Mr. Amery:—on whether a Government can be held to enjoy, with a reasonable prospect of permanency, the obedience of the mass of the population and the effective control of much the greater part of the territory. Those have been the criteria applied by the Attlee Government and every other Government since the war. I think that they apply to the present Government in Athens,
    522
    whatever view the hon. Gentleman wants to take.
    Sir F. Bennett: When my right hon. Friend referred to his criteria I thought I heard a murmur from the Opposition benches of "It does not enjoy majority support". Was the hon. Gentleman who said that talking about Czechoslovakia or Greece?
    Hon, Members: Both.
    Mr. Amery: I am advised—I was not in the Chamber at the time—that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested in an intervention last week that commanding support should be a criterion, but if that were the case there would be precious few Governments that we should be able to recognise.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Minister, who is obviously very well informed, tell us what Governments now in existence the present Government have not recognised?
    Mr. Amery: As the right hon. Gentleman may know—though he may not have been in the House when we discussed the matter on Thursday—we have not yet recognised the North Vietnamese Government, because it has been an established policy not to recognise Governments in divided countries, but we are moving towards it and as soon as certain criteria have been met I dare say we shall be able to consummate it.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that, whatever may be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, the premature recognition of the Greek Republic will be universally recognised as a stamp of approval, and that that impression will be ruthlessly exploited during the campaign leading up to the plebiscite later this month? Would not it have been better and fairer at least to wait until the plebiscite was over? What will be the Government's position if. as we all hope—including, no doubt, Her Majesty's Government—the plebiscite registers a negative vote?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that our recognition was premature, in accordance with the criteria, which I have explained. As my hon. Friend knows very well, the Greeks are a very sophisticated people

    523
    They have a long experience of relations with us, and they will know exactly the grounds on which we have decided to recognise the Government there. The second part of my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical.

    Family Passports
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to convene an international passport conference with a view to abolishing family passports.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to initiate the convening of an international conference on the question of family passports and their validity.
    Lord Balniel: In view of the fact that a large number of married couples are glad to take advantage of this facility, which enables them to travel together without the expense of obtaining separate passports, we could not justify initiating international action to abolish the family passport.
    Miss Fookes: Will my right lion. Friend explain in simple English how he reconciles the fact that a wife may not travel alone on the passport with the Government's pledge that they will shortly introduce anti-discrimination legislation of their own?
    Lord Balniel: There is a misconception about the matter. The family passport is an additional service over and above the individual right to own a passport. It works very well, and its removal would hurt families financially. The passports are extremely popular. If there had to be two separate passports there would be an additional cost of £5 to each family that at present goes on holiday on the family passport.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not necessarily follow? Does he not realise that the proposition that the head of the family alone should be able to use the passport himself, or, in the case of a widow, herself, was a German proposal made 47 years ago, and that social attitudes have changed since then? Why are the Government so reluctant to try to convene another conference on the
    524
    matter to remedy this gross injustice, which is indefensible in present circumstances?
    Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman's language exaggerates the situation. The passport is a free service, which is extremely popular with families, as it reduces the cost of family holidays. There is no need to call an international conference to abolish it. We could abolish it unilaterally without a conference.
    Mr. Tapsell: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is addressing his mind to the point that is being raised. There is a widespread feeling in this country and most other countries that the present position is an out-dated anomaly, and that passports should be issued equally to a woman or to a man. The fact that they are issued only to the male head of the family causes disquiet.
    Lord Balniel: I appreciate that, but the family passport is something we grant over and above the usual passport facilities, and there is no obligation on any man or woman to take it. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but if his suggestion were adopted it is possible that the passport would not be acceptable to other countries, and the family passport, as such, would have to be withdrawn.
    Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have gone round in a circle. When the matter was first raised by the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), the original point she made was: "Why should not a wife be entitled to use a family passport in exactly the same way as a husband?" The right hon. Gentleman will remember the answer that was then given, namely, that other countries might not accept it. The hon. Lady then said, "What have we to do to make other countries accept it?". She was then told—the right hon. Gentleman will remember this—that an international conference would have to be convened to persuade other countries of a wife's right to use a family passport. She is now asking for such a conference to be held and the Government are now saying, "No". Are not the Government getting themselves into a ludicrous position?
    Lord Balniel: We do not know whether we shall get agreement. That is one aspect.
    Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend seems to be a bit muddled. Would not it be a good idea if the Government asked the Women's Commission to examine the matter? The commission is composed of all parties and all sorts of women. Let us see what we can do after we have received the commission's advice. The present situation described by my right hon. Friend seems unduly muddled. Does he agree that we should take proper action and really get to grips with the matter? Perhaps the Government will then be able to act properly.
    Lord Baltiel: I am prepared to take the advice of my hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I am prepared to listen to the opinions of various organisations. However, the House must take account of the fact that it is the wish of many families that these passports should be issued. I shall willingly consider the point that has been put forward by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to understand that the argument is not that the family passport is unpopular? The argument is that it should be possible for a wife to use a family passport. Is it absolutely necessary to have a convention simply to get agreement with other countries to accept that a woman can travel on a family passport without her husband? Would it not be possible to get in touch with other Governments and to determine whether they will accept that position?
    Lord Balniel: We are making inquiries with other Governments about this matter.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the utter confusion of Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office throughout this Question Time I shall seek to raise several subjects on the Adjournment.

    EEC (Commonwealth Consultations)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his consultations with Commonwealth countries since 1st January 1973 concern-
    526
    ing the implications for them of British entry to the EEC.
    Mr. John Davies: While it is, of course, for the Commonwealth countries concerned to decide what sort of relations they wish to pursue with the European Communities, these matters are the subject of regular consultation between those countries and ourselves.
    Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that at the time of British entry to the EEC on 1st January there was a large range of unresolved problems concerning our obligations to Commonwealth countries? Further, does he agree that those countries were advised that if they would bear with us after entry we would pursue their interests with all the vigour at our disposal? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are grave misgivings within the Commonwealth about the degree of vigour with which those interests have been pursued? Would it not be helpful, in view of all the critical negotiations concerning Yaounde and other matters coming up this summer, to issue a White Paper detailing precisely how the Government have been pursuing Commonwealth interests within the context of the EEC?
    Mr. Davies: I must emphasise that in the case of all the relationships to which the hon. Gentleman refers there is a need for the countries concerned to pursue their interests as they see them themselves. It is for Her Majesty's Government to consult with them, and where possible, to give them every support in their interests. That is what we have done. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, for instance, has made a veritable pilgrimage around the Commonwealth countries in Africa seeking and finding out their interests, deciding how best their interests can be catered for, and seeking to do so. The results to date are by no means unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must admit to an error. I should not have called the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). Questions relating to overseas aid should begin not later than 3.20 p.m. I was carried away by the excitement of Questions Nos. 16 and 17. Mr. Roderick.

    Sahelian Africa (Drought)
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for giving special help to the drought stricken areas south of the Sahara.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in bringing relief to the drought stricken areas of the Sahara.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I refer hon. Members to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th June and to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 20th June. A Royal Air Force reconnaissance team is in West Africa looking into the need for more aircraft to move food. This morning I had a report from the team leader in Dakar which shows that, with one exception, enough aircraft are already available; but there is a need to move food from Dakar to Bamako, in Mali. We intend to meet this need, provided the Government of Senegal agree. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has confirmed that RAF Hercules aircraft are available for this task.
    Mr. Roderick: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It has been felt for some time that we have not been acting as urgently as we might in dealing with this problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many aircraft we have available for use, how many we are likely to put at the disposal of the authorities, and when we shall put them at their disposal?
    Mr. Wood: If the necessary formalities can be completed, I hope that the aircraft will be in the area before this weekend. There are three Hercules aircraft standing by at quite short notice and they will go to the area concerned. I think that they will be sufficient to carry out the task that has been identified for them. If they are not sufficient, my right hon. Friend has promised to consider the needs in the light of what we find after the aircraft begin their operations.
    Mr. Allaun: I appreciate the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given. However, why is it that whereas Belgium
    528
    has had three Hercules aircraft out there for a month and America has had four aircraft, we have not yet sent one? As the reconnaissance team went nearly a fortnight ago, what has held up, and what is holding up, the use of aircraft, particularly when the rains have begun to make the roads impassable and have put 2 million people in extreme danger?
    Mr. Wood: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making difficulties that do not exist. I told him a few days ago that a team was going out. The team reported only this morning that there is this need. I have decided that the need should be met, and the aircraft will be there within two or three days.
    Mr. Pavitt: In this instance has the special machinery of the United Nations 24-hour relief and stockpiling, which was agreed two years ago, been in use? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about that?
    Mr. Wood: The problem is largely one of moving food from certain points to other points in the area. That is a need which the team went out to identify. It found that there is the need that I mentioned in my answer, and that need will be met.

    South America (Aid)
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the amount of aid granted to South American countries.
    Mr. Wood: I am at present providing for steadily increasing sums, both for capital aid loans and for technical assistance.
    Mr. Lamont: Although some of these countries are now developing an industrial base, is it not the case that parts of the continent still have some of the worst illiteracy and some of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, and that in the past they have received a disproportionately small part of British aid? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future such countries, as well as those countries traditionally associated with Great Britain, receive a growing part of the British aid programme?
    Mr. Wood: It is because of the recognition of the great needs in South

    529
    America, and the opportunities for export which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently pointed out, that I have given my hon. Friend that answer.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us roughly how the new aid provision to Latin America is being distributed? I understand that some is likely to go to Brazil, but is any likely to go to Chile, where enormous steps are being taken to benefit the mass of the people? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the tremendous debt problems, and the efforts to help that the British Government are likely to make?
    Mr. Wood: We have programmes in many countries in Latin America some, naturally, larger than others. I shall have to ask the right hon. Lady to put down a detailed question, because I should hate to give her the wrong information, as I may do if I try to answer her without notice.

INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The House will recall that on 3rd July 1972 I affirmed the Government's belief that the capability to develop, manufacture and market computer systems which International Computers (Holdings) Ltd. (ICL) represents should be retained in this country. To further these objectives, I announced Government support of £14·2 million to maintain the momentum of ICL's research and development programme up to September 1973.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology has continued to draw attention to the scale of assistance provided by other Governments to ICL's overseas competitors and has argued for comparable support, mainly in the field of research and development. Under its new management, ICL has made excellent progress. The company faces a period when research and development expenditure in developing its new range of computers will be very large in relation to the total size of the undertaking, and Government support has, therefore, been under consideration for the period to 1976.
530
During this period, apart from the Government assistance towards the cost of research and development which has been proposed, ICL expects to be able to finance its growing business from its own resources. However, should the requirements of the business exceed expectations during this period and additional funds be needed, GEC and Plessey, in their capacity as principal shareholders of the company, have undertaken to procure the raising of additional capital by the shareholders of ICL up to an amount of £15 million, provided they are satisfied it will contribute towards ICL's development as a profitable company.
The Government believe that, against this background, further support of ICL, of the launching aid type, is justified. The Government have agreed to provide a further £25·8 million in support of the company's research and development programme from October this year until September 1976, making a total of £40 million in all. The basis for these arrangements with the company and the principal shareholders is that ICL's forward plans and forecasts indicate that no further financial assistance will be required or sought from the Government after 1976.
These plans and forecasts are based on ICL's stated policy of a high degree of retention of earnings. This implies a minimal distribution by way of dividends; however, should circumstances change and the company decide that its position justifies the recommendation of a higher dividend, the Government will be notified and will have the right to vary the arrangements for further research and development support in the event that such higher dividend is paid.
As is normal with launching aid of this type, arrangements have been agreed with the company for the recovery of this £25·8 million, together with the £14·2 million I announced in July last year. These involve the payment to the Government over a 7-year period commencing in the company year 1977–78—or a lesser period if full recovery as a discounted cash flow rate of return of 10 per cent. proves possible more quickly—of any profits before tax earned in excess of 7½ per cent. of turnover up to a maximum of 25 per cent. of the profit before tax earned in each year.

531
A detailed monitoring system has been agreed with the company, under which arrangements will continue for the regular provision by the company of full information on the progress of the R and D programme and on the company's financial and commercial progress and expectations.
I have ha discussions with my French and German colleagues about the importance of creating a stronger European industry. The company is well aware of the opportunities and is involved in discussions with European companies. The Government will encourage any European association that ICL decides to be in its commercial interests.
Mr. Bishop: The House will welcome the Government's statement on the computer industry which demonstrates the rôle of public enterprise in the maintenance of vital industries.
As there has been an apparent delay in the making of the statement, is the Minister satisfied that the difficulties involved have been resolved? In view of the fact that Plessey has about 20 per cent. of the stock, GEC 19 per cent., and the Government only 10·49 per cent., does he think that adequate support is being given by the other shareholders?
Does the Minister think that for a total investment of public money amounting to about £40 million in three years a Government participation in ICL of only 10 per cent. is justified? What Government representation will be on the board? Will Mr. Duckworth continue to be the Government representative?
In considering the return on public investment, on the basis of last year's announcement may we expect that the royalties on the sales or the levy on profits will continue?
Although we welcome European collaboration, is the Minister satisfied that our interest is protected? As the Select Committee on Science and Technology made about 20 recommendations on the computer industry, will the Minister make representation to his right hon. Friend that the House should have a detailed debate on the future of this important industry?
Mr. Chataway: I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said
532
at the end of his remarks. It is true that the level of support which the Government are here proposing is a great deal lower than that recommended by the Select Committee, but the House will note the strength of the company and the progress that has been made in the past year.
It is perhaps wrong to draw analogies with other European companies. Other European companies are receiving greater support than that which is proposed for ICL, but ICL can undoubtedly claim to be the strongest indigenous computer company in Western Europe.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned delays. As he will realise, this support is from September of this year, so the announcement is made in good time, and there are no outstanding difficulties.
The recovery arrangements are more stringent than those that have prevailed on previous occasions. They give the taxpayer the opportunity of a full return on the money expended, and I believe that the strength of the company justifies recovery arrangements of this type.
The Government retain the right to appoint a board member. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to encourage the company in collaborative association with other European countries if it believes it to be in its commercial interest.
Mr. Skeet: Does the Minister accept that the amount which has been made available to ICL is equivalent to that which has been made available to CII and Nixdorf in Germany, or is it less? Why did not the Minister make available the company's interim report so that we could know the profitability basis of the company and whether it would be practicable to raise all the money on the open market?
Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend will know that there is no computer company outside the United States which at the present stage of development is able to raise all its capital from the market. A decision has to be taken by European Governments whether they wish to have an indigenous computer capability.
My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the level of support given by the German and French Governments is higher than that proposed by the British

533
Government for ICL, but the determining factor here must surely be the needs of the company and its strength.
Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that this announcement will be welcomed in North Staffordshire where the new range is being tested? Does he agree that Government grants are higher not only in France and Germany but also in Japan and the United States? Against that background, does he believe that Government aid can end by 1976 if the British computer industry is to compete with America and Japan?
Mr. Chataway: The arrangements I have announced follow a period of intensive consultation with the company and major shareholders. It is the belief of the major shareholders and of the company on the basis of its latest forecasts that this is the level of aid that will he required to launch the new range and that the company will be profitable—it is already profitable—without further Government support from 1976.
Mr. Powell: Will any specific parliamentary proceedings be necessary to authorise these further disbursements?
Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This support will be given under the Science and Technology Act.
Mr. Kaufman: Bearing in mind that in Manchester today unemployment is 32 per cent. higher than it was three years ago, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, where ICL West Gorton is situated and where it is a most important part of the employment provision, his statement will be regarded as no more than what is needed? Will he guarantee to my constituents, who regard this matter as extremely important, that the Government will continue to give priority to ICL in the purchase of computers, that all the work force employed at West Gorton will continue to have guaranteed employment and that all further aid required will be forthcoming?
Mr. Chataway: Matters of employment are for the company to decide but, clearly, the intention of the Government, as of the company, is that these arrangements should enable the company to prosper and expand. I have spelt out the situation about support and given the limits of that support. I am grateful
534
to the hon. Gentleman for what I took to be somewhat grudging approval.
Mr. Biffen: Which would my hon. Friend prefer—support from the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) or scepticism from myself? May I ask my right hon. Friend—since this is to be done through the Science and Technology Act rather than the Industry Act and therefore, parliamentary approval will not be specifically sought—whether he will none the less make representations to the Leader of the House to ensure that there is an early debate on this subject since many will conclude that public expenditure of this dimension on high technology implies a criterion of economic and social judgment which we shall wish to contest? Can he say whether the new generation of computers for which this money is primarily required is essentially for military and defensive purposes or for commercial use?
Mr. Chataway: These computers are for commercial and defence use. My hon. Friend posed me a difficult choice at the outset of his remarks and I am not sure that I can decide between the alternatives. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows of my hon. Friend's remarks about a debate. As to the question of the options which the Government have, the House will want to consider, as the Select Committee did in great detail over some months, whether it would be right to allow total control of the computer industry to be in American hands. There is clearly a choice for Britain and Western Europe; it is whether they wish to have a British or European capabality in computers. The majority of the House might conclude, as did the Select Committee, that it would be reckless for Europe to opt out of this area in which the Americans have had a flying start.
Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little less mealy-mouthed and call a subsidy a subsidy? Will he confirm that the Government are a shareholder and will he say why the Government have not taken equity participation to inject this money into the company? Can he say what the Government will do in the event of the company needing more funds than he has announced and in the event of GEC and Plessey failing to be

535
satisfied with the company's profitable development?
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman might recognise that we have the strongest computer company in Europe and that the kind of questions he asks are not designed to bring out its competitive strength. If he wants to call the launching aid given by virtually every Government to a computer industry at this stage of its development a subsidy he is at liberty to do so. I have told the House the limits of the support which the Government are prepared to make available.
Mr. Kilfedder: While I welcome the support which my right hon. Friend has announced for ICL, may I ask whether he would accept that it is a bizarre situation that recently the Government refused to accede to my request that they should force a Belfast shipyard, largely Government-owned and heavily financed from taxpayers' money, to purchase ICL computer equipment in preference to an American system? Is this not wrong?
Mr. Chataway: It must be for those purchasing computers to make their own arrangements as to which computer will best serve their needs. In the public sec-
536
tor here, as in the public sector in France and Germany, a measure of home preference is given.
Mr. Joel Barnett: While I welcome the decision to maintain a British computer industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not agree that this is a shocking way to use taxpayers' money—to spend £40 million when there is only a £41 million market capitalisation—rather than taking over the company or at least controlling it?
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will notice that there is no successful computer company in Western Europe or North America which is nationalised. If nationalisation is his answer to success in a highly competitive area, I am bound to say that it is not the Government's. As for the sum of £40 million over a five-year period, he will note that the Select Committee recommended total support for the European computer industry of £50 million a year.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a short debate ahead and I already know of 25 hon. Members who wish to catch my eye on the railways debate. We must get on.

SECURITY INDUSTRY LICENSING BILL
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler Mr. Norman Fowler (Nottingham, South): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of private security firms, of firms which manufacture, supply and fit security equipment, and of private detectives.
During the last 20 years crime in Britain has increased. One of the results of that increase has been the development in this country of a private security industry which, it is now estimated, employs about 40,000 staff. It is important that we understand why this figure is likely to increase.
In presenting his report last month, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, spelt out what had been the implication of police policy for some time; namely, that the police must have priorities in investigating crime. The public will expect them to deal with the most serious forms of crime—crimes of violence and armed robbery—but necessarily, police strengths being what they are, other crimes will not get the same attention. It does not necessarily follow from this that these are the trivial crimes. Burglary often has a profound effect upon the individual householder who suffers from it. Yet the facts have to be faced. In London last year there were no fewer than 76,000 burglaries, and it is almost inconceivable that the Metropoltian Police can ever reach the strength where that vast number of crimes can be investigated properly.
We may regard this situation with some regret, but we must also learn the lessons of it. One of those lessons is that the public and business must take better care of their own property. We must all learn to take crime prevention more seriously. If that is the case the private security industry will have an increasingly important part to play. This part should be encouraged, and the intention of the Bill is to encourage good security firms and to ensure high standards. However, it also follows that if we are to encourage the good firms we should try to eliminate the bad ones and the dubious individuals who undoubtedly operate in this area.
I have two examples of what I mean by the bad firms. There are the ineffi-
538
cient firms like the alarm company which was employed by a firm to fit a window alarm. The alarm was so useless that when the very thing happened that it was supposed to guard against and the window was broken into the alarm was not activated. Later tests showed that whole troops of burglars could have processed through without the alarm system being activated. When the company which was burgled tried to sue the alarm company it found itself confronted by one of those exclusion clauses which exclude everything, including gross incompentence.
But the most serious of all aspects of this industry is that there are firms which employ staff with known and serious criminal records. The television programme "This Week" did a recent broadcast on the security industry. It found in Manchester a company run by a man who admitted that he had twice been convicted of grievous bodily harm and who employed four or five staff with criminal records, including one who had served sentences of three and five years for burglary and receiving. Additional evidence of this unfortunate and highly regrettable trend was revealed when the representatives of the police told the Younger Committee on Privacy that ex-criminals and associates of criminals operated as private detectives.
I have given only two examples because I want to be brief. Undoubtedly, there are others, and perhaps I may use this opportunity to ask members of the public and business concerns to send me further examples of abuse so that a full dossier can be brought together for examination by the Home Office and to be presented to this House. It is beyond doubt that the present system is wide open to abuse, and to criminal abuse. The opportunities that the industry gives to criminals are clear enough, yet the situation is that entry into the industry is uncontrolled. Even if a man working in this industry is convicted of a crime in the job that he is working in there is nothing to prevent him returning to it after his sentence has been served.
For example, if a private detective here was convicted of the kind of offence for which the Watergate conspirators are now serving sentences in the United States there would be nothing to prevent him in this country recommencing work as a private detective on the day of his

539
release. I cannot believe that this situation can be in any way satisfactory. Several countries have already recognised the problems and have introduced licensing systems.
My Bill is not a call for licensing for its own sake. It is a recognition that there are important issues at stake, issues involving public policy on crime and individual liberty and privacy. This industry is not one that can go entirely unregulated. The Bill would establish a licensing board on the lines of the Gaming Board. It would aim to ensure minimum standards throughout the industry and to eliminate the criminal element within the industry. It would provide a valuable method of protecting the public and encouraging the undoubtedly good firms which already exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. David Walder and Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.

SECURITY INDUSTRY LICENSING
Bill to provide for the licensing of private security firms, of firms which manufacture, supply and fit security equipment, and of private detectives, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY SUPPLY
[25TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

RAILWAYS
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Fred Mulley: (Sheffield, Park): I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for allowing the uncertainty about the future of British Railways to continue and for its failure to produce a policy designed to ensure the utilisation of our railways to the greatest social, economic and environmental advantage.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the continuing support which Her Majesty's Government is giving to British Rail and recognises the need for Her Majesty's Government to complete its assessment of the most effective future rôle of our railway system as soon as possible".
Mr. Guy Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in the Vote Office this afternoon there were no copies available of the review of railway policy, which is central to the subject we are debating? I have succeeded in obtaining from the Library a relatively flimsy document consisting of a summary of the report of the Government on the subject. Should not hon. Members at least have this available to them to enable them to take part in the debate?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I hope that the point has been noted and that something may be done to remedy it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Mulley: In view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, about the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak I shall seek to curtail my speech, and this will involve my presentation of the case in outline. No doubt my hon. and right hon. Friends will put flesh and blood on the bare bones of my argument.
Our purpose in selecting British Railways for debate is threefold. First, the House should have the opportunity of

541
making its views known to the Government before firm decisions are taken so that it can reflect the considerable public interest and concern about the future of the railways.
Secondly, we want to stress again the anxiety not only of the staff but of the general public at the long delay by the Government in reaching a decision about the future of the railways. We understand that the review was begun in June 1972, and, of course, matters were made much worse by the unauthorised publication—and the Government's handling of the issue—last October of a map showing a greatly reduced railway network. If something along the lines of that unauthorised disclosure were to happen it would be a national disaster.
Thirdly, we seek to set out in general terms, because we lack the detailed information for precise quantification, the kind of rôle we on the Opposition benches see for British Railways and the policy we believe the Government should pursue.
Recently we had the benefit of the publication of the British Railways Board's proposals to the Minister and the chairman's Press conference. They seem to be a modest set of proposals. In a number of respects, especially with regard to commuter services and freight, I should like to have seen a more radical programme. In the opinion of the Opposition, the Minister should review these proposals as a minimum basis for what is required and not as a maximum.
Having said that, I appreciate that the British Railways Board describes its proposals as interim only. But I believe that we have to try to look into the real rôle and future of our railways. I hope that we shall have from the Minister an assurance that, as well as the proposals of the British Railways Board, he will take careful note of and consider the representations which have been made to him by the railway unions. We have all been impressed, for example, to read the constructive proposals of the NUR which were published last week.
There is a consensus on one point at least. It is that the present railway network should be maintained and that the present mileage of about 11,500 should
542
remain the minimum. I do not suggest that this means that no single mile of railway line should ever be closed. But, equally, we have to be prepared to consider the possibility of putting down new railway lines to meet new situations.
Many people have suggested for example—I am glad that the British Railways Board has caught up with this one—that we should try to reverse the trend of the abandonment of private sidings and that it would be a good idea if we subsidised firms to have private sidings so as to move goods directly by rail away from the point of production. Clearly, the Channel Tunnel will involve new railway lines, and if—though I hope that it will not happen—the Government persist in the Maplin development it is obvious that new railway lines will be required there.
I suggest to the Minister that, while he is making up his mind about the future of the railways, all closure proposals should be deferred. There is great concern that past policy may prejudice what we hope will be a dramatic change on the part of the Government. In case the Minister suggests, as he has done in the past, that his Government have a much better record about the closure of railway lines than that of the Labour administration, let me remind him that in the case of every mile closed since 1970 Labour Ministers had decided to keep it open. If we had not it would not have been there for the present Government to close. I hope that he will not elaborate that argument.
As for investment, we all pay tribute to British Railways for the way that the inter-city passenger services have been developed. I am sure that the House will wish the board well in its pioneering work with the high-speed train, which is to have its first public trial quite soon. Then will come the advanced passenger train of the future.
I am concerned, however, about the implicit suggestion that these services can be maintained only by higher and higher fares. In many ways such a policy will defeat the object of providing these first-class passenger services.
We hope that the Government, in their review, will consider providing a subsidy comparable to concessionary fares on public transport in cities in order to

543
enable disabled people and old-age pensioners to travel free or at reduced fares in off-peak periods.
What is proposed by the British Railways Board in terms of commuter services is less satisfactory. Very considerable investment is necessary. I do not suggest for a moment that by developing railway commuter services all the very serious problems of congestion in our great cities will be solved. But I believe that the railways have a rôle to play in conjunction with the passenger transport authorities. All this will cost money, not least because the great problem of travel to work is the peak hours and the fact that equipment cannot possibly be utilised for the greater part of the 24 hours. It will be expensive. But against the purely commercial return we have to set the very important social and environmental factors involved.
The proposals in the British Railways document about freight are even more disappointing. There is a tendency to exaggerate the rôle that the railways can play in the moving of freight. It is suggested in some quarters that if only the railways were used properly virtually all commercial vehicles would disappear from our roads. I am sure that we all know that that would not be possible. On the other hand, if new measures were taken and if the management of British Railways concentrated on the problem a very considerable increase in rail freight would be possible. Certainly I should like to see the management more concerned about this than about its field reorganisation problems.
If, as I understand, the Government have rejected the concept of quantity licensing, about which I have always conceded that there are problems, other proposals have to be forthcoming because in many cases traffic will not go to the railways unless deliberate decisions are taken.
I have mentioned already the possibility of a subsidy to private sidings. I feel that this is a case where some form of environmental subsidy or formula should be devised.
In addition to getting traffic off our roads, we are all concerned now about the prospects of a world fuel shortage in the foreseeable future. This could be another factor in arguing for special con-
544
siderations to get more freight on to the railways.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I put one question to my right hon. Friend? If he is not in a position to answer it immediately, perhaps he will let me have the facts later. It is alleged that under the Rome Treaty we are not allowed to subsidise the railways so as to give them an unfair advantage over road transport. Is that the case?
Mr. Mulley: I shall be coming on to deal with the problems which may be posed by Britain's entry into the EEC. In fact, I suspect that the boot is likely to be on the other foot and that the railways may benefit under EEC regulations. However, I want to keep my speech as short as possible. I shall be dealing with my hon. Friend's point in the sequence in which it appears in my speech notes.
I come now to what is the most important and probably the most difficult aspect of the problem. I refer, of course, to the financial structure of British Railways. Since the last war—and probably even before it—as a nation we have greatly neglected investment in transport infrastructure under successive Governments, especially in respect of the railways. The nation and the economy are suffering today as a consequence. It is clear that cutting manpower is not the simple answer to the problem of railway finance. I remind the House of the impressive record of British Railways over the past 10 years in reducing their manpower. The figures have been given by the chairman. From 439,000 employees in 1962 there has been a reduction to 230,000 in 1972. The board proposes to make a further reduction of another 40,000. The answer lies in much more investment rather than in concentrating on cutting manpower further.
We should pay tribute to the cooperation and increased productivity of all railwaymen of all grades over this period. But I do not think we should tax too much their dedication and loyalty. Equally, we need to make clear that the pay of people in the public sector should not be restricted or conditioned by the financial state of the industry for which they work, over which they have neither control nor responsibility, and whose course and condition are to a large extent dictated by Government policy.

545
The hard fact is that we cannot judge railway finances by the canons of commercial accountancy. We have to make allowances for the social and environmental benefits which the use of railways offers. In the 1968 Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and carried through by Mr. Richard Marsh, the present Chairman of British Railways, this was recognised by payment on social grounds for unremunerative passenger lines. We can say now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was probably wrong, even after allowing for that factor, to require the railways to work on a commercial basis, particularly in the carriage of freight, in every other respect. I think that my right hon. Friend and Mr. Marsh were wrong in not making sufficient allowance for the advent of a Conservative Government and their disastrous economic and industrial relations policies. For example, the industrial disputes in the coal and steel industries have had a dramatic effect on railway finances in the last two years.
We also need to remember that if we disregard the very substantial interest charges which the railways pay, they are still making an operating surplus. No country in the world has a railway system which pays, judged by commercial accounting standards. I do not know how much longer it is sensible for us to believe that we can be different from everyone else in this respect.
I have here the latest figures—for 1970—available for the other countries in the European Economic Community. British Railways in that year showed a deficit of £58 million, the Italian railways £335 million, the French railways £227 million, and the German railways £301 million. In round figures, whereas this country gave a subsidy to the railways of £100 million, the French gave £500 million and the Germans £700 million. We have all noted with interest the recent commitment in principle by the West German Government to give further support to the railways.
The right hon. Gentleman may have the effrontery to claim that the present Government have done more for British Railways than any other Government. I ask him to work out the arithmetic in real terms, allowing for rising costs over
546
the last three years, and to deduct the losses which the railways have suffered through Government policy—for example, having to keep their prices down, having to suffer the losses, for which they have had no compensation, through industrial disputes, particularly in the coal industry, and from the rundown for a considerable period in the steel industry.
The short point is that we need a completely new financial structure for the railways on which the social and environmental factors should be built. We need to get away from the system, as I understand it is today, in which the railways are turning away goods traffic practically every day because they cannot justify carrying it since it could not be done on a strict commercial basis. I have already referred to the problems which may be created if the fares structure for passengers is also assessed on that basis.
What we must also know—this at least I hope to get today—is how the regulations of the EEC will affect the whole pattern of railway finances. We have to take account of a whole series of directives and so on, in particular directive 1192/69 which, as far as I know, the Government have said will as far as appropriate be implemented by us on 1st October. We need to know clearly today what the Government regard as appropriate, and to what extent, in terms of their pension funds, infrastructure costs, bridges, signalling and the like, the railways will receive compensation from the Government because they are unfairly placed vis-à-vis road transport, which has its roads, traffic lights, and the rest all provided.
If all these conditions are to come into effect on 1st October, difficulties arise for us because of the Summer Recess. We are now well into July, and I understand that we are about three weeks from the recess. If we do not have an opportunity this month to discuss the Government's attitude to the EEC regulations, we shall come back in October to find them already in force. It is imperative that the Government provide time for the House to be acquainted with this information and to debate it. I hope that we shall get a complete statement of Government policy towards the railways before the Summer Recess and that the Government will provide time to debate it. Certainly,

547
before 1st October we need to know about how the Government see the development of the railways in the context of the EEC regulations currently in force and those which are likely to be introduced.
We cannot fail to note in this debate the immense change in the public attitude to British Railways. Not so long ago the railways were the cinderella of the public service. They had the image of slow, late and dirty trains and expensive tea served in chipped cups. Today they are the queen of the environmentalist lobby—
Dame Irene Ward: Nonsense.
Mr. Malley:—and it is claimed that nearly all our transport problems could be resolved by further investment in their use. Obviously, both these pictures are exaggerated caricatures of the true position, but they illustrate the great improvement in British Railways over recent years and—very important—the trend of public opinion.
What is unmistakable is the need for British Railways to play a vital rôle in our transport planning and our economy. What is also unmistakable is the existence of a strong body of public opinion that the railways are a great national asset and that it is in the national interest that they should be utilised to the greatest social, economic and environmental advantage. Above all, there is a determination that we should not take decisions now based on budget balancing and crude commercial accountancy which all of us will bitterly regret 10, 15 or 20 years from now. The Government will neglect this public opinion at their peril.
4.19 p.m.
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the continuing support which Her Majesty's Government is giving to British Rail and recognises the need for Her Majesty's Government to complete its assessment of the most effective future rôle of our railway system as soon as possible".
I begin with the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). The document with which he was concerned is not in any way a Government document; nor is it particularly
548
the subject of today's debate. I have, however, made inquiries, and I understand that photostat copies are now available in the Library. Further copies are being made available in the Vote Office as soon as they can be got here from Marylebone.
I ought to say at the start how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the mildness of his condemnation of the Government. and go on to say that I fully understand the reasons why he was so mild. We were all impressed by the charm and skill with which he reminded himself of the questions which had faced him when he was in office not much more than three years ago. I was sorry to find though that with the passing of the years he has not been any more successful in finding clear answers than he was then.
On the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on the subject of the EEC regulations, these are long and complicated. They owe their length and complexity to the number of people who took part in framing them; but it was clearly the intention, and has certainly since been the practice, of most of those who did frame them to give whatever help they thought fit to their own railway systems, and that they have done resolutely. I have no doubt that no Government in this country which wished to help the railways would be in any way inhibited from doing so by the EEC regulations to which reference has been made.
Mr. Mulley: I was hoping the regulations might persuade a reluctant Government to give help to the railways. Is not that also implicit in the discussion?
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman ought to wait. I have congratulated him and thanked him for his mildness and also for his modesty. I believe that is a very becoming quality in politicians in approaching the subject of the railways, for we have over many years exhorted, legislated, interfered with and almost managed but never solved the problems of this extraordinary industry about which so many people feel more deeply than they think.
Soon after Mr. Marsh became Chairman of the British Railways Board I

549
invited him and his board to examine the industry and to advise me as to what choices in terms of railway policy could be put before the Government and Parliament, what rôle the railways could perform to the advantage of our country in the decade ahead, and what it would cost. I am grateful to him and to his staff for the time and energy which they have applied to this very baffling task and for the patient way in which they have responded to the goadings of my Department and myself. The board's part in what has been a very substantial exercise was pretty well completed last month when it delivered to me its last document. At the same time the chairman gave an outline of the board's conclusions to the unions, whose patience during this long process I most readily acknowledge.
I have myself already seen the three general secretaries and I am having a further meeting on Friday with them and members of their executives in order to hear their reactions to the chairman's statement. I will in due course be discussing with them the Government's proposals before reporting these in detail to Parliament, probably as part of a larger transport document, after the recess. While this debate has come, therefore, a little earlier than I myself would have chosen, it is useful in that it will give the House an opportunity to express its views on what Mr. Marsh has said, an opportunity which will be renewed in the next Session of Parliament when the Government's own ideas will be put before it.
Meanwhile, I should perhaps tell the House that Draconian cuts of the kind at one time rumoured following the escape of a regrettably mobile document are not, in the view of the Government, the answer to the industry's or the nation's problems. The House will, I am sure, be conscious of the fact that pending the completion of the examination I have considerably slowed down the rate of passenger closures. The right hon. Gentleman, whose clarity of thinking I have always applauded, seemed to get a little confused on this subject. If I could just refresh his memory as to what has been going on, whereas under the late administration 3,430 route miles were closed, in the past three years the figure has been a mere 135 miles—something which really must
550
come to the right hon. Gentleman as a considerable shock after what he was saying only a moment ago.
Mr. Mulley: On the contrary, I am, of course, extremely pleased. I am only sorry that the Minister has thought fit to close 135 miles which, rightly or wrongly, we decided to keep open, otherwise they would not have been there for him to close.
Mr. Peyton: I am almost overcome by the sympathy which I feel for the right hon. Gentleman and my sorrow that somebody who is such a good judge of a case should have ventured to make that point then. But, still, policy must be the explanation.
I am persuaded also that in looking at the problems of the system a distinction should be drawn between those parts which are well used and those which are used, as it were, only by hearsay. The House will, of course, be aware of the fact that under European legislation the previous limit of three years which attached to undertakings to pay grant on unremunerative services disappears. I believe many people will feel that this is a change for the better, as the previous arrangement inhibited good management and certainly discouraged even the most minor improvements which might have helped the services towards better results.
I believe it is very important that we should at least try to learn from the past. It seems to me that ever since the war the railways have tended, often enough with the encouragement of Governments, to live somewhat in the past. They have not been alone in that. They have been optimistic about their ability to hold and win traffic and contain their costs. They have not always related their investments to financial return—and the 1967 White Paper very properly drew attention to this. They have paid too little regard to the sensitivity of their business to the national economy as a whole and they have underrated the effect of better roads and the expansion of the road haulage industry, which, with its greater flexibility, offers a service with which, at least over short distances, the railways cannot easily compete.
It has to be admitted that Governments have been equally slow to move with the times, instanced by the continuation, long

551
after it was justified, of the common carrier liability and the imposition of financial duties the performance of which must have been perceptively impossible even at the time that they were laid down.
Having called attention to some of the failures, I think it only right to take note of the considerable achievements of the industry during years of difficulty and change. The labour force has been more than halved since nationalisation, with a reduction of over 200,000 men since 1962. While passenger miles and freight ton miles remain at much the same level as in 1965, wagons have been reduced by 60 per cent., marshalling yards by 70 per cent., carriages by 45 per cent. and locomotives by 50 per cent. At the same time greater productivity, better planning and marketing, and the safety record—which is probably without equal anywhere in the world—are features which should not be ignored and in which all concerned can take pride.
It would be appropriate if I were to spend a few moments dealing with the suggestion frequently made—I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Park restrained himself in dealing with this point—that our problems would soon be over if only the Government would do the sensible thing and direct freight from road to rail. It is worth noting that, whereas in the 1968 Act the Labour Government introduced a system of quantity licensing, they did not, under the right hon. Gentleman's wise stewardship and management, go to the folly of putting it into effect. Had they done so they would have found themselves and our transport system enmeshed in a bureaucratic cobweb of nightmare proportions, without conferring any reasonable benefits on the railways. The more one interferes with and slows down the movement of goods, the more one tends to add to the number of vehicles and the cost of moving the same quantity of goods.
I recognise that there can be few people who have not felt how wonderful it would be if the contents of the monster immediately ahead of them on the road or the Leviathan which had just churned its way through a once peaceful village could be interred decently and peacefully in a rail wagon.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Minister has pointed to the greater flexibility of road transport and also to the fact that because we pay for the roads and other services the roads are cheaper in terms of overheads than are the railways. How will it ever be possible to attract freight back to rail if we are to leave it simply to mere competition?
Mr. Peyton: This is a difficult point, and I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech, the contents of which will be fully observed and noted.
Quite apart from the fact that customers usually have very good reasons for picking their own means of transport, there is clearly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, only limited scope for transferring freight from road to rail. Most journeys in this country are short. Indeed, the average freight haul is only about 40 miles—or, to put it in another way, four-fifths of the goods carried on our roads travel for less than 50 miles. What the railways are properly looking for, with my active encouragement, is blocking traffic, either on a merry-go-round basis or over long distances. To put the matter in perspective, a 50 per cent, increase in rail freight would only reduce total road traffic by less than 2 per cent. and would reduce goods traffic on the roads by less than 8 per cent. Any benefit in terms of reduced congestion would be eroded in under six months by normal growth.
Nobody can pretend that the financial history of the railways since the war has been anything other than disappointing. In the last 10 years over £3,000 million of assistance by way of write-offs, loans and capital and revenue grants has been made available by successive Governments. Between 1963 and 1968 losses amounted to £800 million. The 1968 Act wrote off a debt amounting to £1,200 million. Over the three years during which the present Government have been in office Government assistance to the railways by way of grant and loan has amounted to £422 million. In 1972 the total payments by the Government to the railways was £138 million. This year the figure is likely to be considerably higher.
Mr. Harold Walker Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster) rose—
Mr. Peyton: I want to come quickly to the end of my remarks because I have already been reminded by Mr. Deputy Speaker that there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.
We should all by now at least be familiar with the difficulties, disappointments and dangers. We have no alternative but to accept that none of the nostrums or prescriptions which have been tried hitherto has worked. Mr. Marsh—I am most grateful to him for taking the chair at this difficult stage in railway history—has at least had an opportunity of looking at the problem from two angles. He has put forward some proposals which would, if accepted by the Government, involve a further and express commitment to the railways. The Government and Parliament now have to decide—or will in the near future be faced with this decision—how far we should be justified in accepting a series of proposals which, even if they prove to be effective, would certainly not be cheap.
I end on this note. It is easy enough to debate, in a rather cursory manner, the affairs of a great industry such as the railways and to make inadequate mention of the men who have given a lifetime of service to it and whose concern at a time of uncertainty must naturally be great. I am very conscious of this, and I should like to work as quickly as possible towards a solution, but in recent months I have been powerfully reminded of how stubborn and difficult a problem this is. I hope that I may have the indulgence of the House in asking for a little further time.
4.40 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport Industries on his modesty in defence of the Government's policy. He has a great deal to be modest about.
It is typical of the present Government, and sadly typical of the Department on whose behalf he is speaking this afternoon, that we should be having this discussion about the future of our railway system, not only without a Government document on railway policy, but without a Government document on transport policy at all. Vital as it is for us to have this debate and to force the Govern-
554
ment into the open as to their plans, it is appalling that we should have to discuss the subject, with all the economic implications which have been indicated, without even having had a clue about the Government's overall transport strategy.
The House will, I am sure, forgive me a certain amount of ironical satisfaction when I look back at the attitude of the Conservative Party during the passage of the Labour Government's legislation on transport. Never will those of us who were engaged in the all-night sittings on the Transport Bill forget how the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with his running mate then and now—the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping—used to keep us up in a desparate attempt to prevent that Bill from reaching the statute book and, in fact, staking their whole political futures on achieving that end.
Never shall we forget how the Conservative Party and its various allies in industry poured out millions of pounds in propaganda posters all over the country—"Kill Transport Bill". Not only did they not succeed in killing the Transport Bill, but they have not even attempted to kill the Transport Act. The right hon. Gentleman may remember, after his few fleeting and superficial remarks about the proposals for quantity licensing, that there was a pledge in the Conservative Party's election manifesto that when they were returned to power they would repeal that iniquitous provision in that Act.
Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for reminding me of this. I assure her that it has not been forgotten. What she has to deal with is the fact that her own Government failed to put her scheme into practice.
Mrs. Castle: I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman cannot stay broody for too long. We are desperately waiting to see what egg he lays, and what part the Transport Act plays in his policy.
I remind the House that we have been extremely patient with the Government. By the time that I had been Minister of Transport for less than a couple of years, I had put before the House a detailed analysis of the transport problem in this country, as I saw it, in four or five White Papers.

555
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) had presided brilliantly over a joint steering group of British Railways and the Ministry of Transport to analyse the whole future of the railways and consider what we should do to give them financial stability. Above all, we had produced and begun to carry through the House a comprehensive and mammoth Transport Bill. Yet now, three years after the Conservative Government came to office, we are still waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to produce his policy document, and I suggest to him that when he does it ought not to be a White Paper but a white sheet, and the slogan ought to be "Forgive us, Barbara; we knew not what we did."
One thing is surely clear, though there was no indication of it in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Even recognising that the right hon. Gentleman is still in the early stages of policy pregnancy, I think he might have given us a slightly more worthwhile analysis of the problems to which he said he was addressing his mind. There can be no sensible discussion of railway policy except in the context of a Government statement of their national transport plan.
I therefore begin by asking the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that when he does put a document before us after the recess it shall not be merely a narrow and, therefore, totally unsatisfactory document dealing with the railways as though one can deal with them in isolation from everything else in the transport field, but will tell us what parts of the analysis of the Labour Government's Transport Act the Government repudiate, and, if they do repudiate some parts of it, what they intend to put in their place in comprehensive terms.
It is no part of my case to claim that the Labour Government's Transport Act cannot be improved in any respect. In transport, things change rapidly. The traffic and environmental problems in this country have changed in the past five years, and we must take account of that, just as in drawing up the Transport Bill in 1967–68 I had to take account of the vast changes that had taken place since the first Labour Government's Transport Act of 1948.
556
None the less, I suggest to the House that the logic behind the 1968 Act was so compelling that the Government have not been able to get away from it. They have made no move to alter any of its provisions in the three years that they have been in office, despite the fact that they said that they were going to do certain things immediately.
The Government have been sluggish or downright negligent in taking advantage of the provisions of the Act in order to achieve its aims. What were those aims, and what should be the aim of any national transport policy? What was the Act's philosophy? First, we argued that if we were to save our urban and rural environment from further and further devastation we must make the revival and expansion of public transport our key priority.
Secondly, we argued that on social as well as economic grounds this country would need a substantial railway network for as far ahead as we could see and the country must be ready to pay the price. That is why, when I took over as Minister of Transport, although I found in the pipeline, in accordance with the Beeching philosophy, proposals to slash the railway network to 8,000 miles, after mature and detailed consideration of all the things that a Minister in that situation has to take into account—economic, financial and social factors—we produced a plan to stabilise the network at 11,500 miles and thus put into reverse the previous Conservative Government's policy.
Thirdly, we argued that if the social and environmental aims were to be achieved we must plan the integration of movement by road, rail, air and water as a deliberate aim of Government policy.
I am sure the House will agree that since that Act was introduced the environmental arguments have been strengthened enormously. When I took over as Minister of Transport, the most vociferous lobby in this country was that represented by road interests. The propaganda and pressure groups, let by the British Road Federation, said that we must concentrate all our national resources on building the first 1,000 miles of motorway.
The environment lobby had barely been born, and when I tried to suggest that there were other considerations that

557
we should bear in mind I had an uphill task because almost the whole of public opinion and the then Opposition were against me, and what alarmed me this afternoon was to hear the Minister at that Dispatch Box mouthing arguments that were already out of date in 1968. He put forward the argument that the road system must always prevail on economic grounds.
Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton indicated dissent.
Mrs. Castle: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD, if he does not manage to cook it before it goes to press. He has said it before. To hear the right hon. Gentleman, one would think that speeches had not been made throughout the length and breadth of the country by representatives of the Department of the Environment. The Government must make up their minds about whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the environmentalists, whose favours they are currently wooing with words? If so, are they prepared to back that with action and with finance?
One the integral parts of the policy of the Transport Act 1968 was that we should seek to restore the morale of railwaymen, which had been depressed over the years by not only the railway closures and continuing uncertainty about their future but the fact that they lived all the time in a deficit industry. That was one of the prime aims.
If one cares about the workers in an industry, one has to think of the psychological factors that affect their morale. All the time that the House of Commons was having to have debates about the losses on the railway system, this was helping to make railwaymen feel that they were second-class citizens; hence the financial solution that was worked out so ably and so thoroughly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon and the other members of the joint steering group on railway policy. Incidentally, we put a working railwayman on that group in order that we should have first-hand access to the views of the rank and file.
From that grew the decision for the vast writing off of capital debt—£1,200 million, as the right hon. Gentleman has said—and the introduction of grants for
558
clearly defined and carefully costed social purposes. The grants were not only for the socially necessary railway lines. The steering group analysed all the other overheads that it felt that the railways were expected to carry unjustifiably, in connection with level crossings, bridges and so on.
Yet now, five years later, we have Mr. Marsh telling us that there is no such thing as a viable railway network. He says that he must have a more "flexible" financial framework with greater financial support, and, as an interim measure, he wants to double investment to £1,700 million over the next decade, with no guarantee that this will enable the railways to pay their way.
The House would not be discharging its economic responsibility if it did not examine such a proposal very carefully indeed.
Let me say at once that I agree with Mr. Marsh on one thing. Slashing the railway network will not make it viable. We must never again pursue the Beeching mirage, the feeling that there is somewhere a hard core of high-speed intercity railway lines which, if the system be cut down to that hard core, can be made to pay its way. Mr. Marsh is right. That is purely illusory. He is right, too, in saying that the right way is not to cut the network of 11,500 miles but to see that it is better loaded, to make more economic use of its capacity. But, that said, I must add that the House could not be expected to authorise investment of £1,700 million on the basis of such a superficial and slipshod document as British Rail has put before the Minister.
Anyone who has been in government knows that money does not grow on trees. We know that the financial resources are inevitably limited and, therefore, that one can only have one form of expenditure by forgoing another form. That is why we need to have detailed plans worked out much more scrupulously.
In answer to Mr. Marsh's demand that he should be given a more flexible financial framework, I say that the way that he has presented his case is the best justification for refusing—as we refused—to continue writing off from time to time capital debts accumulated as a result of over-optimistic forecasts, and

559
instead, as we did in the 1968 Act, making a clear distinction between the areas and forms in which we ought to subsidise the railways on social grounds and, on the other hand, those areas of the board's finances in which it ought to be subject to commercial discipline.
I am ready to wager that when the right hon. Gentleman at last comes to laying his long-delayed egg, I shall find that he agrees with that fundamental analysis.
Perhaps the 1968 Act did not leave British Rail enough financial help. I am prepared to accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon was tough. He was told to be tough, and he was tough. But he tried to be tough and fair.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said, the railways are peculiarly susceptible, on the freight side, to fluctuations in the state of the national economy. If there is a slump, the freight that they carry slumps too, the bulk traffic, and so on, and they are down in the red through no fault of their own. Perhaps we were too tough and did not give the railways enough financial elbow room. Perhaps new areas of British Rail's activities ought to be identified for Government support. I shall come to that matter shortly.
However, the principle of the 1968 Act is right. It is a pity that Mr. Marsh, while praising it as a notable step forward, does not even suggest ways in which the principle that I have outlined might be extended while keeping the essential financial discipline for which we have a right to ask. Indeed, the railways are their own worst enemy when they ask that their financial framework should be flexible, because the great danger is that the country may pick up some of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used this afternoon and begin saying "We cannot continue finding this money. Let us slash the lot."
In looking at what needs to be done, we must break down the problem into its two main elements—passenger and freight. I want to make some constructive suggestions under both those headings. Let us take, first, the passenger services. Here, our first priority must be to maintain the passenger routes, to maintain the
560
11,500 miles network, and not least to maintain the routes in the rural areas. That is one of the most essential steps that we can take to help the environment.
I repeat that we are today looking at railway policy in the context of a new sense of public urgency about the need to preserve the environment. Rural transport is a mess. Despite the new powers, opportunities and grants given in the 1968 Act, effectively nothing is being done in that field. It is a scandal that the counties do not have a rural transport policy and that the Government do not have a policy for making the counties have a policy.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to take up such a large proportion of the time at the disposal of back benchers?
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Lady will learn something if she listens.
Mrs. Castle: Despite the hon. Lady's interruption, I intend to continue to the end of my speech. She can leave the Chamber if she finds it totally unpalatable.
I was saying that our first aim must be to maintain the network. Last year the Government spent £68 million on grants for the socially necessary railway lines. We must be prepared to increase the level of those grants, if necessary. We might at least have had from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon an indication of whether he is prepared at least to do that.
If we are to afford an expansion of these grants we must look carefully at other proposals for financial expenditure, like the rather sweeping proposals for electrification and development of faster intercity services. From an environmental point of view, that should be the priority: whether electrification on selected lines can actually enable the railways to compete with the air routes, as has been done as a result of electrification to Manchester. If we can do that and reduce air flights we are helping the environment. This is all very desirable, but it must be selective.
We must throw all our money and strength behind the development of commuter services. When railway men got

561
depressed about the shrinkage of traffic on certain railway lines I always said to them that I foresaw the future of the railways lying in the development of new rail services in the congested commuter areas. Thanks to the 1968 Act, that is happening. If the right hon. Gentleman is honest he will admit that the proposals of that Act, for setting up passenger transport authorities with powers for drawing up integrated transport plans and the introduction of 75 per cent. infrastructure grant for new forms of public transport have been a most helpful development yet produced in solving our urban transport problem. The Act set up four passenger transport authorities. They varied in effectiveness. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to bring them all up to the level of the best'? If he cared a damn about transport policy he would at least listen to the questions instead of carrying on a running conversation over his shoulder. He has treated the House with indifference in his speech. He might at least listen to the debate.
Mr. Peyton: I assure the right hon. Lady that I have been listening to her—for a long time.
Mr. Heffer: No, the right hon. Gentle. man has been talking.
Mrs. Castle: We would have welcomed a longer speech from the right hon. Gentleman if it had contained anything. His speech took at least three times as long as anyone else's would merely to say nothing.
I am asking him what he is doing to bring all the passenger transport authorities to the level of the best and to encourage their plans for rapid transit schemes What can be done has been demonstrated in the Newcastle area by the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority, through its rapid transit schemes. This is directly relevant to the problem of the railways and their finances. In the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority area there are about 30 miles of existing British Rail track losing £1,500,000 a year on commuter services. These are now to be linked up by rail, by means of a tunnel and bridge, to create one integrated rapid transit scheme.
I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for this. I understand that last year,
562
under the infrastructure grants provisions, he announced that he would give this authority a grant of £60 million towards the rapid transit scheme when it has obtained the necessary powers from the House of Lords. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that, but I ask him why he is dragging his feet over a similar scheme in the SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority, in the Manchester area, where the authority got powers a year ago to build a rapid transit scheme linking the commuter rail services north and south of the city by a central area rail tunnel. This requires a grant of £70 million, consisting of £40 million for the tunnel and £30 million for upgrading 35 miles of existing track and increasing its reliability. The authority is ready to go to contract. It went to see the right hon. Gentleman about it last month, yet he has still not announced his willingness to give a grant.
There are areas in which we can expand and revitalise our railway services so that they can make a massive contribution to the problems of congestion in our urban areas. On the freight side there are two clear policies that the Minister could adopt. One has already been outlined by my right hon. Friend. Far from spending a lot more money, as Mr. Marsh seems to propose, on the wasteful and money-losing wagon-load traffic which is supposed to have been rationalised in the last 10 or 15 years and on which he does not yet have a rationalisation plan, it would be far better if he seriously explored the suggestion of the Labour Party and the railway unions that the Government should subsidise the development of private sidings. We all know that the private siding-to-private siding rail traffic could be one of the ways to take juggernauts off the roads. Why, then, does he not take this proposal seriously?
Secondly, I suggest that, far from repealing the quantity licensing provisions of the Transport Act, the Minister should extend and modernise them. He said that this would involve us in a vast bureaucratic jungle. What—a bureaucratic jungle merely to say that 100,000 of the heavier lorries should be licensed if they were going more than 100 miles.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

563
The right hon. Lady has been speaking for almost half an hour.
Mr. Heffer: Why not?
Mrs. Castle: And I intend to go on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I think the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) knows that that was not a point of order.
Mrs. Castle: I know that hon. Members opposite are deeply uncomfortable, but I intend to go on filling the gaps in the speech of the so-called Minister.
What is so bureaucratic about saying that a heavy lorry should have to be licensed to carry bulk traffic over any distance—coal, steel or other materials which should be on rail—or that a heavy lorry intending to take a vast weight of goods over 100 miles should have to get a licence from independent licensing authorities? What is wrong with suggesting that British Rail or the National Freight Corporation should be able to object to that licence being granted and argue that rail could carry the load equally speedily, at the same cost and with equal reliability?
The time has come to take the environmental argument seriously—not only to activate those proposals but to extend them and give anyone whose environment is threatened by the intrusion of the juggernauts the right to protest and object to such licences before the licensing authority. Not least, why should we not alter our whole attitude to planning powers? Why should we not, for instance, take seriously the suggestion that local authorities should be compelled, in their structure plans, to place industrial development by a railway siding where-ever possible?
What we need, despite the lip service paid by Conservative Members, is a fundamental change in attitude to the whole problem of our environment. We have not begun to do that. It is because we on this side know that the railways can, as no one else, make their contribution to the saving of our environment that we ask the Government at least to begin to treat this problem seriously.
5.8 p.m.
Mr. John H. Osborn: It is with some trepidation that
564
I make my speech after two ex-Ministers of Transport as well as my right hon. Friend. One observation which comes to mind after what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs Castle) said is that the railway sidings of old went alongside our dark satanic mills and could never have been regarded as an environmental asset. I have an office beside a railway line and I have good personal reasons for not regarding railways an environmental asset either. When talking about environmental nuisances, this can apply to the railways as much as to the juggernauts. It is necessary to put this matter into perspective. In this debate so far we have been raking over some very cold embers. My mind too goes back to 1968, when I was one of those whom the right hon. Lady had sitting up in a Committee room until a late hour with her. She brought back today many of the arguments that were relevant then.
Mrs. Castle: Well?
Mr. Osborn: We have debated these matters before. I have witnessed this dialogue over a number of years in the periods of Conservative and Labour Governments. In 1962 we had the Transport Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and the Beeching Plan, and I believed at that time the first steps were taken in the right direction. The right hon. Lady talked about previous Ministers being forgiven, but she should remember that when she was in power car-stickers used to say "Come back Marples: all is forgiven".
The most important feature of the 1968 Act is that quantity licensing was not imposed by the previous Government and that my right hon. Friend will almost certainly feel inclined to repeal it in due course.
Having gone over all this ground, what is new about the situation facing railways throughout the world? What progress has been made in the last decade? What lessons can be learned from other countries?
First, we can take pride in British Rail. Its image has improved over the last 10 years. This is something for which both Governments can take some credit, but the initial steps were taken early in the 1960s. There would be the

565
advanced passenger train and the highspeed train. By contrast, the United States of America has let its railways disintegrate over the last 10 years. The railways have given way to the monsters on the road and to the airlines. This has been regretted in the United States
Europe has had some added protection, largely through the tariff quota system. There are grave doubts about the financial performance of all railways in European countries. In the Commission, those concerned with transport are asking what has gone wrong. In a recent report by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. it was stated:
"Rail traffic is expanding slightly, or in some cases marking time in absolute terms, but is still losing ground to other forms of transport."
Varying figures are given for subsidies. In Britain, the lose of £26 million must be augmented by the grant of £95 million. In West Germany, there was a loss last year of £143 million and in Italy of £273 million. But these figures depend on which charts we consult.
What is certain is that railways, in spite of tariff quota protection, and longer journeys in Europe, present a problem to all countries that own them. I welcome the fact that because of Regulation 1192/69 there is to be normalisation of accounts. It is reasonable that charges which are to be put on railways should not include the cost of level crossings and bridges, for instance. The cost of these developments should be put where it belongs.
Ten years ago the South African system of rigid laws to put traffic on freight was relevant to our debate. But the advantage there lies in the fact that freight journeys are much longer than they are in this country.
What has been the performance in Great Britain in the last 10 years? Between 1962 and 1971 the tonnage taken by rail in this country fell from 228 million tons to 196 million tons, yet the total tonnage of goods has moved up by 30 per cent., going mainly by road, in that time. In this period passenger miles have risen from 173,000 million to 268,500 million. Passenger miles on the road have risen by 55 per cent. in that time, while the number of rail passenger miles
566
has remained almost static dropping 4 per cent. at 22,000 million passenger miles in 1971.
In this country 85 per cent. of our freight moves by road and 63 per cent. of ton miles are on the road. The figures in the annual report of British Rail show that there has been a remarkably limited increase in turnover, in spite of increased fares and the subsidies and social grants given to passenger traffic. In fact, the number of passenger miles are down and the freight turnover is down.
The right hon. Lady has criticised the Government for doing nothing, but it is reasonable to say that while her efforts and those of her right hon. and hon. Friends who were Ministers have resulted in a facelift that we are proud to see they also resulted in a reduction in the use of the railways over the past 10 years and particularly over the past five or six years, during the passage of the 1968 Act and immediately afterwards. In the annual report of the British Railways Board, there is reference on page 7 to the extensive use that is being made of road transport.
What are the realities that face the nation, citizens, Parliament and the Government? In spite of the 1968 and 1962 Transport Acts, more passengers and freight have gone by road, which provides an advantage compared with steel wheel and rail.
The point was brought out at a Council for the Protection of Rural England conference in the Sheffield area by someone who said that when they first owned a car many people in the east end of that area were liberated, being no longer tied to timetables, and that they had a freedom which was denied to them hitherto. Many new motorists value the freedom and opportunity given to them by owning a car. There is the same flexibility in moving freight by the juggernaut, however unpopular it may be environmentally.
What more can we do to direct freight back on to the railways? Over the past 10–12 years there has been an increased use of the freightliner service. It is estimated that whereas it is transporting 5 million tons per year now, which is small compared to the whole, this figure may rise to 11 million tons in 1981. That will be a 120 per cent.

567
increase, but it is still scratching at the problem. My right hon. Friend was right to remind us that those who want to transport goods from one place to another by road and the juggernaut frequently do so because that method is flexible and reliable and has economic advantages.
I turn to the future. My right hon. Friend said that average freight journeys in this country are 40 miles. Freight journeys are longer in Europe, and a bonus of the Channel Tunnel which was explained to Members who listened to a recent presentation is that our freight journeys into Europe could well increase.
But moving freight by rail does not reduce congestion, as was pointed out in the debates on the 1968 Act, when quantity licensing was considered. I remember citing the example of a motor component factory in Sheffield sending components to Luton, Coventry and elsewhere. It costs money to fund large stocks that are not in production, and many customers now want regular deliveries by the hour and not by the day or the week. They cannot afford to have key components lost in a goods wagon on a siding. If lorries are used for journeys from the factory, reliability can be achieved.
But the same journey by rail would mean a lorry to the Sheffield depot and would clutter up roads in the city. At the Sheffield depot, the goods would have to be transferred to a railway wagon to go to another depot near the customer—a motor works—transferred to lorry at the far depot and then taken to the customer. Congestion could well be increased again. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider these issues when reviewing the alternatives before industry and society, but moving freight by rail today does not necessarily reduce congestion in our conurbations.
One of the difficulties of using public transport is that those who use it are at the mercy of those who provide it, and too frequently in recent years those who provide it have been able to hold users to ransom.
Flexibility is an added advantage when the mobile transport unit is used. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has produced a Bill to restrict some environmental consequences
568
of heavy lorries and juggernauts. The lorry presents us with environmental problems. My right hon. Friend the Minister has announced a reduction in the road programme, of which he gave details in a Written Answer yesterday, at a time when investment is going ahead in our car and vehicle factories to deal with future opportunities.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the closing down of unprofitable railway lines and services has directly encouraged the appalling growth of equally unprofitable motor traffic, which threatens to extinguish all hopes of a reasonably healthy life in our towns and cities? Should not that be taken into account when we consider the statistics?
Mr. Osborn: It must be taken into account, and there must be a correct method of measurement. However, it could well be that some of the space should be devoted to tracks for independent vehicles, not steel wheel on rail but perhaps rubber on tarmac. These alternatives could well be examined by the "think tank", because they may provide the public transport that is needed.
If goods are taken by a longer route, this must inevitably increase the cost of manufacture and distribution. The prices that are paid in the shop are of concern to the housewife and Parliament. If use is made of longer routes, with more costly distribution, on environmental grounds or for convenience, the price of goods in the shops must rise. The industrialist has a duty to choose the most economic route to move his goods from the factory to where they will be used. It will be essential to know the increased cost to the housewife and the consumer of using the longer route, but I readily take my hon. and learned Friend's point.
We must look to the future. British Rail must be allowed to go into the rest of the century with confidence. The construction of a Channel Tunnel will be advantageous in making it possible to put freight on direct route from city centres in England to the EEC countries and other European countries, but there are difficulties, which have been outlined to us, and the tonnage of freight so moved—5 million tons—will be small.

569
Energy has been mentioned during the debate. The Government must decide, perhaps not in the context of this debate, how future trains are to be propelled. If there is an oil crisis there must not be too great a reliance on diesel oil and there is a case for increasing electrification more rapidly, but such a crisis in this country is by no means certain.
The man in the street wants to own a car because of its convenience. Similarly the small, flexible transport unit, whether a juggernaut or some other method of conveyance, has economic advantages in moving goods from where they are made to where they are to be used, at the most convenient time and without being confined to timetables.
My right hon. Friend has been right not to be too dogmatic at this stage. When considering the short term, he must also consider the long term. It is reasonable that we should know his views. To have a White Paper on transport policy may be asking too much— [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady laughs, but many plans produced in the late 1960s can now be torn up, because they were based on the wrong assumptions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not fall into the same trap as did the right hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends.
There should be a survey of the alternatives. We should know what we can do to improve our environment, to encourage the railways and to limit the juggernauts, which are causing such concern to so many people who have to live near new roads.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Walter Johnson: I must at once declare an interest. I am an honorary officer of one of the three railway unions—namely the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. I am certain the House will agree that we are facing a transport crisis. For too many years we have lived with the philosophy that services which do not pay should be withdrawn or at best provided for one or two years with a grant which may or may not be renewed. As a result of that attitude, public transport has declined and its efficiency has been seriously impaired.
570
Large areas of the country are now many miles from the nearest railway and many villages have no bus services. Traffic congestion in our towns and cities is increasing as more and more people travel by car because the public transport service as an alternative becomes less and less attractive. In a desperate attempt to solve the increasing traffic problems, the central Government and some local authorities have initiated massive trunk and urban motorway construction and road widening and improvement schemes. As people have realised the social and environmental consequences of such a policy, as well as the financial expenditure involved, hostility to such proposals has grown.
People are no longer willing to see communities broken up by motorways being driven ruthlessly through their midst. They are no longer willing to see their environment destroyed. They are no longer convinced by the distorted economic logic which is used to justify such proposals. Fortunately there are signs of an increased awareness of the rôle which public transport must play in future if the quality of life is to be maintained.
The Minister referred to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 8th October 1972. Admittedly it was supposed to be a confidential report. It was one of a number of reports which the Minister was considering. The blue book contained proposals for reducing the present British Rail network of 11,600 route miles to 7,000 route miles or less with the idea of a network of 3,800 miles not being ruled out.
In addition to the passenger traffic which would be shifted from rail to road by such changes, the document envisaged the possibility of transferring about 62 million tons of British Rail's yearly 190 million tons of freight to the roads, resulting in heavy lorries travelling an additional 450 million miles on the roads each year. What a prospect! It is disturbing that such a policy could even have been contemplated.
During the last decade the rail network has been substantially reduced. That is a policy which has solved neither the nation's transport policy nor British Rail's financial position. The motion puts the

571
blame fairly and squarely on the Government for their failure to give a lead to future development and for the reduction of the railway network.
Conservative Members have never fully and properly understood the unnecessary anxiety and worry which such uncertainty causes. People who have invested their working lives in the industry are entitled to be treated better than that. The railways have suffered massive redundancies during the last 10 years. In 1963 British Rail employed 490,000 people. Today the figure is 230,000 and it is shrinking all the time. Thousands of railwaymen have been forced to uproot their homes, not once but many times, because of reorganisation schemes and massive redundancies.
It is only possible from experience to know what it means to have to uproot a home, to find new schooling for the children and to cope with the problem of housing, as well as all the difficulties of moving away from friends and family. Such uprooting must stop. The railwaymen are not prepared to put up with further massive redundancies. If the right hon. Gentleman produces a plan which will cause further redundancies, I can assure him that he will have a massive fight on his hands not only with the railway unions but with the general public.
There is great awareness today that the public will not put up with more rail closures. The trade unions know that a so-called field organisation scheme is going through which could cause between 4,000 and 6,000 redundancies. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take that very much into consideration when he is drawing up his plan. He said that he is to meet the railway unions on Friday. I assure him that he will get some straight talking, as he always does, from the union leaders and their executives. Further, I can assure him that the unions were quietly relieved when they heard about the Marsh plan just over a week ago. Nevertheless, they will not put up with a situation which will produce further redundancies.
Mr. Ernie Money Mr. Ernie Money (Ipswich) rose—
Mr. Johnson: The railways have suffered massive cutbacks. First there was the Beeching Plan, which slashed the railways throughout the country. Suc-
572
cessive Governments have not faced their responsibilities. I do not absolve the last Labour Government, although they made some efforts in the right direction. The fact is that our roads cannot take the volume of freight and passenger traffic which is increasing all the time.
It is a sobering thought that today there are 16 million vehicles on the roads and that by 1980 there will be 23 million. Pollution must be considered. Surely it is common sense to make the most effective use of the railway network which we have at present and to enlarge it wherever possible. To do so would cut down pollution. As a first step, the Government should give the all clear to British Rail to electrify all services. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in that respect. Electrification would cut down diesel fumes and at the same time produce a fast and efficient passenger and freight service.
Industry should be encouraged to make greater use of the railways for freight traffic. That would remove from the roads some of the heavy lorries which pollute the air, contribute to traffic congestion and create a noise problem. In Derby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) knows, there is a ring road around the town which lorries use night and day. The House can take it from me—I have been there night and day—that it is sheer hell for the people who live in the vicinity. In many ways it is worse than living near an airport. Much of that traffic could be carried by rail and there would be no noise problem.
The Minister should consider the following basic conditions of getting more passenger and freight traffic on to the railways. First, they make no further visual intrusion. Secondly, they cause virtually no pollution. With electrification there would be no pollution. Thirdly, they make more economical use of the land. Fourthly, they cause far less noise nuisance.
Further, the Minister should encourage local authorities to study the possibility of keeping private motorists from the centre of large towns. That would require adequate car parking at the perimeters and fast, efficient and reasonably priced public transport. That would

573
greatly relieve traffic congestion and would help to eliminate exhaust smog in towns and cities.
I know it is said that we cannot keep lorries out of the centre of towns because most railway stations are sited in the centres of main towns. But surely it is not beyond the wit of British Rail, with the support of the Government, to build sidings or terminals outside the towns. Lorries could be loaded and unloaded at those points and there would be no necessity for them to go into city centres. Surely that is common sense.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: Does not that mean building ring roads to ensure that the lorries go round the towns and not through the middle of them?
Mr. Johnson: It does not mean that at all. If one made a proper study one would realise that many of the ring roads to which I have referred could be eliminated. What I have suggested is a constructive way to deal with the problem of lorries going into the centres of towns.
Critics may say that that is all very well, but what about the cost? If we want to maintain the quality of life and to keep our railways solvent and running efficiently, surely we can afford the cost of doing so.
Total public support for continental railways is much higher than it is in Britain. France, Germany, Italy and Japan spend far more on their railway systems than we do, yet their road systems are hardly inferior to ours. The true subsidy of German railways in 1971 was £525 million. According to a report last weekend the Germans are prepared to spend £1,200 million this year in support of their railways. The French railway subsidy is expected to be £500 million, as it was in 1972.
The Department of the Environment in its report on the future size of the railway network is obsessed with the idea of making the, railways nay. But the railways are unfairly saddled with charges which do not apply to road operators and which distort the commercial argument. There are the costs of track, signalling, policing, lighting, bridges and so on. The fact remains that a modern railway system must invest or rust away.
574
To enable it to press on with major new developments and investment programmes, British Rail needs to know the permitted extent of its operations not for one or two years ahead—as under the present system of social grants—but for 20 years ahead. It also needs money, public money. In 1971 British Rail spent £26 million on maintaining and renewing its track, and it paid interest of nearly twice that amount on capital. In the same year about £850 million was spent on roads. No interest charges were levied on that money which came from the public purse, as for a free social service. No one suggests that the roads should be anything but a free social service.
We must also take account of the social cost of roads. Last year 8,000 people were killed on the roads and there were 129,000 bad accidents. We must take into account what that means in terms of the heartache of the families concerned, the cost of hospital treatment and the loss of production. It must be common sense to take some traffic off the roads and on to the railways, thereby making more effective use of our railways.
Future generations will not forgive the Government if they do not face the realities of the problem with all the available knowledge at their disposal. I ask the Minister to be bold, to be imaginative, to put Britain first rather than the Tory road lobby and some of the Tory Party paymasters. The people who work for British Rail are a loyal and devoted body. They want the opportunity to do a job of work for the country and for the railways. Give them the opportunity, produce a plan, and they will deliver the goods.
5.38 p.m.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) refer to the document that my right hon. Friend called a mobile document. A few weeks ago my right hon. Friend suggested that it had found its way into print largely because of a leak in a high quarter of British Railways and that nobody had traced how this had occurred. The document gained wide credence and contained figures that were exceedingly disturbing. They were that the railway network would be reduced

575
from 11,600 miles to 7,000 miles with a prospect of a further reduction to 3,800 miles. Such a scheme would be utterly unforgivable having regard to the traffic statistics before us.
The road vehicle population has increased so that for every one vehicle in 1947 there were approximately three vehicles in 1972. It has trebled. In the next 25 years it is estimated that it will double. In other words, there will be six road vehicles in 1995 for every one vehicle in 1947
Accompanying this has been the progressive rundown of the railways, as manifest by a reduction in manpower from approximately 420,000 to 220,000 men. That is almost exactly the same rate of reduction as occurred in the coal mines, where the number of men employed has gone down from 710,000 at the time of nationalisation in 1948 to about 285.000 today. I have said on other occasions that the rundown in the coalmines has been much too fast and much too great. I say this evening that the rundown in the railways has been much too great and much too rapid. It has denuded us of a method of transport which is invaluable to the economy and invaluable to us in the medium term and for the transport requirements for the rest of this century.
The amount of money that has to be invested—and this may form the nub of the argument in the next few months—will undoubtedly hinge on what Mr. Richard Marsh has to say. He claims that the figure is £1,700 million a year. I claim that that figure is probably slightly exaggerated. Whether or not it is exaggerated, we can none of us afford a railway system that is either too small or that places an unnecessary burden on roads that are already grossly overloaded and cannot carry any more traffic.
I am critical of motorways. Motorways in Worcestershire, as elsewhere, have played a prominent part in recent years. There is great objection to motorways carving their way through small and happy villages, which would otherwise remain relatively undisturbed. Motorways have been built on too large a scale in the non-commercial and non-industrial quarters of Britain. Motorways face special legal and financial difficulties, and a brake will have to be placed on their
576
construction in the next few years because we are planning more motorways than we can possibly afford to finance.
Let us take, for example, the motorways from east to west that are planned to link the West Midlands with the East Midlands and East Anglia. If the estimates are correct, they are to be constructed at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds—many of them evidently without any intense traffic justification.
All the while they are being constructed at the expense of the railway system, without any due regard to building up, by a commensurate volume of traffic, the amount of freight and passengers that could otherwise be carried by rail. I claim that that is a wrong system, that we ought to concentrate much more heavily on our railways and that certainly we ought to provide for an investment of approximately £1,000 million in the railway system during the next few years if we are to prove successful in the kind of transport era that we want into the 1980s.
I cannot talk in depth about these railway requirements because I have no knowledge of what the Minister proposes. I will caution him about one matter which is near to my heart because it affects the only railway line left in my county, namely, the four-cities line—the railway line from Paddington to Oxford, to Worcester, to Hereford. This, I believe, is doomed to failure due to the lightness of the traffic on it, and at present it is attracting a subsidy—I call it a subsidy, but it is really a grant in respect of a line said to be unremunerative if calculated on an economic basis, leaving out questions of social audit to which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred—costing £575,000 a year to keep open.
The railwaymen have done everything possible to keep it open. They have reduced the track to a single line, they run only seven passenger trains a day between Paddington and Worcester, with one or two going on to Hereford. In my judgment it is not possible to reduce the £575,000 a year any further. The line is doomed to lose that money for all foreseeable time in the future. Suggestions are already coming to me that the line must be closed and that the huge investment in electrification from Euston to Coventry, to New Street, Birmingham, to

577
Wolverhampton Low Level, to Stafford, to Crewe and on to the North-West must be called into action, and that the Worcestershire and Hereford route must be diverted via Birmingham.
It would be a long way round. It would take a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes longer for each journey undertaken. Then, the whole of the Worcestershire and Herefordshire countryside virtually from Moreton-in-Marsh, in Gloucestershire, right through to Worcester, on to Great Malvern, over the Hereford border and down to Hereford city, would be totally denuded of railway line. The economists will say that it does not pay, how can we make good the revenue? I say that the socially desirable railway lines under the Act of 1968 must be perpetuated and that any attempt to cut them out will deprive large communities in Britain of essential transportation services.
In his calculations and in the voluminous railway White Paper that my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly produce—he is looking pregnant, I fancy he will deliver shortly—
Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not follow the example of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in attributing this state to me too often, because I can assure him that there are no foundations for it. There may subsequently be a production of a paper. I do not like heavy papers but there may be the production of a paper of considerable dimensions, not limited to railways.
Sir G. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend and I have co-operated over 20 years in this place and I know him well enough to know that he is exceedingly distasteful of any form of bureaucratic activity. I repeat, whatever is the form of documentation that is eventually decided upon, be it a voluminous paper or a White Paper, he will have to delineate his policies. When he does so, I trust that he will spare a merciful thought for the kind of uneconomic activity, uneconomic that is in a strictly economic judgment of whether it pays its way, taking into account every penny spent, and have some regard for the social consequences of shutting down lines which link such important communities. On that I close and wish him well
578
with his transport activities, for I am certain he will produce the best plan that we have had in recent years.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Ron Lewis: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and have been thrilled by the tour that he gave us of the railways in his part of the country. I must first of all declare my interest, in that I am an active member of the National Union of Railwaymen.
I first indict whoever was responsible for this debate because they have allowed only three hours for it. This is the first major debate on British Railways in this Session. It is confined to three hours, half an hour of which was taken up by one Member. Ten Adjournment debates in this Session have been associated with railways, dealt with from a local point of view with hon. Members fighting closures in their areas.
Since the end of the war there have been four Acts of Parliament, all of which, in the main, were designed to make the railways pay, with the possible exception of the 1947 Act, although it was designed to that end. The 1947 Act brought the railway system into public ownership. There then followed the Acts of 1953, 1962 and 1968. Over these years, largely as a result of those Acts, the railways have suffered from a succession of reorganisations, rationalisations and legislative changes.
At times there have been centralisation schemes and at other times decentralisation schemes. Many of these have meant that it has been necessary to change horses in mid-stream which has not been good for British Railways and the morale of their staff. A great deal of money has been involved in conforming to such policy changes.
From time to time the railways have been used as a political shuttlecock and their financial principles have not been clear. I am glad to note from what the Minister indicated this afternoon that he is to start consultations with not only the Railways Board but the rail unions. The newspapers gave the National Union of Railwaymen a bad Press following the disclosures of Mr. Marsh's plans. I put on record now that our criticism of those proposals was that they did not go far

579
enough. Of course we were pleased that he agreed that there should be no cutting back below 11,000 miles. However, I believe—and I am sure that the unions will put their view to the Minister—that not only should there be no further rail closures but that every rail closure in the pipeline should be halted. I am thinking especially of a line which joins villages which are often isolated in winter by heavy snowfalls. It runs from Alston to Haltwhistle. The greater part of the line runs through the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment who is in a difficult position over this. At times when the roads have been blocked even things like funerals have to be put on the railways because they are sometimes the only system of transport available in those bleak months.
A wonderful thing happened just outside the constituency of my Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If I do not speak up for him, very few people will. I have a good Member. He is loyal and enthusiastic and he is highly thought of. Just outside his constituency a few weeks ago a railway station was re-opened—Alfreton and Mansfield Park railway station, and from all accounts it has proved a going concern. Surely that is a lesson for any Government to learn about the railways.
In spite of our sacrifices to the Common Market, Britain still needs an efficient, adequate, reasonably cheap and environmentally acceptable transport system for freight and passengers Market forces do not produce such a system. Market forces have produced the juggernaut which no one in this country wants. Market forces have created half-used railways and the city traffic jam. An efficient transport system means planning. I argue, as does my trade union, that the first task of the planners in the Department of the Environment should be the transfer of some—and I underline the word some—freight traffic, particularly long distance, from road to rail. Every private motorist will echo that sentiment. It is necessary on grounds of efficiency, as well as on environmental grounds, and to save scarce fuel resources.
We would argue that such a transfer is unlikely without an extension of public ownership and I would argue for that. The railways should continue to be used
580
for the tasks to which they are best suited, but that should not be carried to an absurd degree by relegating the rôle of the railways to carrying bulk loads for a restricted number of customers. It is one thing to say that the railways are well rid of local sundries traffic but it is something else to say that anything less than a full wagon load fails to pay its way and should be abandoned. No one dares to say that about commuter services because during the recent unofficial strikes many commuters could not get to work.
The profit of a transport undertaking cannot be the only test of whether traffic should be carried. If we do not subsidise rail, public transport in towns will soon be unable to get commuters to work, and the sooner we face up to that the better. Financial resources for public expenditure fall short of requirements and the present balance of investment between motorway and railways makes no sense. The 1968 Act gave the railway workshops wider powers to manufacture, yet since the Bill became law the workshops have been inhibited from developing those powers to the full. They are permitted only to use their spare capacity for such work and they are hampered in their efforts to obtain work which involves retooling, capital expenditure and so on.
We were delighted to hear the Minister's indication that there would be no action on the lines of what had been suggested in the Sunday Times article to be the proposal. That was the implication that the right hon. Gentleman gave. I was delighted to hear that there had been a modern Saul of Tarsus to the Minister in connection with railway thinking. The right hon. Gentleman was very conciliatory and at times very modest. When he meets the railway unions, I hope that he will continue in that vein and not adopt the kind of attitude of which we know him to be capable when he is challenged.
I may be called a pessimist, but the railways have been chopped, changed and harried, and still they do not pay. I venture to assert that whatever happens we shall still be in the same position many years after the passing of the next Act of Parliament concerned with the railways. Very soon this House and the country must face the fact that if we want our railway system it must be paid for in terms of subsidies.

581
With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will take note of the closing words of the editorial in the Evening Standard on Monday of this week. It reads:
"Instead of its piecemeal approach, the Government ought now to be working out a new and integrated transport system."
If the Government will do that, they will have the backing of every railwayman in the country.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): My comments will be brief and to the point. I ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) for not commenting on what he said. I merely make the point that I thoroughly enjoyed his speech and found it in complete contrast to a much longer speech from the Opposition benches to which we listened earlier in the debate.
We are seeing the beginning of a new era for our railway system. There is a ground swell of opinion that is growing daily, and I have little doubt that the British people, if slowly, are steadily falling out of love with the motor car. especially as pollution increases and motorways eat up more and more countryside and building land. In this connection we may be able to learn a lesson from the United States of America before it is too late. Recently the Governor of New Jersey said:
"We are choking on the fumes of our own exhausts. We are spending literally millions of unproductive hours examining the bumpers of our neighbours' cars and we stand immobile waiting for trains that never arrive. The time has come to say, 'Enough'."
That lesson is one that we in this country can learn, and I believe that we shall learn it before it is too late.
I want to turn to some of the special problems facing the south-eastern area of England and, in introducing those problems, to quote the words of Mr. Ray Buckton, who wrote, in an article in a leading Sunday newspaper:
"A major factor crucial to our success in Europe will be our ability to provide a transport system for industry to move raw materials and the finished products swiftly and efficiently."
When we talk in terms of economics—of the railway system paying or not paying—I suggest that we have to take a
582
much wider view than simply asking whether a given track or part of a railway system shows a profit at the end of the year. In the context of Ray Buckton's words, perhaps I might make a number of specific suggestions. I emphasise that I am concentrating on the area with which I am principally concerned, namely the south-east of England.
I hope that a halt will be called to all further closures. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that if there are any further attempts to close any railway lines in the south-east of England they will have one hell of a fight on their hands—
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: From whom? From the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Bowden: My second suggestion is that grant-aided passenger services should be funded for a minimum of 10 years. It is quite unreasonable to expect the management of British Railways to be able to live on the hand-to-mouth basis of a year, 18 months or even two years in advance. The basic minimum should be five years, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider 10 years.
I suggest, thirdly, that we go ahead with the construction of the Channel Tunnel. This is essential unless the whole of the south-east of England is to become totally unrecognisable within the next 40 or 50 years. In conjunction with that—and I know that I am moving on to very much more difficult ground—I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look carefully at the provision of some form of incentive for industry to use the railways on a bigger scale than it has been doing in the past.
The last of the precise suggestions that I wish to make is that if we are to succeed in coping with the problems of transportation in terms of our railways we must have a greatly expanded research and development programme. Have not we really got matters a little out of balance when on the high-speed train we have spent £10 million, and when, in the same breath, we talk gaily of other schemes involving hundreds and even thousands of millions of pounds?
I end on a somewhat local note. Most hon. Members have passed through Brighton station, and I hope in the next

583
few years that once again we shall be able to invite Members to their party conferences in Brighton. I can assure the House that I am pushing ahead with this as fast as I can, with great respect to those hon. Members who represent Blackpool constituencies.
Many thousands of my constituents are commuters. With the help of the Central Division Manager of British Railways Southern Region, Mr. Paterson, a number of meetings were held on peak-hour trains between London and Brighton to give commuters the chance to put direct questions to the chief railway official in the division, Mr. Paterson, and me. The newspapers came to call them "Grumblers' Specials". A large number of useful ideas came out of these meetings. I know that Mr. Paterson found them very helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) has adopted the idea and has had at least one similar meeting in his own area. I commend the idea to other hon. Members who feel that it might be useful in their different parts of the country.
I have come to know many members of the railway staff at Brighton. I have been extremely impressed by the vast majority of them, their courtesy and their determination to be helpful. I believe that there is a new pride growing among all the staff of British Railways as they come to realise that the nation and, I believe, the Government are rethinking these problems. The nation will rue the day unless we ensure that our railways are financed and equipped to meet the demands of generations to come.
6.15 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I shall take only five or six minutes, and therefore I shall refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) only in passing. But I should certainly comment on the morale of the railwaymen. Kettering Station is 72 miles from St. Pancras, but we are in a commuter area because the fastest trains take less than an hour to do the trip and even the slower ones take only one and a quarter hours. The morale of the railwaymen has recently been rising because of these improvements in the service, which has enabled many people to live in Kettering and work in London.
584
I shall not comment on what is known as the "mobile plan", which escaped from the Ministry and was published in October in the Sunday Times, because there is not enough time. Instead, I draw the House's attention to the coincidence that at the very same time there appeared an article in an OECD publication that brought to the forefront a fact about the use of energy for transport. It was claimed that the energy required for transport by road was three times the amount required for equal transport by rail.
I do not know whether that is correct. I hope that the Government will, one day soon, comment on it. Until recently, it was possible for Ministers to ignore references to energy, but it no longer makes economic sense for them to do so. It would be irresponsible for them to ignore the fact that we face the possibility of a shortage of the raw materials required for producing energy.
I had hoped that Transport 2,000, the organisation representing the environmental bodies and the rail unions, would have the resources to alert all hon. Members to the dangers of the Government assessing the "most effective future rôle", as the Prime Minister terms it, for the railway system. Yesterday I received the usual stuff that one gets before a debate like this from the British Road Federation, but nothing from Transport 2,000. I hope that it would bring to the attention of all Members of the House the fact that even if our railways are subsidised by £100 million a year, France pays five times that amount to her railways and West Germany pays eight or even 10 times that amount to hers. If they find it worth while to do so in order to keep their railways going, why should not our Ministers study their example?
I have here Regulation 1192/69 of the EEC Council of Ministers. Under it the Government have certain obligations to British Rail. It is not a draft from the Commission. I ask the Government, is it not a regulation made by the Council of the Community under which member Governments must compensate the railways for costs imposed on them which are not shared by other forms of transport?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) appeared

585
to get the matter completely the wrong way round when he intervened earlier. Is not the effect of the regulation to protect the railways, their users and their staff, from unfair Government subsidised competition from the roads? Will not the Government have to compensate the railways, for example, for their expenditure on road bridges and level crossings and on staffing and maintenance and operation of the signalling system? If this is so, it will come to a considerable sum. I have seen a calculation that it could be up to £100 million. Is the figure as large as that?
We must have an independent inquiry into the effects of various forms of transport on our environment and our national resources. That inquiry must consider the balance between subsidising the railways and subsidising road transport, because road transport is being heavily subsidised. I do not believe that it is for this Government to assess the most effective future rôle of the railways because the Government could do a great deal of harm. Rather it is time for an inquiry, and I would even go so far as to suggest a Royal Commission for the purpose, even though that would mean delay.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. David Waddington: I hope that the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech save in one respect—that, like him, I shall not pay overdue attention to the motion, which I am sure was drafted with many tongues in many cheeks. I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member opposite has directed much of his attention to the motion.
I want to concentrate on the report to the Government by British Railways. Once again we are faced with losses. I do not accept that they are due simply to inherent difficulties in running any railway system in the 1970s. One should acknowledge that there are sometimes defects in the service, but that is not my theme tonight. I make it clear that I am entirely opposed to the wielding of any axe and to the closure of any more lines.
We cannot ignore the enormous sums of public money already spent on the system; it is there with us and we have
586
paid for it. We cannot ignore the uncertainties about future fuel supplies. We cannot ignore the present concern for the environment. Any Government who ignored that concern should think again very quickly, because today few issues concern people more. We cannot ignore the great inconvenience that would be caused in certain parts of the country if there were any more closures.
What I am advocating is that more thought should be given to where new capital expenditure ought to go. I am extremely sceptical about the proposals for a substantial development of the intercity services and vast further expenditure on the electrification of more main lines. I concede that main lines, like those from Manchester to London and Liverpool to London, used intensively by businessmen, ought to pay. But what evidence is there that an electrified east coast route would have the same potential? What evidence is there that a marginal improvement in the service between here and Bristol would attract very much more traffic, when the service between here and Bristol and South Wales is already very fast and efficient?
Much more attention should be directed to a matter not dealt with at all in the report—feeder lines. Here, I shall go in for some special pleading. I refer to the lines from Preston to Manchester, Manchester to Blackburn and Preston to Colne. They are not so much country lines connecting small towns as lines connecting outlying areas with main line stations, and British Rail surely has an interest in putting on a good show on those feeder lines, so as to encourage people to use the main lines rather than travel to London from north-east Lancashire, for instance, by express bus. But little or no effort has been made so far, and I am not surprised that these lines have to be subsidised.
The service on the line from Preston to North Lancashire is diabolical, with dirty, rattling, malodorous rolling stock, devoid of any power of acceleration worth talking about, creeping and clanking across the land and taking as much as an hour to cover 17 miles from Preston to Accrington. One travels in contraptions that one mounts from decayed, dilapidated stations equipped with no more than a tiny shelter—and for what

587
reason? The only reason I can see is that British Railways have always adopted the view that as Government grants were probably not going to last for very long there was no point in doing anything about the service.
I would have thought that there is really the strongest case—and I invite the Minister to consider this very carefully—for making these social grants available for a minimum period of, say, 10 years so that British Railways will know precisely where they stand and will have an incentive to improve the kind of line to which I have referred. Then we may see the day when refurbished main line stock hauled by diesel engines will be back on those lines and there will be a return to civilised rail travel.
Lastly, I hope the Minister will never allow himself to think that because the lines to which I have referred have been allowed to decay they can be closed without trouble. If he thinks that, he really has another think coming. Only if road and rail links with the central Lancashire new town are improved can we in northeast Lancashire, for example, be expected to survive the impact of the new town—and the only way the Government of the day managed to reduce to some extent the enormous opposition towards the proposal that there should be a central Lancashire new town was by assuring north-east Lancashire towns that there would be an improvement in communications between them and Preston. That is the issue for which we fought and fought again.
We fought for the Calder Valley road, and now we are fighting for our railway service—and we intend to continue to do so. So I urge the Government to close no more lines and to realise now that concern for the environment is so great that people are not prepared to put up with the great inconvenience that railway closures cause to those living outside large towns. I urge the Government, therefore, to accept in part the proposals put forward by British Railways—those proposals that suggest that there can he no cutting down in the size of the overall network. I urge the Government, instead to think again about those proposals that would involve the Government in enormous capital sums, which
588
would not necessarily attract to the railways any more passenger traffic.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I have been in this House now for three years, and this is the first occasion in that time that we have had a debate on the railways. It is a shocking thing that the debate should take place in Opposition time and should be of only three hours' duration, because it concerns a subject that concerns most hon. Members. Many hon. Members here today will wish to speak but will not have an opportunity to do so. I sincerely hope that the Government will soon have a debate about the railways, and, indeed, about transportation generally, lasting a full day and in their own time.
I represent Swindon, which was at one time a great railway town. I am also a member of the Electrical Trades Union, which has members within the railway organisation. I have to say that over the years Swindon has suffered very greatly from rail closures and the rundown of the railway system. Indeed, the number of people employed in the workshop at Swindon has declined from 15,000 to 2,000, and a further 300 are to be made redundant after their return from holidays this year. So my constituents are very concerned, because in the past, though not so much at present, their fate has been tied up inextricably with the fate of the railways.
The Beeching "axe" was certainly a local disaster for Swindon, but it was also a national disaster, from the point of view of its effect not only on the transportation system but on the environment of this country. Although the 1968 Act certainly did something to halt the decline in the railway system it still did not recognise the central truth that railways could not be made to pay when they were competing on an unequal basis. I believe that that central fact is still not recognised by the Government. Until it is recognised by the Government the railway system will not have ploughed into it the capital that is necessary, nor will it be given the financial assistance that is necessary if the railways are to play their proper part in our total economic and environmental life.
The British Railways Board has concentrated—and to some extent I agree with

589
it, for it has certainly been successful—on inter-city trains, often to the detriment of local services, and certainly to the detriment of freight. I have a suspicion that the railways have been deliberately turning away freight traffic which they could otherwise have had from industrialists who would have been only too pleased to send it by rail. My own experience of a firm in Swindon confirms this. Because British Railways have not recognised that they could have freight traffic the roads between Swindon, Oxford and Longbridge have been cluttered with lorries carrying car bodies which could far better have been carried on the railway system. It needs new thinking on the part of British Railways and a new approach to their duty and their rôle in the carrying of freight in the future.
The latest review of railway policy, which has been submitted by the British Railways Board, encourages one to think that the railways at last are beginning to believe in themselves. It is important that they should. For a long time they have not—and because they have not, other people have not been prepared to believe in them. At last they are beginning to realise their central and real rôle in our transportation system and their importance to economic and environmental life. Nevertheless, their thinking is still not bold enough.
The board says that there will be a capital requirement of £1,700 million to be invested in the railways over the next 10 years. I submit that that is altogether too modest, because when we think about it it compares with a proposed Government investment of £4,250 million in roads over the same period. If we add to that figure the total investment of the country in vehicles, we are talking of a total investment of between £16,000 million and £20,000 million in the road system. There is a terrific disparity between the two. I believe that it is necessary for the railways to be rather more bold.
The board's proposals on freight simply do not meet the real needs, and the need to reverse the trend of carrying goods by road. What it is actually planning for—and one accepts that there will be a total expansion of freight carriage—is a much lower proportion of an increasing
590
volume of freight traffic. In my view, that is an act of folly, and I hope the Minister will make clear to the board that he thinks it is an act of folly, and that it should not be so timid in its proposals. He should send the proposals back and ask the board to be much bolder in its approach to this problem.
I hope that the Minister will draw attention to the fact that the planned reduction in the wagon fleet is not good enough. If he makes sure that the wagon fleet is kept at a high level—and it will need to be if it is to have an expanding rôle in the transportation system—it will help the country, the environment and the economy and it will also help my constituents, as I am sure the Minister wants to do.
It is always difficult for staff, and for a board running an organisation, to be constantly reminded of the fact that it is being subsidised. We must somehow get away from this attitude. I suggest that it is the country's duty to pay the railways an annual sum for providing the infrastructure, so that it may be available to us all whenever we need to use it. In the same way that a motorist pays £25 a year so that the infrastructure of the roads can be provided, so the taxpayer should pay a substantial amount to the railways to compensate them for keeping that infrastructure available to us all as taxpayers.
I have listened to the whole of this excellent debate. Incidentally, we have seen some radical conversions on the Conservative benches. It is important that the House should recognise that the railways will succeed only if the morale of the people working on them is kept at a high level. I hope that this debate and future debates will increase the morale of the workers on the railways, and that this consideration will colour the Minister's attitude so that we shall have a railway system that is the finest in the world.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bradley: This has been a very useful but all-too-short debate on a vital topic. It has mirrored the anxiety of the country and of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed similar fears for the future of the railway network. There is anxiety and fear in the

591
country over the Government's intentions, and it must be said that those anxieties were not allayed by the Minister's speech this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman entertained us but he did not enlighten us. He permitted himself to say that the British Railways Board's policy review would not be cheap. I remind him that neither would the alternative to it be cheap. The Minister made great play of the Government money which has been expended over the years in support of our railway system—money provided by Governments of both political complexions. But the Minister did not acknowledge the fact that the board has paid back to the taxpayer over £180 million in the last four years in the form of interest on its fixed-interest debt, there being no equity capital. But for that fact, the Railways Board in the last four years of operations would have made a surplus of £163 million.
The Minister gave us no inkling of his intentions. Apparently we must wait until the autumn for the full details of the Government's research and consideration, and this despite the fact that only last July in this House he gave me an assurance that he would consider as a matter of urgency the publication of a White Paper. In the meantime, in view of his statement this afternoon, uncertainty will continue in the industry and among the population. This is just not good enough. The Minister at least should have committed himself categorically to an assurance that he will make a full statement to the House before we rise for the Summer Recess.
There have been many references to the blue book which was leaked to the Sunday Times, a book which the Minister's Department had not the competence to conceal. I have no wish to dilate on what was said in the blue book as reported in the Sunday Times, because it has been mentioned over and over again in this debate. However, I find it incredible that such an option was even considered as one of the alternatives open to the Department having regard to the country's appalling and worsening transport problems. We must be the only country in the world that is giving consideration to that kind of retrograde step when most other countries are thinking
592
of expanding their railway networks rather than reducing them.
I have no time to discuss the consequences of road congestion, social inconvenience and environmental pollution which has resulted from the substantial reduction of the rail network during the last decade and the natural growth of road transport. What is clear beyond doubt is that the rail network surgery has neither solved the nation's transport problems nor improved British Rail's financial position. The Minister seemed to get himself and other hon. Members involved in a discussion of what Beeching did and what the Labour Government did. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was an earlier Conservative Government which by its votes in this House secured endorsement for what was laid down in the Beeching Report on the reshaping of our railways. Their balance sheet mentality produced a bigger crisis than they set out to solve.
We now have the startling revelation from the British Railways Board that its computers have thrown up the information that there is no such thing as a viable railway network. We are told that the smaller the system, the less viable it may become. Some of us may be forgiven for saying that we have been offering that view, with the aid of far less technology, for years.
I have no intention of getting bogged down in the road versus rail argument. It is largely sterile. We know the relevant figures and what can and cannot be done in regard to transferring traffic from road haulage to rail. But a great deal of the traffic conveyed by road would be unsuitable for conveyance by rail because of the special nature of the traffic involved or because of the short journeys. Nobody can fail to be alarmed, however, at a situation in which a growing proportion of freight traffic is passing on overcrowded roads alongside an under-used railway system. It should be part of a national transport policy to use rail to the maximum possible extent. The railways policy review is an interim strategy only. It is pending the Government's consideration of social, economic and environmental questions. Goodness knows how long we shall have to wait for that, but it is a matter of extreme national urgency that the Government should get on with the job.

593
Richard Marsh is right. It is a matter not only for the size of the existing network but of what is carried on it. The problem is one of allocating appropriate cargoes to the best mode of transport, taking into account social and environmental costs. Except for bulk carriage, rail transport tends to become competitive only with loads over 75 miles. That is in commercial terms. But the freight business of British Rail is restricted to such terms. By national decision, many passenger services are not confined to commercial terms. Rail spare capacity is such and road congestion so severe that a case exists for subsidy to British Rail freight operations. The time has arrived for suitable loads to be diverted from road to rail, either by direction or by financial inducement.
The board's recent review of railway policy is far too defeatist in its approach to wagon-load traffic. One wonders why £12 million has been invested in a system called "Tops" to identify the placement of wagons throughout the country. It is a profound mistake for the board to work itself out of this type of business, as many of us think it is doing as an act of deliberate policy, while making the excuse that it is all concerned with what are called market forces. There is great scope in this section especially if industry can be attracted to the use of private sidings. The Government give help towards the cost of such sidings in development areas, but there is now a strong case for a far more widespread application of such grants to enable more wagonload traffic to be trunked by rail, bringing with it valuable social benefits.
The authors of the 1968 Act clearly intended that most long-distance freight should be diverted to rail. They instanced two means of doing this. They expected that good relations between the board and the National Freight Corporation would lead to the latter allocating as much traffic as possible to rail. Things have not worked out that way. In fact, competition within the public sector of transport between British Railways, British Road Services, the National Freight Corporation and National Carriers Ltd., is as fierce as it is outside the public transport service. Much trunking of traffic is going on by National Carriers Ltd. that was never originally intended, but the
594
Minister has shown no inclination to get the Freight Integration Council, whose job it was to look into this question, to work. It has had one meeting since the last General Election, and I hear rumours that the Minister intends to wind up the council. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion about his intentions in that regard.
I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman got himself involved this afternoon in the controversy over quantity licensing. Indeed, it was one of his first actions after being appointed to his office. He could not get down to the House fast enough after the General Election to withdraw the relevant provisions. Anxious to justify his membership of the Monday Club, he appeared within one month of the election to say that what he called the cumbersome regulations would never be operated. Had they been operated, as they surely would have been by now had another Government been in office, we should not have had this difficulty.
The Minister should not be surprised that morale is low and that expectations are not high within the industry. It has been plagued since the war with one reorganisation—I should say disorganisation—after another by a management obsessed with playing about with its managerial operations and structure. Morale in the industry is low, and it will not be improved as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's performance this afternoon.
We are right to condemn the Government for their inaction and for the confusion which they have created. Those Conservative Members who have this afternoon spoken so feelingly about the preservation of our railway system should join us in the Lobby tonight in condemning the Government for the present unsatisfactory situation.
6.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The closing words of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), and even what he said about morale, have been contradicted by his right hon. Friends who have pointed out to the House that morale is remarkably high.
This has been a useful debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) that it has been too short, but everything that has been said by right

595
hon. and hon. Members on both sides will be taken into account.
I must point out to the House that it is only 16 days since the British Railways Board's studies were published and that discussions are continuing with the board. I must also point out, as virtually everyone has agreed, that no previous Government, of any political persuasion, have got this problem right. It was not got right in the 1968 Act and it is a little unreasonable, within 16 days of receiving these studies from British Railways, to expect my right hon. Friend to make a full policy statement.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked about EEC Regulation 1192, and this was referred to also by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). The Government accept that under Regulation 1192 they are obliged to make payments to British Railways in respect of level crossings. We are also considering the validity of the board's other claims under these regulations. The House should know that some of the obligations are discretionary, and these will be considered overall in the light of the Government support that we have to give at the end of the policy review.
The right hon. Gentleman and others raised the question of private sidings. The situation is that help could be given in certain circumstances in assisted areas under the Local Employment Act 1972 or the Industry Act 1972. I accept much of what has been said and the force of the argument, but without any more commitment than this I say that we are considering the question of private sidings in the context of this review. I can say no more.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) gave us a vintage speech, polemically short of firm ideas but not, alas, in time. I agree with two or three of the things said by the right hon. Lady. I agree that in the past the railways have made over-optimistic forecasts. I agree, too, with the right hon. Lady and with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) that investment must be continually and critically looked at. That is right, but the right hon. Lady will realise that one reason for this debate, and the reason why my right hon. Friend
596
asked British Railways for their studies, is that we did not get it right in the 1968 Act. As the right hon. Lady said:
"British Railways will be standing on their own feet and will be expected to pay their way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1967; Vol. 756, c. 1293.]
We know that that did not happen, and that is why for the last year we have tried, and for the next few months we have to continue to try, to get this thing right.
The right hon. Lady criticised the fairly brief report which is more by way of an aide-mémoire to the unions from the British Railways Board and Mr. Marsh, and clearly the report and everything else that we are considering is much greater than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) made the not unimportant point, which is sometimes overlooked, that there can be environmental minuses in rail or any form of transport development. I suggest that if there is a new motorway, a new marshalling yard, a new airport and a new oil pipeline terminal, they can seriously affect the people who live in the areas involved. It is nonsense to pretend that transport does not bring its own environmental problems. I suspect that 70 or 80 years ago horse carriages in London may have been good for window boxes, but environmentally they were not very sweet.
I urge the House to remember that we are facing all these transport problems because people demand a higher standard of living. If they have that, it means that people and goods tend to travel more and further afield. That means increased transport to cope with the people and goods travelling more and further afield. It leads to difficult decisions, and there is no easy solution.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne seem to have misunderstood, or not to have heard, what my right hon. Friend said about grants under European regulations for unremunerative passenger services. It means that these grants will not be limited in term as they are now,

597
and I repeat what my right hon. Friend said about that.
The hon. Member for Derby, South repeated, as others have done, the hoary comment about the document that was stolen last October, and I stress the word "stolen". The matter was more than adequately dealt with by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) and myself during a debate on 31st January. If anybody wants to read the full history, and to read a good railways debate too, I suggest that he reads the Adjournment debate on that date, and for goodness sake let us get this document dead and buried. It is no longer relevant to any of these discussions.
I do not underestimate the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South, but I quarrel with him when he accuses my right hon. Friend, myself and others of a lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of railwaymen. I cannot accept that. On many occasions my right hon. Friend has said how much he sympathises with and appreciates the problems of the railways and the unions. My father-in-law spent more than 60 years on the railway, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that from close personal knowledge I appreciate the problems of what I call the old-time traditional railwaymen on whom this country has relied for many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in his usual pungent way, had a go at the motorway network. Two motorway sections which are opening this week should bring considerable relief, one to the towns of Huddersfield and Brighouse and the other to Highbridge in Somerset. I could not accept my hon. Friend's blatant strictures.
I note what my hon. Friend said about the four cities railway line. In my early and formulative years I did all my railway-spotting at Evesham, and I have some sympathy with him.
The hon. Member for Carlisle spoke with great feeling and sincerity and made a thoughtful speech. He will understand that I cannot go along with everything he said, but I agree that the four Acts passed by Parliament since the war to make British Railways pay have not
598
done their job, and that is why we are having this crisis again.
Both the hon. Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Steddart) referred to railway workshops in somewhat gloomy terms. I do not wish to bandy this about as a political argument, but closure aid under the present administration compares very favourably with that under the previous administration. Much more important is the question of external sales, which were just over £2 million in 1969 and £6·7 million last year, of which £3 million was for exports. I understand that the trends here are very good indeed and very encouraging. I hope that the hon. Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Swindon will not be too pessimistic about them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kemp-town said that people were falling out of love with the motor car. They may be, but I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that driving test applications were up by 20 per cent. last year on those of 1971 and so far this year they are up by 26 per cent. over last year, so someone somewhere is still wishing to drive a motor car. Nevertheless, I accept and understand what my hon. Friend says about the problems of rail closures in the South-East.
The right hon. Member for Kettering referred in glowing terms to the rôle of railwaymen. I agree with him. He referred to the Transport 2,000 Group. At my right hon. Friend's invitation the group came to see my right hon. Friend and myself on Monday of this week. We had a most useful discussion with them, which was particularly relevant in the context of the debate.
I note what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said. He said that we should have a very searching analysis into the merits of electrification. I would not necessarily disagree with that.
The hon. Member for Leicester North-East referred again to the blue book. I certainly would not wish to open that one up. He also referred to the question of the road-rail argument, which was also put very sensibly by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. It is no good deluding ourselves that there is some easy solution. There are no soft

599
options in tackling these immense transport problems. The future of our rail system is a good one, but it would certainly cost a lot of hard cash to the taxpayer whatever we intend to do.
As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said. resources are limited. This means that any commitment to the railways along the sort of lines being suggested will inevitably mean that equally desirable spending programmes in other fields of policy will have to be curtailed. The House, the Government and British Rail have to face that problem.
Bearing in mind that last year about £170 million of external support was given to British Rail and that the Marsh plan envisages a net cash support of £1.900 million over the next nine years, we can see that there are major problems.
My right hon. Friend told the House—I re-emphasise it—that these critical decisions on British Rail are being looked at in a wider transport context. We expect to bring our conclusions to Parliament and to the public in the autumn. We shall certainly welcome the views of Parliament and the public on these conclusions.
Meanwhile, however, I suggest that the Opposition motion is an amalgam of inaccuracy, prematurity and muddled thinking. I confidently invite the House to support the amendment of my right hon. Friends.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Waddington(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Chair knows, the debate was scheduled to last for only three hours. I should like to remind the Chair that one particular back bencher spoke for no less than half an hour. I should like guidance from the Chair about what protection other back benchers have against the gross discourtesy of individual Members of the House who abuse their opportunities to speak in that way and prevent others from speaking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. As I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Waddington(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have some guidance from the Chair as to whether there are any other ways in which this matter can be raised or other channels through which it can be dealt with?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that this is not a matter for the Chair.
The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 255.

Division No. 185.]

AYES

[6.59 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Dixon, Piers

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Burden, F. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

Dykes, Hugh

Astor, John

Carlisle, Mark

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Atkins, Humphrey

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Awdry, Daniel

Cary, Sir Robert

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Channon, Paul

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

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Chapman, Sydney

Emery, Peter

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Eyre, Reginald

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Chichester-Clark, R.

Farr, John

Batsford, Brian

Fell, Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Churchill, W. S.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Benyon, W.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bitten, John

Cooke, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Biggs-Davison, John

Coombs, Derek

Fortescue, Tim

Blaker, Peter

Cooper, A. E.

Fowler, Norman

Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

Cordle, John

Fox, Marcus

Body, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

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

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Costain, A. P.

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Ransom, Sir Clive

Critchley, Julian

Gardner, Edward

Bowden, Andrew

Crouch, David

Gibson-Watt, David

Bray, Ronald

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Bryan, Sir Paul

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

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

Dean, Paul

Goodhart, Philip

MacArthur, Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Gorst, John

McCrindle, R. A.

Rost, Peter

Gower, Raymond

McLaren, Martin

Russell, Sir Ronald

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

McMaster, Stanley

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Gray, Hamish

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Scott, Nicholas

Green, Alan

McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Maddan, Martin

Shersby, Michael

Gurden, Harold

Madel, David

Simeons, Charles

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maginnis, John E.

Sinclair, Sir George

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Marten, Neil

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

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Mather, Carol

Soref, Harold

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Maude, Angus

Speed, Keith

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Spence, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Mawby, Ray

Sproat, Iain

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Stainton, Keith

Havers, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hawkins, Paul

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Stokes, John

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Heseltine, Michael

Moate, Roger

Sutcliffe, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Money, Ernie

Tapsell, Peter

Hiley, Joseph

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Holland, Philip

Monro, Hector

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

Holt, Miss Mary

Montgomery, Fergus

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hordern, Peter

More, Jasper

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N W.)

Hornby, Richard

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Tebbit, Norman

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Temple, John M.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Morrison, Charles

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Howell, David (Guildford)

Mudd, David

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Murton, Oscar

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

Hunt, John

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Reeve, Airey

Tilney, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Nicholls, Sir Harmer

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Irvine, Bryant

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Trew, Peter

Godman (Rye)

Nott, John

Tugendhat, Christopher

James, David

Onslow, Cranley

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Jessel, Toby

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Waddington, David

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Parkinson, Cecil

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Jopling, Michael

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wall, Patrick

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pink, R. Bonner

Walters, Dennis

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Ward, Dame Irene

Kershaw, Anthony

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kilfedder, James

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

White, Roger (Gravesend)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wiggin, Jerry

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Wilkinson, John

Kinsey, J. R.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Winterton, Nicholas

Kitson, Timothy

Raison, Timothy

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Knox, David

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, Robert

Woodnutt, Mark

Lane, David

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Worsley, Marcus

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Younger, Hn. George

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

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

Ridsdale, Julian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Luce, R. N.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Mr. Walter Clegg.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

NOES

Abse, Leo

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Albu, Austen

Booth, Albert

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

Cohen, Stanley

Allen, Scholefield

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Coleman, Donald

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Concannon, J. D.

Ashley, Jack

Bradley, Tom

Conian, Bernard

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Atkinson, Norman

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

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Crawshaw, Richard

Barnes, Michael

Buchan, Norman

Cronin, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Baxter, William

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Dalyell, Tam

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Carmichael, Neil

Davidson, Arthur

Bidwell, Sydney

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Bishop, E. S.

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

602

603

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Pardoe, John

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Delargy, Hugh

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Dempsey, James

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Doig, Peter

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Dormand, J. D.

Kaufman, Gerald

Prescott, John

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Kelley, Richard

Price, William (Rugby)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Kerr, Russell

Probert, Arthur

Driberg, Tom

Kinnock, Neil

Radice, Giles

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lamble, David

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Dunn, James A.

Lamborn, Harry

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dunnett, Jack

Lamond, James

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Edelman, Maurice

Latham, Arthur

Richard, Ivor

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lawson, George

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Leadbitter, Ted

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ellis, Tom

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

English, Michael

Leonard, Dick

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Evans, Fred

Lestor, Miss Joan

Rose Paul B.

Ewing, Harry

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Faulds, Andrew

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rowlands, Ted

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

Lipton, Marcus

Sandelson, Neville

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lomas, Kenneth

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Loughlin, Charles

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Foot, Michael

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Ford, Ben

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Forrester, John

McBride, Neil

Sillars, James

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McCartney, Hugh

Silverman, Julius

Freeson, Reginald

McElhone, Frank

Skinner, Dennis

Galpern, Sir Myer

Machin, George

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Garrett, W. E.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Spriggs, Leslie

Gilbert, Dr. John

Maclennan, Robert

Stallard, A. W.

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Golding, John

McNamara, J. Kevin

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Gourley, Harry

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

Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marks, Kenneth

Strang, Gavin

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Marquand, David

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Marsden, F.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Hatton, F.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mayhew, Christopher

Tope, Graham

Hamling, William

Meacher, Michael

Torney, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mikardo, Ian

Urwin, T. W.

Hattersley, Roy

Millan, Bruce

Varley, Eric G.

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wainwright, Edwin

Heffer, Eric S.

Milne, Edward

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hilton, W. S.

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

Wallace, George

Horam, John

Molloy, William

Watkins, David

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

Weitzman, David

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wellbeloved, James

Huckfieid, Leslie

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Moyle, Roland

Whitehead, Phillip

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Whitlock, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oakes, Gordon

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hunter, Adam

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

O'Halloran, Michael

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Janner, Greville

O'Malley, Brian

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas

Oram, Bert

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Orme, Stanley

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oswald, Thomas

Woof, Robert

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

John, Brynmor

Padley, Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Paget, R. T.

Mr. Joseph Harper and

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

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. James Hamilton.

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the continuing support which Her Majesty's Government is giving to British Rail and recognises the need for Her Majesty's Government to complete its assessment of the most effective future rôle of our railway system as soon as possible.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling on the hon. Member to move the Second Reading, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is customary, when addressing the House, to declare any interest. I am in the exactly contrary position, since none of Ashdown Forest is in my constituency. The only reason that I am dealing with this matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) has ministerial responsibilities and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who lives in the Ashdown Forest, is at the moment in Europe. My constituency is, therefore, nearest the scene of operations. If I could have taken part in the earlier debate I could easily have declared the interest that my constituents have in railways, but that is not in order now.
  I am sure that every hon. Member will have noted that the Bill has come from the House of Lords. Before it went there, there was a period of 10 years when negotiations were going on about the way in which the Forest was to be run, and there was a report on 10th July 1972. A summary of that report was sent to all commoners, after which there were four general meetings and two group meetings. There have also been consultations and discussions with various bodies. Support for the Bill comes from the Department of the Environment, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and a voluntary body known as the Friends of Ashdown Forest, as well as the conservators.
  The Bill therefore has wide support, in which case I do not imagine that the House would wish me to go through the 34 clauses and two schedules, or the
  606
  details of a lengthy petition submitted by commoners opposing the Bill. All I propose to do is deal with one or two matters that may be relevant to this debate.
  Clause 14 sets out the arrangements for voting:
  "Notwithstanding anything in the award to the contrary the provisions set out in Schedule I of this Act shall have effect with respect to voting at meetings of the commoners."
  That part of Schedule I which is referred to provides that
  "The requirements of the award with respect to the votes of the commoners at any meeting of the commoners may be varied in accordance with a resolution of the commoners passed at a meeting of the commoners at which not less than 21 days' notice has been given to the commoners and provided that the terms of the resolution have been set out in the notice."
  So, once the Bill is passed there is no reason why any arrangements for voting that may or may not be regarded as satisfactory should not then be varied.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he confirm that there are 585 commoners on the roll but that only 17 control 55 per cent. of the voting rights for the election of conservators, and that therefore it is not correct to say that the commoners, on a majority vote, can decide to alter the arrangements for the election? That is already in the hands of a small minority who support the Bill against the wishes of the majority of the commoners.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to take my speech in my own way I hope that my arguments will persuade him that the situation is not quite so dreary as his question suggests.
  The reason for the Bill being drafted in the way it is is that even at this moment there is no agreement among the commoners or those who are to vote as to what they would like put in its place. In promoting the Bill, the county council could have put forward a proposal that voting should take place in a certain way. What it has written into the Bill is a provision that the voting arrangements can be altered.
  There is a division of opinion among those who have been consulted about

  607
  whether voting should be dealt with on a modified rateable value or should be on a basis of one man, one vote. No one can say that that is precisely what will be required. So far as I can discover, fewer than 24 Commoners exercise their full rights under the old Acts. Only three graze cattle, some have sheep, and one has two pigs.
  Some people—I know that this does not include the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson)—imagine that, simply because an area is a common, people have complete rights to do what they wish there. Schedule 2 lays down very limited uses to which Ashdown Forest can be put under the old Acts. It gives six fir clumps and two cricket grounds to which the public have access, in exchange for which we have Clause 21, which provides that
  "Subject to the provisions of the Ashdown Forest enactments and to the regulations made thereunder the public shall have access on foot to and over the forest for quiet recreation and enjoyment."
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Clause 20(3) refers to the lord of the manor, and in a previous clause there is reference to compensation for the lord of the manor. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the lord of the manor, and how much it will cost the ratepayers to compensate him? What additional powers will the lord of the manor have under Clause 20(3)?
  Mr. Godman Irvine: I cannot immediately identify the hon. Gentleman's reference, but if he will allow me to proceed on the basis on which I propose to argue in favour of the Bill, the matter will become clear, because I shall deal with finance in a moment.
  Mr. Loughlin: I shall help the hon. Gentleman. I am referring to Clause 20(3) on page 14.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: There are 26 lines in that part of the clause.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman should know the Bill.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: It is a little difficult to follow exactly what the hon. Gentleman is dealing with. In a moment I shall deal with finance, and if the hon. Gentleman will wait I think he will find that that matter is covered.
  608
  I have made two points. One is that the original commoners are not making full use of the common as the old Acts entitle them to use it. Secondly, in exchange for certain rights the public will have much greater rights in future.
  I come to the financial aspects. At present the East Sussex County Council has five representatives out of 20 on the body of conservators, and yet it is providing two-thirds of the income. When part of East Sussex goes to West Sussex, two fewer councils will be represented on that body, because they will be in West Sussex. It is proposed that there shall then be three fewer conservators. There will be nine representing the East Sussex County Council, out of a total of 17 on the body.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I understand that nine conservators are elected by the commoners. It is proposed that there shall be five. My hon. Friend has said that there will be three fewer commoners. I think that he will agree that five from nine is four.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: The East Grinstead and Cuckfield Councils will be leaving the area because they will become part of West Sussex. I was saying that there would be only 17 conservators. There would be nine representing the East Sussex County Council, out of a total of 17, instead of five out of a total of 20. It is now providing two-thirds of the income.
  Clause 21 gives the public much greater access, and therefore it is expected that more will have to be paid. Clause 24 provides that the county council will meet the expenses of the conservators, so it seems perfectly reasonable that the county should have increased representation.
  If it is questioned whether we shall have democratic representation of the people using the forest, I believe it to be a reasonable proposition that the representatives on the county council are democratically elected, and that therefore no point can be taken that people who are not even using their rights of common are as democratically elected as the representatives of the people paying the money.
  The purposes for which the Bill has been introduced are set out in Clause 16,

  609
  which states the duties of the conservators. as follows:
  "It shall be the duty of the Conservators subject to the provisions of this Act at all times as far as possible to regulate and manage the forest so as to protect the existing rights of common upon the forest, to protect the forest from encroachments, and to conserve it as a quiet and natural area of outstanding beauty."
  The way in which the conservators are to carry out those duties are set out in Clauses 17–20. It is quite clear from a comparison of Clause 16 with the old regulations that it extends the rights of the public.
  Therefore, I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading. If a contrary view were taken, the commoners would not be in a better position. We should simply maintain the status quo, apart from the fact that two councils will be leaving.
  It is only a very short time before the East Sussex County Council will be working on a different basis. Nobody can forecast what view the next council will take about Ashdown Forest. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee considering the Countryside Bill—I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South here—know exactly what arrangements are contained in that measure for dealing with such matters.
  The position will be much better under the Bill than it would be if we did not have it, or if we waited to see what happened on another occasion. Therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I should like to say a few words about the Bill because it deals with the reorganisation of the administration of Ashdown Forest, and the Commons Society, of which I am chairman, is naturally interested in a forest area which is a large common of 6,400 acres. The society's interest has been recognised by the promoters of the Bill, for we were first consulted about the problems with which it is designed to deal as long ago as 1968. I should like the House to take particular note of that date, because similar discussions have taken place with other bodies
  610
  and other persons. The Bill has come forward after a very long labour.
  The problems with which the conservators of the forest have been faced have occupied a great deal of their time and attention for some years. The Bill embodies many changes as compared with the original draft, changes for the better suggested as a result of widespread discussion.
  Before I deal in detail with the Bill it might be helpful if I define in broad terms the society's general approach. The society has long been anxious to secure a legal public right of access. The long process established by the Commons Registration Act will eventually lead to that in the many cases where no such right now exists.
  I emphasise that at present Ashdown Forest is a common where only limited rights of public access exist. I stress that because I and other hon. Members have received representations suggesting that public access is already provided by existing legislation. That is not so. There is a right of access at present only to certain clumps of trees, apart from the limited right to play cricket and other games. To the extent that this measure will create for the first time a legal public right of access on foot to all the forest for recreation and enjoyment, I give it a warm welcome on behalf of the Commons Society.
  A legal right of access in these days is not enough to secure full recreational enjoyment. There must be adequate funds available to maintain the forest. Further, there must be a responsible management authority to do that and to introduce and operate the necessary regulations to that end. Another strong point in favour of the Bill is that the Bill gives additional powers to the conservators which will enable them to preserve, maintain, improve and regulate the forest more effectively than in the past. In previous legislation no such specific authority was included.
  The society's general objectives are not intended to overrule the rights of commoners. However, it would appear that common rights have become less important in the context of Ashdown Forest. I understand that only two farmers still depend for their living on forest grazing. That surely is a minimal number out of a total of 590 commoners. I was given the

  611
  figure of 590 but some of my hon. Friends suggest that it is 585. Perhaps there is no need to squabble about that. I contrast the minimal use by commoners with the fact that the recreational use of the forest, especially in the summer, has increased enormously.
  Let us now consider the other side of the coin—namely, the conservators' point of view. Their position under existing legislation has remained fairly static while the cost of running the forest has increased considerably. I am sure they have done their best to cope with the situation, but undoubtedly the forest has suffered through lack of funds. The rapidly growing use of the forest for recreational purposes has put an enormous strain on the environmental balance of the area.
  The conservators have been unable to deal satisfactorily with the problem because of inadequate staff and financial stringency. How can they be expected to run and maintain, let alone improve and regulate, the forest to meet modern demands with their present staff of one part-time clerk, a superintendent and two rangers when dealing with an area of 6,400 acres? That seems to be the nub of the problem.
  When the society was first consulted five years ago it expressed the view definitely and clearly that more public authorities should be brought in to help finance the forest. It had in mind the coastal towns of Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings. A stroll along the fronts of those resorts will show the many coach tours advertising excursions to Ashdown Forest. In addition, hundreds of visitors come to the forest by car from the whole of the south of England, including the Greater London area. In general it can be said that Ashdown Forest is part of the tourist trade of the South Coast. It seems fair and just that an area which so directly benefits should contribute.
  If that argument is accepted, contributions by the coastal authorities should and would mean substantial conservator representation. That is precisely what the Bill provides. That is particularly important as the main burden in the future will fall on the new county council. In 1968 it was not possible to foresee the terms of the Local Government Act 1972 and the incorporation of the seaside county
  612
  boroughs to which I have referred in a large new county. However, the basic principle is precisely the same and it is still felt that more local authorities' money from a wider area should be obtained for the care of the forest.
  If we accept that extra local government money must be obtained, there must be extra local government representation. That is only fair and, I believe, in the long-term interests of the forest.
  Mr. Loughlin: If there is a need—and I agree with my hon. Friend that there is—to maintain environmental areas of this kind, is there any objection to the forest going into the control of the Forestry Commission?
  Mr. Johnson: That raises a much wider issue than is provided for by the Bill and it requires a great deal of consideration and thought. I am not sure that the Forestry Commission would welcome that.
  There is no clear evidence that the majority of commoners oppose the Bill—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely the fact that over 60 per cent. of the registered commoners have signed the petition duly deposited in the House opposing the Bill is the most conclusive evidence there could possibly be in that respect?
  Mr. Johnson: They have also signed other documents which are in conflict with the petition. It is difficult for outsiders to distinguish between the two. I am satisfied on the information which has been given to me that there is no clear evidence that the majority of commoners oppose the Bill. I sympathise with those who take the view that they must oppose it because the new arrangements, by reducing the commoners' representation on the board, may result in effective control passing to a remote county council.
  Let us look a little more closely at that grievance. It cannot be disputed that in the past the commoners have had representation. That is because they had an economic interest in the common. However, all the evidence suggests that that interest has declined so materially that it is no longer a relevant consideration. Certainly the majority of commoners no longer exercise their commonable rights

  613
  and interest and it seems that they regard the forest more as local inhabitants than as commoners.
  It could be argued that the commoners' motives are rather self-centred. It is true that a rigid enforcement of all the commoners' rights might well be inimical to the proper management of the forest as a place of natural beauty and to its proper use by the public.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that, with his great use, expertise and understanding of the public's need and right to use the countryside, my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is imperative that the rights of local people, whether or not they be protected by commoner rights, should be considered so that there should be a complete avoidance of conflict between the general public using the countryside and those who live adjacent to beauty spots. Therefore, the commoners' interests are the public's interest. Unless both act together, both will lose out in the long run.
  Mr. Johnson: I intend to make at the conclusion of my speech the first point which my hon. Friend made. As to his second point, I was trying to emphasise that the interest of many of the commoners is as members of the public and not as commoners, because their commonable rights are no longer exercised in a material and relevant way.
  My information is that, apart from the two commoners who exercise grazing rights—the two farmers to whom I referred—not more than 12 commoners seriously exercise their rights to estovers—that is, to take wood—and only three take brakes or litter. It cannot be said that their interests as commoners will be seriously undermined by the Bill. In so far as they have rights as members of the public, these will be enormously increased by the measure.
  I sympathise with the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). There is a general wish for local participation in the enjoyment of the forest both by commoners in the legal sense and by other persons. I suggest that this could be met by the new conservators co-opting representatives of local organisa-
  614
  tions, such as the Friends of Ashdown Forest, on to the various committees. This they have power to do under Clause 13 of the Bill. It would allay a great deal of apprehension if someone could say on their behalf, either tonight or in Committee, that they propose to do this.
  To sum up, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It will create for the first time a legal right for every member of the public to visit the forest on foot for recreational purposes. It will provide the necessary funds to enable the conservators to meet the widening public needs both by the provision of more staff and by the protection, improvement and regulation of the amenities that the forest has to offer. It creates a wide and representative body of management which can be trusted to exercise its new powers in the broad public interest. If there are minor criticisms of the Bill, there will be ample opportunity to pursue them in Committee. I have no reason to feel that any reasonable criticism will not be most carefully considered by the promoters.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The decision of the Chair on the dilatory amendment means that at the conclusion of the debate we shall vote on the main Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time". It is usual on the Second Reading of Private Bills to distinguish for the benefit of the House the principles properly involved in Second Reading and the matters which are more properly examined by a Committee if the House approves the general principles. I intend to honour that convention of the House but to put forward the reason why I believe that the Committee should he spared this task and why the Bill should be refused a Second Reading by the House.
  There is a general principle of law in this country that a person comes into court with clean hands. There should be a corollary that a person comes into Parliament with clean hands if he asks for greatly extended powers over his fellow men by special private legislation, and that is precisely what the Bill does. Have the promoters of the Bill come into Parliament with clean hands? I suggest that that is exactly what they have not done.

  615
  The Bill is promoted by the county council and it has the support of a completely unrepresentative group of people termed the conservators whose function, which is clearly defined, is frustrated by the electoral system. Whether there are at this moment 582 or 590 commoners is not material. What is material is that, under the system for electing conservators, 17 out of between 580 and 590 commoners have 55 per cent. of the votes but pay only 9 per cent. of the forest rate. The remaining 560-plus commoners pay 91 per cent. of the forest rate but have only 45 per cent. of the votes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) rather guilelessly directed our attention to the provision in the Bill which enables the commoners to alter the voting system. So it does—on the present basis. Therefore, this corrupt and archaic rotten borough system of voting can be used to block any such reform. If the Bill embodied a rational system of voting, we could rely on the commoners to look after their own interests as they wish, but it does not.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say definitely that the commoners as a whole agree upon a specific way of voting which can be embodied in the Bill?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. No such proposition can he advanced. One of the well-established principles in the House and in the country is one man, one vote. The present system, which is so archaic that I imagine few would defend it, is that the rate per acre goes down the larger the holding, but the vote goes up the larger the holding. The promoters are explicitly maintaining this extraordinary proposition by the form in which they have drafted the Bill.
  If we pass the Bill into law, we shall perpetuate a blocking system. It is no use anyone purporting to give undertakings about what conservators who have not been elected will do if the Bill is passed. The history of undertakings given during Second Reading debates on Priviate Bills is, to put it mildly, an unhappy one. The largest single corpus of Private Bill legislation is that which enabled the railway system to be built. At the direction of the Board of Trade
  616
  —or whatever it was called then—written into all those Bills was a requirement for the directors of the companies who would be empowered under the Bills to give a personal and collective undertaking under the companies' seals never to allow more than one engine in steam on any one section of line at a given time. The history of railway accidents shows that those undertakings were generally and flagrantly ignored, and I am not aware of a single prosecution ever having taken place.
  The parliamentary agent acting for the promoters was told of this manifest and important objection considerably before the Bill received its First Reading in the House of Lords. He was advised not to introduce the Bill into either House of Parliament until this unacceptable and corrupt system of voting had been remedied. It was entirely open to the promoters to write into the Bill before introducing it into the House of Lords a specific correction of the abuses. The promoters chose not to do so.
  The fact that this Bill arrives here still containing an utterly unacceptable voting system and not providing the machinery by which that can be remedied without the assent of the 17 people who can block the rest of the commoners at the moment is not the fault of the commoners who oppose the Bill. It is the fault of the sponsors. That is why they should take the Bill away and save Parliament further pains until they have remedied this defect.
  There seems to be an element of disagreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Rye and the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) who sponsored the Bill. My hon. Friend complained that the commoners were not exercising all their rights while the hon. Gentleman complained that it would be unreasonable if they did.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I pointed out that they were not exercising their rights at present. I said that, if 590 commoners sought to exercise all their rights, they would obviously interfere with the public enjoyment which I understand we all want.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I entirely agree. That is the point I was making. The

  617
  hon. Gentleman said that it would be unreasonable for the commoners to exercise all their rights. My hon. Friend appeared to complain that they were not exercising all their rights. I know of no hon. Member who exercises all his rights. How many hon. Members have ever gone to the Vote Office once a year and obtained the accounts of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and examined them? That is one of our rights. The fact that we do not exercise it surely does not mean that we ought to apply for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.
  Mr. William Wilson: Surely it is not the law of the land that if a commoner does not exercise his rights he loses them. A commoner has his rights in perpetuity.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree. That is the opposite to the point made by the promoters, which was that unless a commoner exercised his rights they should be attenuated or removed. I agree that the commoners are being reasonable in the exercise of their rights. To exercise them fully and to the letter would cause inconvenience to the public. If everyone in society exercised all his rights all the time, no one could exercise many of them for any of the time.
  The principle on which we should determine whether the Bill receives a Second Reading is not embodied in Committee points. There is a petition signed by the time it was deposited, by 353 of the 580-odd commoners. That is 61 per cent. of them. Others have since indicated their support for it, although it is too late for those signatures to be formally appended to the deposited petition.
  The promoters of the Bill have knowingly, wittingly and intentionally introduced a Bill which perpetuates an unacceptable voting system. The conservators with whom they negotiated were elected under that corrupt system. The five conservators to be elected by the commoners will continue to be elected, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, under a corrupt voting system unless the 17 people who control 55 per cent. of the votes will otherwise. There is no means of making them do so and nothing in the Bill makes them do so.
  618
  The healthy thing for the House to do, therefore, is to say "Take this Bill away. We refuse it a Second Reading. Cut out of it that which is totally unacceptable to the general principles which are common to both sides of the House." In my judgment, that is why the Bill should be refused a Second Reading.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford): I had better declare my interest, as other hon. Members have done. I am the national vice-president of one of the major voluntary organisations which uses the countryside for leisure and sport. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in trying to ensure the right of free public access, subject to certain safeguards for local inhabitants, to all beauty spots in the country.
  I differ from my hon. Friend in believing that it is necessary, in the discharge of this desirable aim, to strike a careful balance between the rights of the public to enjoy the countryside and the rights of those who live in beauty soots to enjoy the quietness of their area without having it destroyed by those like myself, from the great metropolis of London and other major centres, who go into the country at weekends to enjoy ourselves in what is someone else's back garden.
  That is precisely the case with Ashdown Forest. It is a place of great beauty, giving pleasure to many thousands of people in south-east England, and south-east London particularly. I want that enjoyment to continue, but I also want to see a balance struck between the desires of those who wish to visit the place and the anxities of those who have banded themselves together in a Commoners' Association for Ashdown Forest to protect their interests and to see that they and we—the outsiders—can mutually enjoy this great national asset.
  The only difference between my hon. Friend and I is that we take a slightly different view of the emphasis that ought to be placed on the rights of local people to be properly represented under a democratic system on the Board of Conservators for the Ashdown Forest. I am advised that the Ashdown Forest Act 1885 enshrines free right of access by the public to the footpaths and glade lands

  619
  of the forest and that, in practice, since 1885 that free access has been maintained. I do not believe that a new Act is necessary either to enlarge or to maintain what is already enshrined in statute law and in the normal custom and practice of the usage of Ashdown Forest by the general public. On that ground, I do not believe that the Bill can be justified. It is not necessary.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The matter is set out clearly on page 21 of the Bill. I summarised the rights of the public under the 1885 Act. I ask the hon. Gentleman to modify his observations, because such rights are limited.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The Act talks about having regard to the effects of the neighbourhood as well as to private interests, and goes on to specify free access and talk about local inhabitants. The "local inhabitants" definition has been considerably enlarged by custom and practice so as to justify the words that I have used. In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) gave the impression that the commoners who are to be affected by the Bill are not commoners as originally envisaged. Apparently, certain commoners have two or three pigs and a number of cattle, but most of them are domestic house occupiers and are therefore not the sort of people the original arrangements were designed to protect. He gave the dates of a number of meetings that were held to explain to the commoners the purposes of the Bill. I am informed that two of the meetings took place—on 6th January 1973 and 16th February 1973—without the Bill then being available. A verbal statement was made to the commoners and they were asked to accept something that they had not had the benefit of studying in written form and in detail.
  I do not believe that it lies with the hon. Member to pray in aid these public meetings when there was no firm proposal in writing upon which the commoners could express a view.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: All I said was that a full report of the board was made on 10th July 1972 and that that was available.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: As I understand it, the report did not embody the details of
  620
  the Bill, and it is to the Bill that the commoners are objecting. It is, therefore, clear that they were not properly consulted by the promoters of the Bill before it was presented to Parliament. In itself, that justifies grave anxiety among hon. Members and should be sufficient to cause us to stop and think before we give the Bill an unopposed Second reading.
  The hon. Member for Rye said that the people who supported the Bill included the county council, the Department of the Environment, and someone else. Good as those bodies may be, their support does not, in itself, justify the Bill. It can be justified only if it can be shown to be necessary, and if it can be shown not to cause grave public anxiety in respect of the matters in which it claims to seek to allay such anxieties. I shall not take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) except for what he called the corrupt practice of election of the conservators. Having briefly studied the situation, I concur with some of his judgments. It seems intolerable that this Parliament should be asked to enact legislation that will mean that the power for the appointment of conservators will lie with 17 commoners out of 585 or 595, whichever is the correct number. That is something of which we cannot approve. It is therefore not acceptable for the hon. Member for Rye to say that under the Bill the commoners can meet and alter their election system. We all know that they cannot do that as things stand. That is a basic requirement for adjustment at some stage or another, be it in this Bill or in some other, before we can even consider allowing it to have a Third reading—if it gets that far.
  There is another aspect of voting rights to which I wish to draw attention. I am advised that the system of voting provides for either the male or the female member of a household to attend a meeting of the commoners and cast only one vote per household. From a quick reading, Schedule 1 appears to seek to alter that position, so that only the registered commoner will be entitled to attend and vote, and it will require an involved system of the appointment of a proxy for the female of the household to attend and vote.

  621
  This House has been endeavouring to promote equal rights between men and women. We have passed Bills about equal pay. As a Parliament we are committed to a rapid advancement towards equality between the sexes. That is a good enough reason why we should ponder before we pass the Bill. In those circumstances it would be wrong to act contrary to general public legislation by passing a private Bill of this nature.
  Representation will consist of nine conservators appointed from among the elected members of the county council, two conservators appointed from the members of the local council and five appointed under the proposed system of election of conservators. I should like that balance of representation altered. I should like to see an increase in the commoners' representation at the expense of of the representation of the county council. I do not suggest a substantial increase in the local district council representation. I believe that the county council representatives can bring a broader view to the deliberations of the conservators. But there should be a reduction in its representation to provide a better chance of local interests forming a majority.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that with the financial burden imposed by the Bill on the county council, the council should accept the exercise of rights by a body on which it did not have a majority?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: If I understand the position correctly, in the formation of its rates estimates the county council will provide for the levying of a rate for the use of the conservators. The amount of money that the conservators can spend will already have been determined by the council. My hon. Friend's point is not valid, because in its financial provision the county council already has a veto on the amount of money that it will provide to the conservators from the general rates.
  The other point of general principle is one which arises on Clause 17(2) in which it is laid down that
  "The Conservators shall not under the powers conferred on them by subsection (1) of this section keep enclosed at any one time more than 100 acres of the forest without the consent of the Secretary of State."
  622
  Under that subsection the Secretary of State will have the responsibility of giving authority if the conservators at any one time wish to enclose more than the 100 acres specified. Will the Secretary of State undertake that, before exercising those powers, he will consult the commoners' association? On this matter of enclosures I believe that we must exercise very great care.
  Mr. Loughlin: I very much appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but even if the present Secretary of State gave that undertaking he could not bind future Secretaries of State.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has the advantage of having been a Minister. It may be, therefore, that his faith in the process of government has been diminished. As a humble back bencher, however, I have sufficient faith in that process to believe that if the present Secretary of State gave such an undertaking it would be duly recorded and that, at least, a civil servant would draw it to the attention of any successor of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I may be able to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest at once. Any transfer of land is subject under that clause to the consent of the Secretary of State, who must hold a local inquiry if a commoner objects. That will apply to the present Secretary of State and to all future Secretaries of State.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I must confess that I had not grasped that that was the case under Clause 17(2), but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
  I move to another general point which is contained in Clause 18. This clause and the principle enshrined in it cause considerable anxiety to the commoners, quite apart from the anxiety which it causes my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, myself and everyone else interested in the preservation of the countryside for the use of the general public.
  There is a fear amongst the commoners that the clause will give general powers for the commercial exploitation of Ashdown Forest. I am sure that if there is one matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and I

  623
  are likely to agree, it is that we want to see beauty spots such as Ashdown Forest open to the general public but preserved from the evils of commercial exploitation which would completely destroy the beauty that we seek to enjoy. I hope that during this debate we shall hear a little more from a supporter of the Bill about what is foreseen as coming from the operation of that clause.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: As one who is an expert on the subject of assemblies, will my hon. Friend refer to Clause 23, which is very reminiscent of the Isle of Wight County Council Bill, on which he indicated to the House some considerable expertise? Does not this provision offer to an undemocratic group of people the right to say that any number of people exceeding 100 may not assemble in the forest for any purpose which they consider offensive, whether or not it is an offensive purpose?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I lived in fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) might put that very question to me. With my hon. Friend, I was a protagonist during the course of the passage through this House of the Isle of Wight County Council Bill dealing with the right of the public to assemble overnight in an open space for the purpose of a lawful occasion. In the context of the Ashdown Forest Bill, I do not see any grave danger in Clause 23 in respect of large assemblies, though my hon. Friend is right to raise the point. I agree immediately that my knowledge of Ashdown Forest is limited. However, in my judgment it is not a place which would be suitable for overnight assemblies of the kind which my hon. Friend and I tried so hard to protect on a previous occasion. But I accept that the principle is there. Therefore, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, it will be right for the Select Committee to look carefully at this provision.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I was thinking of people who might want to make a short protest, perhaps, about blood sports. If a majority of the conservators were opposed to that object, they might say, "No. We do not want that sort of assembly here".
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That may be the case. But I am sure that this provision
  624
  would not deter those who are dedicated to the abolition of cruelty to animals from assembling in the Ashdown Forest if they thought that that would bring relief to the suffering of dumb animals.
  Mr. Davis: It puts them in difficulty.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree that it puts them in difficulty. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will deploy the arguments on the civil liberties point if and when he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is only fair to say that from my limited knowledge of the Ashdown Forest, because of its make-up, the trees and the lack of wide open spaces, it is not the sort of area where several thousand people would assemble overnight for a pop festival or to camp. Therefore, I do not see any great danger in that clause. But I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to explain my position.
  Mr. Eyre: I regret that perhaps I was too eager to assist the hon. Gentleman in relation to Clause 17. My reply applied to Clause 20. Referring specifically to Clause 17(2), as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the consent of the Secretary of State is required in the circumstances described in that subsection. But I believe that there is no doubt that any Secretary of State would exercise his power under this provision with responsibility and obviously would consult as widely as possible. In the circumstances, certainly this would include consulting commoners before coming to a decision and giving his consent as required under the subsection.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: When the hon. Gentleman intervened earlier, I wondered whether we were not a little astray of the point that we were both trying to make, but I deferred to his expertise. I am grateful that he has so quickly and frankly put the record straight. If the Bill becomes law I should be quite happy to accept his assurance on the point. I am sure that it will be of considerable interest to the commoners to know that he has given it, and I hope that the civil servants will duly draw it to the attention of any successor Secretary of State should he be faced with such a decision.

  625
  I believe that a number of principles are involved in the Bill and that there is every reason to hesitate in giving it an unopposed Second Reading. It is not an unopposed Bill. It will go to the Opposed Bills Committee upstairs, and I hope that between now and its re-emergence on the Floor of the House the promoters will take the opportunity to come to some accommodation in consultation with the commoners as a whole, because if the Bill returns virtually as it is now it will not receive an unopposed passage through the House, and it may well not make the statute book this year.
  Like the hon. Member for Tiverton, I am anxious that a proper balance should be achieved between the local and public interest and I hope that this chance will be taken to see that that legitimate and desirable objective is achieved.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not want to leave the impression that that would meet the point of principle on which the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed, because it cannot, in the rules of order, be dealt with by amendment in Committee. That is why I think it rather a waste of time to let the Bill go to Committee.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I have not given the Bill the detailed study which I know the hon. Gentleman has. If that be the case, we have nothing to fear. It will not pass this House.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: It is a striking fact that all hon. Members concerned in the area of Ashdown Forest, or who are neighbours to it, support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) represents the biggest county borough in the area, and he also supports it. Therefore, we must address ourselves to the points of anxiety which commoners have expressed and to the petition they have sent, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred. It is always wise to secure one's opportunity to raise points in the passage of a private Bill by petitioning in due time. If one has not done it in due time, one does not have opportunity to raise such points.
  From my knowledge, I doubt whether a majority of the petitioners have informed criticisms to make of the pro-
  626
  visions of the Bill. It is striking that the majority—340 of them—have agreed to a modified rateable value basis for the elections amongst commoners. But there can be no such change in the method of election amongst the commoners unless a Bill goes through Parliament because, at the moment, they are stuck with voting on the acreage basis.
  Hon. Members have made a major point about the election rights of the commoners. It is important to say—and I do so with the authority of the promoters—that a majority of the commoners, whether by acreage or by number, agree to a modified rateable value basis, but they cannot implement it until Parliament enacts a Bill to change the present provisions. The fact that not all are agreed leads to difficulties. That is why the Bill is drawn as it is. It gives the commoners the opportunity to agree on a form different from the present, and I hope that they will.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the 17 commoners who control 55 per cent. of the votes, or a majority of them, are willing to see a change in the electoral system?
  Mr. Maddan: Yes, I am happy to say that they are. The arithmetic is plain. The majority of the commoners, whether by acreage or by number, support a modified rateable value basis for voting. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) referred to compensation payable to the lord of the manor. He may, understandably, have misunderstood the purport of the provision. All the soil in Ashdown Forest is owned by the lord of the manor.
  Mr. Loughlin: Who is he?
  Mr. Maddan: He is the noble Lord, Lord Buckhurst. All the provision does is to give the conservators a right to buy or sell a pocket of land for marginal adjustments in the boundary of the forest, but the chances are that Lord Buckhurst will receive no compensation whatever. It is most likely that if anything happens at all it will be a pure swapping arrangement.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) also raised the question of wives voting. I cannot tell

  627
  him about that. But I do not think that we would want to take away the rights of wives, and if what the hon. Gentleman says is so I think that he will agree that that is very much a point for the Select Committee to consider.
  The purpose of Clause 18 is to strike a proper balance between local interests and the general public interest in the enjoyment of Ashdown Forest, and to place the responsibility for the exercise of expenditure where the responsibility for providing the finance rests. That must be a proper and sound basis on which to proceed.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, as a local Member, would apply his mind to Clause 23? Am I right in supposing that it provides a complete power of veto in the conservators to say that a group of 100 people—not very many—who may wish to assemble in the forest may not do so?
  Mr. Maddan: I am not speaking with the authority of the promoters, but I think it does, and I think the reason is that Ashdown Forest is very liable to fire. There is an enormous amount of bracken, and the like, and I imagine that it would be extremely dangerous to encourage large assemblies of people there. I say that only by way of a general observation and not on the authority of the promoters.
  Mr. William Wilson: I wonder whether the hon. Member can tell us about Clause 23(2), the last few words of which are
  "shall not grant such consent without the approval of the local authorities".
  Can he tell us how many local authorities' consent would have to be obtained?
  Mr. Maddan: Again, I do not speak with the authority of the promoters, but I expect that for instance, the fire authorities, the police, and the sanitary authorities would be concerned. I take it that this is what that means.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To save any misunderstanding, hon. Members could read the definitions in Clause 2—the interpretation clause—in which "the local authorities" are defined. They do not include the fire authorities or the police authorities, as my hon. Friend has suggested.
  Mr. Maddan: That is a very happy conclusion. Hon. Members can look at that and not listen to me any more at all—except to hear me say that when this Bill is enacted, as I very much hope it will be, it will be to the benefit both of the local people in Ashdown Forest and of those many thousands of other people who wish to enjoy it.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I want to deal with the Bill in a serious way, but before I go on to my main points I should like to go back to Clause 23 to which the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) referred. Clause 23 is quite clear and categorical. It gives to the conservators—the conservators are not merely elected members of a local authority but are commoners without any public accountability in this respect—the right to refuse to allow more than 100 people to come together in the forest.
  The hon. Member says that there may be very good reason for that: that because of its bracken Ashdown Forest has a great fire risk. I live in the Forest of Dean. We have a fire risk, but we do not exclude any assemblies. The Forestry Commission does not attempt to exclude persons more than 100 in number on the ground that there is a fire risk. In practice there can be no greater fire risk than there is in the Forest of Dean. I would assume that Clause 23 is put into the Bill deliberately; and it is put into the Bill quite possibly on the grounds referred to by my hon. Friend in his intervention.
  I shall deal with certain aspects not of the preservation of the rights of ordinary people to enjoy the environment and to enjoy the forest but of enshrining in a Bill the preservation of the rights of a particular individual. If the Bill says that the conservators have a right without let or hindrance to refuse to allow more than 100 people to assemble in the forest, we as Parliament want to know why. Is this clause aimed at certain categories of people? If it is not so aimed, why have it in the Bill? It may well be true, as one hon. Member has said, that Ashdown Forest does not lend itself to pop festivals but, when I look at the rights granted by the Bill to the conservators, I think it might be

  629
  possible at some time that the forest would lend itself to pop festivals.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: If it were to lend itself to an assembly of that kind, it could do so only on the assumption that a large part of the forest should disappear.
  Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill, he will see that it gives to the conservators the right of felling trees, so the hon. Gentleman should not make that point unless he has read the Bill. It is possible that the opposition may well be against people who are opposed to bloodsports. I do not know whether there is any hunting in Ashdown Forest, but I am assuming that there is. If more than 100 people were to go along to oppose a hunt of any kind, it is not sufficient for this House to say, as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has said, that if those people were so dedicated they would be prepared to challenge the law. It is not for this House to produce a situation in which we deliberately place people in jeopardy of the law. It is for this House to ensure that we do not do so.
  Clause 23, therefore, really ought to come out of the Bill altogether, because non-elected persons have no right to say how many people should come together. It might be a matter of a young farmers' association or a Young Conservatives' association. We might have a Socialist on the board of conservators, and in that case they might be politically vindictive against the Young Conservatives. Are we then to place the Young Conservatives in the position of having to step outside the law to defend their rights?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: One should point out, of course, that the restriction applies to a hunt as well as to those opposed to hunting.
  Mr. Loughlin: That may be so, but there is the possibility that there will be fewer than 100 people on the hunt or there might be more than 100 who are opposed to it. I am simply making the point that it is not good enough for the promoters of any kind of Bill to bring before the House a Bill containing clauses to which fundamental objection
  630
  can be taken by a substantial part of this House.
  Mr. Maddan: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the purpose of the clause basically is to see that Ashdown Forest is preserved as a place where members of the public can pursue quiet and natural enjoyment; and if there were large assemblies which would disturb the quiet and natural enjoyment on the part of members of the public, that would not be in the general interest. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would accept this.
  Mr. Loughlin: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is the kind of argument that has been advanced by those who have sought to stop people coming together throughout the ages. In particular, in relation to pop festivals, precisely that kind of argument was used on the Isle of Wight County Council Bill. I say that there must be a purpose for the clause.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: As far as pop festivals are concerned, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Department has recently issued a code for use at pop festival assemblies, and that code would apply if the Ashdown Forest were to be used for such an assembly. I do not think it ever will be, because it is not a suitable place in which to have a pop festival. I appreciate and understand my hon. Friend's references to other types of assembly, but I can assure him that it would not be a suitable place for a pop assembly and, therefore, he should not waste too much time deploying his argument on the basis of pop assemblies. I believe that he is on better ground with the other types of assembly he has in mind.
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to deploy that argument any further. I merely draw attention to Clause 22(4)(c), which refers to
  "the rights of sporting of the lord of the manor".
  It may be that we there find the clue to the reason for the existence of Clause 23.
  Before moving to the main burden of my opposition to the Bill, I want to draw attention to Clause 17(2), in respect of the consent of the Secretary of State to the enclosure of more than 100 acres of

  631
  the forest. In his first intervention the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that any decision by the Secretary of State would be subject to an inquiry. In his second intervention he did not make clear that no inquiry is required in relation to this provision in the Bill. All he is asking the House to do is to accept his assurance on behalf of his right hon. Friend that any future Secretary of State would take the same attitude as does the present one. In the light of the history of this House, the Under-Secretary of State surely cannot give such an undertaking.
  Mr. Eyre: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about a public inquiry, but I did not make a presumption in quite the way the hon. Gentleman chose to imply. I explained that the words
  "without the consent of the Secretary of State"
  would mean the present Secretary of State. I am sure that any Secretary of State would act responsibly in the exercise of his powers.
  Mr. Loughlin: That is an entirely different matter, because what "acting responsibly" means to me might not be the same as it means to the Minister.
  I have two fundamental objections to the Bill. The first point was made in an admirable speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on the acreage voting system. The hon. Member for Hove attempted to answer that point by saying that there were provisions to cover this aspect of the matter. But why was not such a provision written into the Bill? This is on the same lines as the old argument of the difference between permissive and mandatory legislation. This matter could have been written into the Bill without any difficulty at all. The attitude of the hon. Member for Hove was that it was not written into the Bill because there was not unanimity among the commoners. His view was: "Give us the Bill and we shall achieve unanimity".
  Mr. Maddan: There is an important distinction. The burden of my argument is that the best thing to do is to give the commoners the right to do what they think best, even though they would have to do it under the present voting system. I explained to the House what the
  632
  majority of commoners, whether by acreage or numbers, think is the proper thing to do. In those circumstances, I believe that it is possible for the House to give those powers and for the matter to be sorted out locally rather than for us to railroad through detailed provisions.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford. When my hon. Friend intervened, the hon. Genleman gave the House an assurance that the 17 commoners who control the voting would, if we passed the Bill, agree to change the whole voting system.
  Mr. Maddan: I referred to the majority of commoners, whether by number or by acreage. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in detail about each of the 17 commoners to whom he is referring.
  Mr. Loughlin: In that case, my argument is valid. The system appears to be based upon one acre, one vote. I have heard some arguments about democracy, but now we hear about one acre, one vote. The more acres someone has, the more votes he has. We are going back to the twelfth century, not the eighteenth.
  Mr. John Golding: Has my hon. Friend considered what effect it would have on local government if there were a system of one vote per £1 of rateable value?
  Mr. Loughlin: In that event I should have a large number of votes, because I have the highest-rated house in my village. It is not the best house, but it is the highest rated. I know that, because I have checked the valuation list.
  I do not need to deploy the argument at any length because the hon. Member for Tiverton spelled out in great detail that, even though we may get assurances from those hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill, if the provision is not written into the measure we have no guarantee that it will be carried out. If it were possible for those who support the Bill to come to the conclusion, after it was tabled, that they would be prepared to make a change so that there would be a more democratic form of voting, I suggest that they withdraw the Bill now and bring it back to the House when they

  633
  have reached agreement on the voting issue.
  This is, after all, the first step towards the Bill's becoming law. Those who support the measure will have to deal with the voting issue when the Bill is considered in Committee, and again when it comes back to this House. They will face the same difficulty. We shall be here to deal with this issue. We are now at the beginning of July, and the Bill will not go through in its present form. The best advice that I can give to supporters of the Bill is to withdraw it, get agreement on the voting system, and then bring it back to the House. If such agreement is reached, there will be a much more democratic system of voting and it will be acceptable to the commoners in the area.
  There may have been some change in the attitude of the commoners, but I understand that about 80 per cent. of them originally opposed the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct, 60 per cent. of them still oppose the Bill because of the proposed voting system.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: More than 60 per cent. of them signed the petition before the date on which it had to be deposited. Since then many more have indicated their support for the petition, but they cannot formally sign it.
  Mr. Loughlin: My information is that originally more than 80 per cent, of the commoners opposed the Bill on the issue of voting. If that is so, the sponsors of the Bill cannot expect the Bill to get an easy passage if, after framing and depositing it, they inform some hon. Members that they are prepared to do something that they ought to have done in the first instance and rewrite a substantial part of this measure. As I understand it, the only way that that can be done is for the Bill to be withdrawn and resubmitted with new provisions. Unless that is done, I promise the sponsors that there will be a great deal of opposition when the Bill goes through its remaining stages.
  I have, perhaps, a more fundamental objection to the Bill than that. I happen to have in my constituency the Forest of Dean, which is, in practice, the kind of amenity area about which my hon.
  634
  Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford spoke. He knows how well the Forest of Dean is looked after by the Forestry Commission. Although, at times, there is a dilemma in trying to balance the interests of the generality of the public with the interests of those who live in the area, the Forestry Commission has been able to ensure that, apart from certain portions of the forest which have to be enclosed for the purpose of maintaining the correct balance, the greater proportion of the forest is there for the benefit and enjoyment of not only those who live in it but who visit it from elsewhere. It is an enormous success.
  By virtue of my experience of the Forest of Dean, therefore, I am in favour of trying to safeguard areas of this kind to ensure that we do not destroy or be spoil the whole of this small island on which we live. In this part of the world, perhaps, there is more reason to ensure that Ashdown Forest is retained for the benefit of the community who go there than there is for almost anywhere else in Britain. I take it that Ashdown Forest is within the area known as the South-East. The South-East is almost choked with industry and population.
  In the Forest of Dean we have the Forestry Commission, and not conservators but verderers—a very ancient court. They are elected, but the Forestry Commission is directly responsible to the Minister. If I have a problem in the Forest of Dean, as I often have, and if I discuss it with the Forestry Commission but I am not satisfied with the policy as pursued by the commission. I can then go to the Minister. The Forestry Commission accepts that, and very often, when we have reached that point of impasse, I say to the commission's representative, "I am sorry, but I shall have to take this matter to the Minister". There is never the slightest straining of relations when I take that action.
  I have looked at the Bill, however. To whom could anyone go, and what right would a Member of Parliament have in trying to redress any irregularities that may occur in the future once the Bill becomes law? I have full access to the Forestry Commission, and the commission has full accountability, but I cannot see any public accountability

  635
  enshrined in the Bill. Where there is an admixture of local authorities and private persons public accountability, except in the fringe areas, goes out of the window.
  I come now to my major objection. I asked earlier who was the lord of the manor. I referred to certain clauses in the Bill and assumed that the hon. Gentleman who was presenting the Bill would have been prepared to tell us something about the lord of the manor. This is a fundamental issue involved in Second Reading. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) has told us that the lord of the manor is Lord Buckhurst and that he felt sure that it would be a matter of swapping pockets of land.
  It is interesting to go through clause after clause in which there is reference to the lord of the manor. According to Clause 2 this means the lord of the manor of Duddleswell for the time being and, in relation to the lord of the manor, his nominee means such person as the lord of the manor shall nominate in writing, such nomination to be deposited with the clerk of the conservators.
  One can go through the Bill clause after clause and see some of the rights and responsibilities of the conservators. It is the responsibility of the conservators to engage in arboriculture, which will include the planting, felling, cutting and lopping of trees and shrubs, the enclosing of newly planted trees or groups of trees, and the selling and disposing of timber. That is very much the kind of responsibility that is invested in the Forestry Commission and it is the sort of thing we should have heard something about. If we provide individuals who do not have public accountability with the right of felling and lopping of trees they can, without any difficulty, cut down the deciduous trees, which have an aesthetic value, and plant conifers. Thus, we can have the kind of situation, which has concerned me for a considerable time, in which the oak, elm and all broad-leaved trees are cut down so that a forest can be a commercially viable proposition, because conifers are faster growing than the broad-leaved trees.
  If we give this power to private individuals we may destroy an amenity area rather than create it. We may be landed with conifers in Germanic rows and in uniformity, easy for felling. That is possible under the Bill. Before we start
  636
  getting euphoric and rhapsodising over the possibility of retaining an area for amenity value we have to be quite sure that the amenity will be retained. The Bill gives the conservators the right to make the forest a commercial proposition.
  I deliberately missed out the first line in my quotation from Clause 17(1)(a), which referred to these activities being
  "subject to the consent of the Lord of the Manor".
  The Bill provides that, irrespective of what Parliament, the conservators or the county council feel, the lord of the manor will have the right to say yea or nay.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: It is obvious from his recent remarks that my hon. Friend is quite unaware of the true nature of a common. The reason for the references to the lord of the manor is that he owns the freehold of the whole forest. It is not publicly-owned property. He has sacrified such rights as he has, going back for hundreds of years, so that, through the centuries and under recent legislation, the public right may be enlarged. Fundamentally, this refers simply to his existing rights and does not create fresh rights for him.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am not arguing that it creates fresh rights, simply that the consent of the lord of the manor is mentioned in clause after clause. If this is a worthwhile amenity area and it is in his possession, I do not see why we should not take it away from him.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As I understand it, so far from the rights having been granted to the commoners by the lord of the manor, he tried to cancel them all and sued some of the commoners for exercising their rights. The case went to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as a result of which the rights were restored to the commoners by the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Loughlin: This I take to be the award mentioned in some of the material sent to us. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton, who obviously knows more about this than I do. The significance of giving to the lord of the manor the right to say yea or nay—whether he has had that right in the past or not—is that it is written into the Bill.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: My hon. Friend's argument would cover practically every one of the commons throughout the length and breadth of the land, where, except in the case of urban commons, the lords of the manor still have the freehold vested in them and still exercise certain rights, just as the commoners have certain rights. But the commons are not yet public property.
  Mr. Loughlin: That may well be so. I suppose that the same argument applies when we defend the lord of the manor's right to game, his sporting rights. I suppose that because it is not nationally-owned land we defend that on the same basis.
  Mr. Johnson: I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend. I am not defending anything. I am simply trying to explain the position. The proposal my hon. Friend is now making is obviously one that in any event cannot be dealt with by a Private Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: Well, it should not be in a Private Bill. I am glad that my hon. Friend is helping me. I ask him to turn to Clause 20(3). If it is something that does not matter, if the lord of the manor has always had a right to veto any issue within the curtilage of his house, irrespective of what the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out a short time ago, I ask my hon. Friend what he makes of the subsection. Although the hon. Member for Hove says that it is all right and that it is a matter of exchange, the subsection says that, provided the Secretary of State consents,
  "the lord of the manor may enter into and carry into effect agreements with the owners of land outside the forest for the exchange of lands of equal area (including the payment of money for equality of exchange), and on such exchange being completed the land so acquired by the lord of the manor shall be part of the forest and the land so transferred by the lord of the manor shall be released from all rights and obligations affecting the same in so far as such rights and obligations arise from the land having been part of the forest".
  Therefore, we are saying in the Bill "It is all right. We have conservators. The people in the county council area are paying rates. The ratepayers can pay, and the lord of the manor can act according to the provisions of the Bill". I am not saying what he would or would not do, but Parliament must ensure that Bills.
  638
  particularly Private Bills, are clear and determinate. We do not want any confusion later. That is why there is close examination of Bills.
  We are saying that in practice the ratepayers shall pay for the privilege of maintaining an amenity area but, as I read the subsection, the lord of the manor will be given powers to decide what part of the amenity area will reside within the power of the conservators and what part will reside outside.
  I know what small communities are. It is true that the Secretary of State has to give consent, but I would not trust a Tory Secretary of State as far as I could throw him when it came to the question of land. To determine my attitude to the consent of the Secretary of State I have only to consider the vast fortunes made in land speculation while the Tories have sat on their bottoms during the past three years.
  If we go through the whole of Clause 20, irrespective of the special pleading of my hon. Friend, we see that we are doing two things in the Bill. We are giving our consent to a Bill which will set up a body which is obviously antidemocratic. It is not as if it has defects in its democracy. It is the negation of all that the House has stood for for a long time. Further, we are giving powers to the lord of the manor which no one has a right to have. If we give those powers to him we cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) suggests, ensure that the forest will remain as an amenity area.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has spent a good deal of time dwelling on the lord of the manor. I thought that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) dealt very well with his remarks. It seems odd that, because the lord of the manor has certain rights, they should be taken away from him because they happen to appear in a Bill, whether or not it he a Private Bill. That seems extraordinary nostrum.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West was perfectly genuine and right in saying that it was important to ensure that Ashdown Forest is retained for the benefit of the community and that it is

  639
  more important than almost anywhere else in the country. I took down his words as he spoke, and that was what he said.
  I cannot altogether connect those worthy sentiments with the hon. Memmer's remarks about Clause 23 and the rights of those who wish to have an assembly of more than 100 people. A place like Ashdown Forest cannot be protected if there are to be a number of assemblies of over 100 people. It is not the sort of place which lends itself to such assemblies.
  In any case, the hon. Gentleman will find clearly set out in Clause 16 what he wishes in his own words to achieve. namely:
  "It shall he the duty of the Conservators subject to the provisions of the Act at all times"—
  that means day and night—
  "as far as possible to regulate and manage the forest so as to protect the existing rights of common upon the forest, to protect the forest from encroachments, and to conserve it as a quiet and natural area of outstanding beauty."
  If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of conserving the area of Ashdown Forest in that way—and I assume that he is—I must suggest that the area does not lend itself to large assemblies of over 100 people for whatever purpose they may assemble.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West spent a good deal of time discussing the position of the election of conservators.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: By commoners.
  Mr. Hordern: It seems that there must be some misunderstanding about the latest position. My advice is that a majority of commoners, both by acreage and by numbers, and including many of those who signed the petition, are in favour of a change in the method of election. Most, at any rate, seem to favour the sort of change which would result in the votes being drawn by value. No such system has been enclosed within the Bill because unanimity has not so far been achieved.
  It cannot be claimed, as some hon. Members have claimed, that a majority of
  640
  the commoners are against the proposal of the county council to allow the commoners to choose their own system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) rightly said, if the Bill is not given a Second Reading it will mean that the unsatisfactory position to which my hon. Friend and others have referred will persist. I cannot believe that that is a sound solution.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am anxious that there should not be any misunderstanding even if we are in disagreement. The opponents of the Bill say that the commoners cannot exercise their choice about a change in the electoral system because they can be blocked by 17 individual commoners. What should have been written into the Bill and cannot now procedurally be written into it is the removal of that block. There is no means of enforcing any undertakings that are given if the Bill is allowed to reach the statute book.
  Mr. Hordern: My information is that a majority of that block of 17 is in favour of a change. This question has occurred since the Bill was lodged. My hon. Friend and Opposition Members must be aware that there is no block to the wishes of the majority.
  The promoters want to arrange a system by which Ashdown Forest can be kept in its present form while giving increased access to the forest and greater powers to the conservators to preserve the forest and improve its amenity value, not only for those who live locally but for the many visitors who come from far distances. These objectives cannot be achieved unless the Bill is passed, because the East Sussex County Council cannot be expected to provide the funds unless it has a measure of control.
  From what I hear, the present situation is unsatisfactory because insufficient funds are raised by the commoners and the local councils, and the county council is looked upon to provide the balance. The difficulty has arisen that one local council at least has put a ceiling on the amount it is prepared to advance. The East Sussex County Council is bound to meet the difference, and in doing so properly expects to have a majority among the conservators and to be able to say what the policy should be.

  641
  Those who argue against such a state of affairs are saying that the East Sussex County Council is not competent to run a body of this sort. One could scarcely get a more representative or democratic body than the county council. In every way it is the right body to have this large burden of responsibility and to manage it in this way. I am confident
  that Ashdown Forest will remain a place of great natural beauty to the service of all those who live in the area and the many people who visit it for enjoyment. I support the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 46.

  Division No. 186.]

  AYES

  [9.19 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Baker, W. H. K (Banff)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Body, Richard

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Bray, Ronald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Speed, Keith

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Spence, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kilfedder, James

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Cockeram, Eric

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Cooke, Robert

  Knox, David

  Sutcliffe, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maddan, Martin

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Farr, John

  Mather, Carol

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Moate, Roger

  Wall, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Monro, Hector

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Ogden, Eric

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Pym, Rt. Fin. Francis

  Mr. Peter Hordern and

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine.

  Redmond, Robert

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Golding, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Bishop, E. S

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Siliars, James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Silverman, Julius

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunter, Adam

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

  Doig, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Driberg, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Ellis, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Ewing, Harry

  Milne, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop and

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  TRANQUILLISING DRUGS (PRICE)
  9.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I beg to move,
  That the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) (No. 3) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1093), dated 21st June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
  As one hon. Member said to me as we came into the House, it seems that we have been here before. These matters are all the subject of current proceedings before the courts. For that reason I am certain that the House will understand it if I restrict my remarks to a summary of the circumstances that have led to the making of this order. The House will recall that the No. 1 Order—
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood-Benn: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker to clarify the situation? The Minister referred to the current court hearing. Clearly there are problems of jurisdiction here. I hope you will accept that since the House is asked to approve an order we must be free to bring our minds to bear on the matter and should not be restricted in any argument by the fact that it is being tried in another court, recalling that in this sense this House is the High Court of Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker: I, or perhaps those who advise me, thought that this point might arise. I am, therefore, equipped to deal with it. I rest upon the ruling of my predecessor of 25th October 1966 when he ruled that:
  "The rule that matters awaiting adjudication by a court of law should not be brought before the House by a motion did not apply to Bills or delegated legislation."
  There is no sub-judice limitation about this debate.
  Mr. Emery: I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that both sides of the House will thank you for that ruling. It is in accordance with the legal advice given to the Government and the Opposition.
  The House will recall that the No. 1 Order, which reduced the prices of certain drugs sold by the Roche Group following a report by the Monopolies Corn-mission, was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and laid before the House on 12th April, coming
  644
  into operation on 23rd April. The order was debated in the House on 3rd May and received an affirmative resolution.
  In the meantime, as a result of proceedings in another place, the order was not approved by both Houses within 28 days and the No. 2 Order and, subsequently, the No. 3 Order, had to be made to continue the price reductions without pause.
  The No. 3 Order follows the form of the No. 1 Order with only minor differences, which it might be helpful for me to outline. It was obviously not necessary to repeat the provision in Article 5 of the No. 1 Order requiring agreements to maintain the resale prices of these drugs to be abandoned within seven days of the commencement of the order. The only other changes take account of the different dates of commencement. The events preceding the No. 1 Order were fully discussed when the House approved that order on 3rd May. I explained then that the commission had reached its unanimous conclusions after a full and thorough inquiry; that it was satisfied that Roche's prices were manifestly too high and that the company had made excessive profits for itself in this country; and that the Government took the view that the state of affairs disclosed in the report justified urgent action to reduce the prices of Librium, Valium and related products.
  The House will not wish me to go over the detailed ground again. Nothing that has happened since then has led the Government to change their views about the correctness of the action that they have taken. The House may find it helpful if I briefly touch on developments since May.
  The order that was debated on 3rd May affected only companies in the Roche group and was found by the Special Orders Committee of another place to be hybrid, that is to say, broadly speaking, one that is not of general effect but concerning a particular individual or company. It is open to those affected by hybrid orders requiring an affirmative resolution to petition in another place against the order. Roche, as it was perfectly entitled to do, presented such a petition, which was considered by the Special Orders Committee of another place at hearings lasting five days, held

  645
  between 14th May and 8th June. The members of the committee were divided in their views.
  Three members, including the chairman, felt that there was no case for setting up a Select Committee to inquire further into the matter. Four members felt that there should be a limited inquiry by a Select Committee with narrow terms of reference restricting its consideration to the single issue of whether the order prices made sufficient allowance for the allocation of research and development costs. The report of the committee was debated in another place on 22nd June, and their Lordships finally decided by a substantial majority after a full debate not to set up a Select Committee.
  The Managing Director of Roche Products Ltd. wrote a letter to The Times, which was published on 27th June, suggesting that there was something unfair or improper about their Lordships' decision. I wish immediately to repudiate the implications of this letter.
  I say only that the views of Members of another place cut across party lines. My noble Friend the Leader of the House in the other place explained the background and the procedures, and I think that the Government acted with scrupulous fairness. The Lord Chairman of Committees, who had voted against the setting up of the Select Committee in the Special Orders Committee, himself moved the motion on the basis that it was normal practice for the House to adopt the reports of its Committees. It was made perfectly clear that the Government left the decision whether or not to set up a Select Committee to a free vote in their Lordships' House and my noble Friend the Leader of the House, my noble Friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Limerick, being the representatives of the two Departments concerned, the DTI and the DHSS, and the Government Whips abstained from voting on the motion.
  On this basis I can only regret that the Managing Director of Roche Products Ltd. has seen fit to suggest that the recommendation of the Special Orders Committee was frustrated by a party political manoeuvre, or that it was in some way improper for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, for
  646
  example, to vote in the way he did. The suggestion that any member of the House, including the Lord Chancellor, was not free to vote according to his conscience is quite monstrous.
  Both Houses are now able to consider the No. 3 Order.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Can my hon. Friend cite any instance on a previous occasion when the House of Lords has similarly emasculated the recommendation of its Special Orders Committee?
  Mr. Emery: There have been only two occasions when the other place has considered an application to the Special Orders Committee. In the first of them it was quite plain that the applicant was in no position to put his case and in that case the Committee's recommendation was adopted. In the second case no decision was made, because a General Election intervened. However, I think it would be quite wrong of anyone to believe that there is any precedent in the fact that this matter was dealt with in the way that it was. Certainly it would be a precedent for anyone to suggest that the other place always approved the decisions of all its Committees. That is not the case.
  I should inform the House of three other developments that have taken place and which may be of interest to hon. Members.
  The Roche Group has begun proceedings in the High Court against the Department of Trade and Industry in connection with this order and the two earlier orders. Among other things the group seeks a declaration that the proceedings of the Monopolies Commission were contrary to natural justice and that the orders are therefore void. It is also claiming damages for losses suffered in consequence of the making of the orders by the Secretary of State. These proceedings will have to take their course.
  The second development is that the company gave notice to the Government in a letter of 25th June from its solicitors that it proposed to raise its prices in breach of the order unless the Government agreed to certain conditions in connection with the possible repayment of moneys to Roche representing the difference between the pre-order prices and the prices fixed by the order.

  647
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House on 27th June, as he said he would do in answering a Question by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). As a result of this letter, the Government have moved for an injunction to secure compliance with the order. Proceedings began yesterday and were adjourned until next week.
  Roche is abiding by the order and has undertaken to do so pending next week's hearing. I have been fairly comprehensive in what I have said on this matter, and in the circumstances the House will understand that I wish to say no more about it tonight.
  The third matter is the question of the provision of information. Hon. Members will recall that there has been much discussion about certain figures that were not made available to the Monopolies Commission.
  The Commission referred to this question in paragraph 156 of its report. It had asked for the value of world-wide sales of ethical products; the value of world-wide research costs for ethical products; the world-wide sales of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam respectively by value; and the world-wide sales of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam respectively by weight in kilograms.
  Roche, superimposing its judgment on that of the Monopolies Commission, thought that the information would be of no use. The commission thought it was necessary for its inquiry and quite naturally wished to reach its own decision on its usefulness and its own conclusions about how far it was necessary for a proper understanding of its report to publish the information.
  The Commission is, of course, used to handling commercially sensitive information—it has to do so probably in every inquiry—and does not publish it without the best of reasons.
  But that is all in the past. I am now able to inform the House that, in a letter dated 29th June, Roche's solicitors presented to my Department the figures referred to in paragraph 156 of the report, from which I have quoted. Roche would prefer them not to be published. We have, however, passed the information on to the Department of Health and
  648
  Social Security, to which Roche signified that it had no objection. I am glad that the firm has now provided the information, which is being studied.
  It is a pity that such information was not made available in the past, either to the Department of Health and Social Security in successive discussions over a number of years under the voluntary price regulation scheme, or in response to the request from the Monopolies Corn-mission in case it would have assisted it in its inquiries.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: If the information has been disclosed, and is rather material, about the research money spent around the world, apart from total sales, surely this matter was never considered by the Monopolies Commission and therefore the commission's findings may have been based on an error.
  Mr. Emery: I never wish to belittle any argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and, of course, that could be one conclusion. However, it may well be that exactly the opposite is the case. That is why I believe it right that I should have said that the matter has now been passed to the Department and we have now reached the position in which both Houses can approve the No. 3 Order.
  I should add that if Roche was to come forward with any new evidence of another important change in the relevant circumstances since the commission reported, which might justify some modification of the order prices, my right hon. and learned Friend would naturally be glad to consider it. Clearly, the prices that the order sets out may not be appropriate for all time and it is right and proper that the Government should say that we very much hope that the House will show its support for this order, as it did for the No. 1 Order, by approving it tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: My hon. Friend says he has received these figures, which have been required for some time. If they are so relevant, why does not my hon. Friend reveal them to the House so that we can form our judgment on whether we should pass this order? He has the benefit of knowing whether those figures are relevant and helpful, or have any

  649
  bearing on the matter. We do not, but it is we who are being asked to pass the order tonight.
  Mr. Emery: Yes. I fully understand the point that is being made by my hon. Friend. There are two things. First, the company that has supplied the information which has been so consistently refused has asked that the matter be not made public. In the proceedings as they are at this moment it would seem to me, when accusations are being made against the Government, that it is right and proper at this moment that we should take the action we have. The figures have been passed to the Department of Health and Social Security so that an assessment can be made of them. At this stage of the proceedings I do not believe that it would be right or proper to publish them—
  Mr. Ridley: May I press my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Emery: May I first of all finish the sentence I am in the middle of? That does not preclude the fact that in the fullness of time it may be thought necessary to publish them, but with all the information which is considered to be of a highly commercial nature and which the company which has supplied it has specifically asked should not be made public. I believe that at this stage of the proceedings the Government would be in no way considering the position of Roche by allowing me to comply immediately with the request of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that I must take issue with my hon. Friend on a point of fact. As I understand it, Roche has said that it would be quite happy for the information to be made public but would like the Government to inform the company before doing so. So my hon. Friend is not right in saying that Roche has asked for the information to be kept secret. I would, therefore, suggest to him that it would be much better if he brought the order forward on a day after he has had time to tell Roche that he intends to publish the figures, and so that we may be asked to pass this order with full information at our disposal.
  Mr. Emery: My information is clear and definite, and I would not wish to mislead the House in any way. The company has made it quite clear to the Government that it would prefer us not to publish the figures. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that that is the case. If Roche wishes to publish the figures, it is entirely up to the company. It is not anything I have to do. Why should I be held to be in any doubt when this information is easily available to this company to make public if it wishes to defend itself? I do not believe it is right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest what he is suggesting when the Government are complying with a request of that company, when that company is able to make public its own figures. If I may suggest it, the hon. Gentleman is on a false point.
  Mr. Peter Rees: My information is—and no doubt my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the figures that the Ministry was anxious to obtain and for which the Monopolies Commission asked were sent to the Secretary of State on 29th June, to use as he sees fit but with the invitation not to publish them without good reason—which seems to be reasonable—and with the suggestion that if they were published the reasons for doing so should be stated at the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend would confirm, not necessarily at this point of the debate but, perhaps, later, if he can catch your eye a second time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the case, because that puts a slightly different construction on this point, which is of particular importance when the House has to make up its mind on this order.
  Mr. Benn: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, and while he is considering the advice that has reached him from the Box, may I ask him in his reply to clarify the position? As I understand it, information was sought by the Monopolies Commission from the company, which declined to publish it. The information was not made available to another place when the Special Orders Committee considered the matter under the special hybrid procedure. It was not made available to another place when it considered the report of the Special Orders Committee. It was not made available by the company to

  651
  another place, therefore, when that other place was trying to decide whether it should take the advice of the Special Orders Committee and set up a Select Committee. It is now available to the Minister with a special request that it shall not be published without giving to the company notice that it is to be published.
  Mr. Emery: Without good reason.
  Mr. Benn: But at any time. If the fact that the Monopolies Commission asked for this information does not constitute good reason, I would like to know what is a good reason. I should, however, like the Minister to confirm that this information has been denied to both the Monopolies Commission and a Select Committee of another place and is denied to this House tonight, at the request not of the Minister but of necessity of the firm concerned. Can he confirm that?
  Mr. Emery: I should like to clear this up, because I believe that a red herring is being drawn across the whole subject and I would not want to mislead the House or have anybody suggest that the Government were not acting absolutely properly in the matter of these figures. I should like to make it absolutely clear—I have the letter before me—that Roche wrote to the Department saying:
  "Nevertheless these are, as you are aware, figures which our clients as a matter of policy have never disclosed for general publication. Our clients' view is that no useful purpose would be served by making the figures public knowledge."
  If that is not a fairly strong view of the company urging us not to publish, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Will my hon. Friend read the whole letter? Otherwise we are in complete darkness.
  Mr. Emery: I am not giving way at this moment but, if I may answer the hon. Gentleman who was on his feet at the same time as I was, I will say what is absolutely clear: that if the company wishes to publish the figures, it may do so. It is up to the company. I would say to those who want to come to this House and defend the company, or who argue that there is something wrong because the company is supposedly not having a fair deal, that it rests with the
  652
  company itself to publish the figures. There can be no doubt about that. It is within the control of the company.
  Secondly, there is as far as we know—we have had time to make only a partial study of the figures since we received them—nothing at all startling about them which makes the Government think that the Monopolies Commission's figures were wildly wrong. It is important that that should be clearly understood. I hope that the House will show its support for this order as it did for the previous orders.
  The Government do not believe that the current court proceedings need in any way prevent Parliament from approving the order tonight. Roche has exercised its right to challenge the order in the courts. That is its right. In the meantime, however, it is, I believe, right for the status quo to be maintained and for the order price to continue in force. Therefore, in commending the order I should conclude by repeating what I said earlier.
  I assure the House that the Government will continue to believe that they have acted correctly in this matter. Therefore, the order should have the support not only of the House but of the country as a whole.
  Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend saying he is convinced that the Government are right and that he has been able to complete his inquiries?
  Mr. Emery: I shall not add to what I have said: that in the immediate inquiries we have made in the period for which we have had figures, we see no reason whatever to believe that the Government's action is other than correct.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he read the letter from which he quoted selectively?
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I must first declare a rather oblique interest because when this reference was made to the Monopolies Commission I was in the shoes now occupied by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I think that it would not be breaking the terms of the Official Secrets Act to say that the recommendation was mainly made by the Department

  653
  of Health and Social Security. Therefore, in no sense do I wish to criticise the making of a reference, but I wish merely to say a few words about the report and the position we have now reached on Roche.
  I am of course against monopoly. Nothing would please me more if there were no monopoly and free competition throughout our economy. Nevertheless, I slightly dislike the sort of hectoring tone adopted by the Government on this matter, and some of the things said by my hon. Friend the Minister tonight seemed to smack of an attitude that they were determined to clobber this company without being quite certain whether they were right to do so.
  I must first refer to the competitive situation in respect of tranquillisers. Although Roche has 60 per cent. of the world market, there are three or four tranquillisers which compete. One is Serenid, which is more expensive, another is Meprobamate, which is slightly more expensive, and there is Integrin, which is four times as expensive as Valium and Librium on the British market. Therefore, one must conclude that these tranquillisers are competitive in price with their competitors. Understandably there has been a heavy stocking up of the tranquillisers by members of the public while these orders are in force. It seems to me to demonstrate that at present prices the public are getting good value for money and do not expect supplies to continue to be so cheap for long.
  The tranquillisers are protected by a United Kingdom patent. What is the point of a patent if it does not offer protection to those who have spent large sums of money in developing a product of this sort? It seems curious that we have stuck rigidly to our patent laws and enforced them, and are now taking action of a vicious sort in direct contradiction to the rights granted by Her Majesty in Letters Patent. These are marvellous drugs which have brought great benefit and comfort to millions of people.
  I wish to ask three questions. Are we wise, in the interests of the British consumer, to pass this order? We are bullying this company and—no doubt this is a surprise to the Department of Trade
  654
  and Industry—the company is showing itself remarkably unhappy about the bullying and is refusing to knuckle under. Could it be that we may be forced to obtain drugs from competitors if we proceed with this order and Roche will not make its tranquillisers available? If that were to happen not only would we have to pay more but we would probably have less effective tranquillisers for doctors to prescribe. They might be up to three times more expensive.
  I wonder, indeed, whether people realise how cheap Roche sells its tranquillisers in this country compared with the price in other countries. The price of a standard dose of Librium is 1·5 in the United Kingdom, ranging up to 4·1 for the same dose in Australia. That is the retail price in pounds per 100 tablets of capsules. When one looks at all the drugs, not only those made by Roche, one finds the same pattern. We obtain drugs at extremely cheap prices compared with those paid in many other countries for important patented drugs of this sort.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), together with his Department, has been waging successful campaigns to bring down the cost of drugs to the National Health Service, but how wise is it to pursue that too far, and are we in danger of being the only member of the international club who is not paying a fair share of international research into drugs?
  The second question which the House must ask itself is whether we have the right to bully this foreign company—this horrid multinational, as Labour Members will no doubt describe it. We do not have full information about this matter. We know that we are vulnerable, because drugs made by British pharmaceutical companies in this country and sold cheap here are much more expensive abroad.
  What happens if Sweden, Australia or Switzerland starts to pass orders such as this one against the products of British firms which are charging three times as much abroad as they are charging in the home market? Would that he conducive to employment or profit in British drug companies, or to the further development and research which leads to more drugs to help mankind?

  655
  The National Economic Development Office report on pharmaceutical companies states:
  "However, persistence of the apparent current lack of alignment of prescription medicine prices in the United Kingdom with those in comparable overseas markets, in so far as this affects profitability and the assessment by pharmaceutical companies of their future prospects, could cause a reduction in the share of the world pharmaceutical industry's new investment located in the United Kingdom."
  Those are further risks that we run.
  The third question, and much the most important one, is whether we are right in our judgment of the prices that should be charged. Assuming that we are right in answering my first two questions, are we right in the prices which the order lays down for the sale of these drugs? I put forward the view that, if the figures that have been produced are relevant it is imperative that the Government should bring them before the House and let us have them.
  I shall not support the order in the absence of any figures which may shed new light on the problem. I think my hon. Friend was wrong to suggest that Roche had asked for them to be kept confidential. On receipt of the letter containing the figures on Friday, my hon. Friend could have telephoned Roche and said that he had to move an order in the House of Commons on Wednesday and he must inform hon. Members, if these figures threw new light on the problem, what they were. I say that because it would clarify the issue very much if we had a little more information about the economic judgment which underlies the prices in the order.
  I find the Monopolies Commission report exceptionally abstruse and unconvincing on the question of what are the right prices for these drugs. The two assumptions which it seems to make are in conflict with the National Economic Development Office report on the pharmaceutical industry. The two assumptions seem to be that all that matters is the profit that is being made on these two drugs and not the profit being made by the group as a whole, and secondly, what the company is making out of its United Kingdom sales as opposed to its world-wide operations. The Monopolies Commission apparently came to a conclusion, through much
  656
  unconvincing arithmetic, that the company was making a whacking profit from the sale of Librium and Valium in this country alone—nothing else seemed to interest the commission—and it went on to recommend these very strong reductions.
  This has really nothing to do with me because I am not representing the country in which La Roche has its headquarters and pays it taxes and where monopoly laws affect it. But if we use this technique against foreign companies of this sort, I quail to think what would happen if they were to start using it against us. If we are to do it, we have to satisfy ourselves that the decision to which we come as to how much is being spent on research by this company is at least based on the true facts and is reasonable in the light of the continual escalation in the costs of research which we know is taking place in this industry.
  I remind the House that, although the running costs of research are shown before the profit is drawn, a very large proportion of the profit is reinvested into capital facilities for doing further research. From the figures in the company's accounts, one finds that almost the smallest item in the appropriation account is dividends. The company is not paying the money out to people; it is ploughing it back into further research, and research which, it is freely admitted, would not be done if there were to be a cutback in the profits it could make.
  Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend also pick up the argument that the return on capital invested is similar to that of Beecham in the United Kingdom and, therefore, is not excessive?
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will no doubt develop that point. I do not want to take up too much time. But one could go on to a whole series of questions which, if we are to be fair-minded and responsible about the order. we should be asking.
  If I had been a member of the Special Orders Committee of another place—after this speech I suppose that my chances have increased rather than reduced—I would have voted with the four and not with the three. We do not have enough information to enable us

  657
  to decide whether we are acting here in a hysterical way and slashing the prices of the company's drugs resulting possibly in a cutback in research which we do not quite comprehend. No figures have been put before me that convince me about the level of prices. Perhaps it should be lower. I am not saying that it should be higher or lower, but the information does not seem to be sufficiently convincing for making such a bold stab in the dark on what would be a proper price.
  Irrespective of the legal proceedings, which do not debar us from talking about this matter, I ask my hon. Friend to produce some better facts and figures before he proceeds with any order on a permanent basis. Whether he gets his
  658
  order tonight does not seem to be very important. What is very important is that another place, which has the power to do so, should examine this order with a great deal more care than we can examine it, because we have no procedure for setting up Select Committees or for suggesting that the order is hybrid. It is the very hybridity of the order which makes that procedure in another place so very valuable. Indeed, if I would not be out of order, I should like to suggest that we should adopt hybridity powers in relation to statutory instruments in this House, too; but that is not for tonight.
  I content myself with saying that my hon. Friend must make a better case before he makes these prices a permanent feature of our legislation.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am, naturally, concerned about the future of research and the coming on to the world market of new drugs, from whatever firms they may derive. Of course I accept the view of the Under-Secretary that it is the job of himself and his Department to assess the validity and use of the information which has been disposed by the company.
  Yesterday this matter came before the High Court and an assurance was given by the company that it would not raise prices. It will come before the court again on 10th July. I should have thought that the order could be withdrawn and brought up again if there is an unsatisfactory renewal of the arrangements then.
  In its report the Royal Commission said:
  "The group's current research expenditure has been inflated by the use of excess profit to a point at which it ceases to be reasonable to regard the expenditure as fully recoverable from current sales."
  Earlier it said:
  "We did not accept that in the virtual absence of price competition there is no limit to the price and profit levels that a manufacturer is justified in setting himself so long as he uses the proceeds to expand his research."
  On what evidence could the commission come to that conclusion? An enormous amount of money spent on research may prove abortive. An enormous amount may be spent in various parts of the world and the price is divisible among consumers.
  One comes to consider the nature of the company involved. As I said in my intervention, the return on assets of this company is roughly equivalent to that of the Beecham Group in the United Kingdom. It spends more on research than most pharmaceutical companies and less on uneconomic production. The profitability of its items would compare with those of many United Kingdom companies. All that we are considering in this case is whether the commission was right, when assessing prices, to conclude that research could not be allowed beyond a specific limit. But it has not accepted evidence on this issue. In fact, it has gone quite the other way. That is what concerns me.
  660
  In the public interest letter sent by the Department to the company which was discussed extensively in the Committee on the Fair Trading Bill certain matters were brought up. In the case which has been presented, which many hon. Members will have received, one reads:
  "An examination of the public interest letter shows that it contains no hint of any suggestion that the level of Roche group's research expenditure might be regarded as inflated or too high to be a proper charge against profits, or that the level of such expenditure was abnormally high for a large pharmaceutical manufacturer."
  Therefore, at the time when it received the public interest letter the company had no inkling of what was in the commission's mind that it would have specifically to answer. There was no call for the company to have to justify its research expenditure.
  Then, of course, on 26th October 1972, at the oral hearing, the company was suddenly presented with a statement that the commission would like some evidence on this general subject. About 30 minutes was spent on a major subject which is the basis of the commission's report and from which it could not have derived any evidence from the people who were challenged. These people had no opportunity of presenting their case.
  The argument, of course, is that research and development expenditure, when it is to be incorporated in a price, cannot be taken in isolation. One must consider one's worldwide expenditure and the products of a company and then assess what is the proper figure.
  The other matter on which the commission would have to come to a conclusion is where there is to be a cut-off allowance for the amount of money spent on research, and where it should come in this case. The House is entitled to that information, but we have no evidence adduced on it.
  The Minister has said that of course there has not been a full disclosure by the company. On page 43 of the report the company says:
  "The Commission in criticising the Roche group for failing to provide information requested by the Commission failed to disclose that the information was material only for

  661
  the purpose of verifying figures provided or offered to the Commission, and that such information was in fact offered to the Commission in confidence and refused by it."
  I am not interested in the industry. I am not interested in a foreign company. But I am interested, as a Member of this House, to see that it is properly dealt with by a Monopolies Commission from which there can be no appeal. The company feels that it has not been able to establish the right to assess in its boardroom the quantity of money which it should set aside for research into new drugs. Many of us here will appreciate that new drugs are essential for the treatment of cancer and many terrifying diseases.
  If the price is to be cut by the Government, the effect will ripple right across the world. It will have the consequence that the amount of money allocated for research will also be cut. Therefore, we are deprived of a singular advantage.
  As the matter is being litigated, as it is seized by the High Court, I see no necessity for passing the order. When I put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I wanted him to assess the materiality of the evidence he has received, he said that there is nothing wildly wrong to interfere with the judgment that the Government have made. But the national Press this morning was of the view that the Department had not finished its studies and, therefore, had not reached a conclusion. Of course, I must accept my hon. Friend's conclusion, but if the Department has reached its conclusions I should have thought he could say, on the basis of what he had read, why he can vindicate the policy he put forward on a previous occasion and why he suggests that the information which has now been disclosed has no materiality.
  This is a case which goes well beyond La Roche. I can see it arising with many pharmaceutical companies, not merely our own but others, and in other fields, that the State will have the right to say that there is a point beyond which expenditure on research is needless, not because the industry and those concerned know all about it but simply because the Monopolies Commission, consisting of people picked from all walks of life, is
  662
  prepared to lay it down and the Government in turn are prepared to say that they will sanction the report, from which there can be no appeal.
  I have said enough on those points. I cannot support the order, because I do not have the information on which to come to the correct verdict. The Government should hesitate, draw back until next Tuesday, when we shall see the state of events again. They will then have the opportunity to present the whole case with full knowledge, to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) the full information contained in the letter, if he has not got one already, and give the House the benefit of the additional information which he has and has studied, because he disclosed that information to the House.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: It was not my intention to intervene, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), I felt obliged to do so.
  I take up the last remark of the hon. Member for Bedford—namely, that he will not support the order because he does not have all the information. I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman is well briefed. He was able to make comparison with Beecham's and other companies. It seems to me that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury have been very well briefed. I was reminded whilst listening to them of the defence of the private railway companies of the past.
  It ill becomes any hon. Member not to support the Monopolies Commission and to give support to an abuse of commercial power by a multinational company.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and I appear to be well briefed. He seems to suggest that he is not. Might it not be better if he became well briefed before supporting without question the order?
  Mr. McElhone: That seems a fair point, but it works the other way. The

  663
  hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is a former Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. He is a predecessor of the Under-Secretary of State. He of all people should know his case better than most. For an ex-Minister of the present Government to say that he is not prepared to support the order castigates the Monopolies Commission. I hardly think that that is responsible conduct for an ex-Minister. That is especially so when he says that his decision will probably cost him a seat in another place.
  The hon. Gentleman took great pains to mention other European countries. He mentioned the prices charged in Sweden and other places. My limited information indicates that the company is not too happy with the Italian side of its operations. I understand that the company does not get anything like the prices for similar products in Italy that it receives in this country.
  I am very much aware of the great use of Valium and Librium. I found it strange that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury should say that the public is stocking up because of the price cuts which have been imposed. Surely the public is not allowed to stock up with drugs of this nature. Surely the public can obtain the drugs only by prescription from general practitioners. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to correct that statement. It could be lethal if it went from this House that people can stock up with these drugs. The hon. Gentleman's remark casts a slur on the medical profession. I do not think he means what he says. If his remark is read tomorrow it will reflect badly on the medical profession, which is responsible for the dispensing of drugs.
  I should have thought that the order would have had the support of every hon. Member, and certainly hon. Members who have been ex-Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. The time is long past when we can accept that international companies should be able to say to the Government that they are not prepared in any way to cooperate, in spite of the fact that the record of the Department of Health and Social Security when making agreements with British and international companies
  664
  has always been reasonable. I consider that we have always been fair dealers when making such agreements.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) will forgive me if I do not follow all his main points, although, by implication, I will take up some of his minor ones.
  I am not concerned to make the case for La Roche, nor do I quarrel with the proposition that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should do his best—as I know he is doing—to limit the cost of drugs and medicines to the National Health Service and to private patients. There is another consideration which weighs strongly with me and which I hope will weigh with other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The order is based on the report and recommendation of the Monopolies Commission. If the report and recommendation are open to serims criticism it follows that the order is open to serious criticism. I do not intend to criticise the panel of the Monopolies Commission which considered this problem, though possibly only one of its members was really qualified to judge the financial implications of the case.
  It would be trite and absurd for me to equate the Monopolies Commission with the Star Chamber, but it is true that its processes are inquisitorial and the consequences of its recommendations can be penal. More importantly, a party does not know in any detail the case that it has to meet. It does not know the evidence given by other parties which vitally affect its case and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) pointed out, there is no right of appeal. I contrast that position with that of the Restrictive Practices Court, which was introduced by a Conservative administration, and from which there is a right of appeal.
  The reference to the Monopolies Commission was a degree disingenuous because it did not mention by name the La Roche company, but as the La Roche company had the patent for the two products which were the reference products it was obviously directed, and directed only, at the La Roche company.

  665
  I ask myself—and I cannot glean this from the Monopolies Commission's Report—did that company have a substantial chance to rebut the case that was clearly being compiled and made against it? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has criticised the company for not having produced crucial information I am not here making the company's case, but I understand—and this can be inferred to a certain extent from the Monopolies Commission's Report—that the only figures which were denied by the company to the Monopolies Commission at the end of the day were figures that were needed to substantiate figures that had been made available to the commission, and the figures that had to be substantiated were figures that had been agreed for tax purposes by both the United Kingdom and the Swiss revenue authorities.
  Certain misinformed points have been made about the tax implications of the case. Under the Double Taxation Convention between this country and Switzerland, if a group rigs the prices at which products are transferred from, say, a Swiss parent to a British subsidiary, the revenue authorities of both countries can intervene and adjust the tax liabilities of both companies by reference to open market considerations. I understand—and perhaps my hon. Friend will correct or confirm this if he catches your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the only figures that were not profferred to the Monopolies Commission at the end of the day were those needed to support figures that had independent support from the revenue authorities of the two countries concerned.
  Beyond that—and this again may be inferred from the Monopolies Commission's Report—the figures were offered to the commission but on the basis that they were not for publication. Whether that was a proper basis on which to offer figures I do not say. It simply is not true—it could be that I am misinformed because I am not making the company's case—and it certainly is not fair for my hon. Friend to say publicly in this House that the company was as unco-operative as he led us to suppose in his opening remarks.
  666
  My criticism of the Monopolies Commission's Report is perhaps irrelevant. What will perhaps weigh with the House is that another place thought fit to refer the recommendation to its Special Orders Committee. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will allow me to correct him. I know that his experience in parliamentary matters is very great, and I know that his father graced the upper House and hereditarily, therefore, he may have considerably more knowledge of the upper House than I.
  However, the Special Orders Committee is a quasi-judicial body almost analogous, although not similar in history, to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. But it is concerned only to see whether a prima facie case can be established to upset some kind of order that has been referred to it. The terms of its operations can be extracted from the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. In particular, the Committee is enjoined to discover whether the petition discloses substantial grounds of complaint. But it is not required, and nor did it do so in this case, I understand, to go deeply into the merits of the company's case.
  It certainly did not hear all the evidence that had been given or could have been given to the Monopolies Commission because the whole tenor of the company's petition was that if it was found that the company's case disclosed substantial grounds of complaint the matter should be referred to a Select Committee for a further and more detailed examination of the merits of that case. This was what the Special Orders Committee found. It is as irrelevant to observe that it found by a majority as it is to observe in legal cases sometimes that the Judicial Committee decides matters on a majority vote.
  What the Committee found was that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. The clear inference from its decision was that it was dissatisfied with the way in which the Monopolies Commission had investigated the case. I do not want to put it too highly but it felt at the end of the day that possibly the commission 'had not given the company

  667
  a proper chance to deploy the necessary evidence on one or two crucial points.
  My hon. Friend must forgive me if I say that it will not do for him to say that it recommended a limited and narrow referral to the Select Committee because the matters on which it recommended a referral went to the heart of the Monopolies Commission's decision. I quote from the report of the Special Orders Committee:
  "Further inquiries should be limited to the issue of whether the prices recommended by the Monopolies Commission"—
  the prices which we are being asked to debate—
  "make adequate provision for a proper allocation of group research and development expenditure in their sales of the reference drugs by the petitioners in the United Kingdom and if not what, if any, adjustments upwards should be made of prices recommended by the Commission in order to make adequate provision for this expenditure."
  That is the kernel of the matter we are asked to decide tonight. It will not do for my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, to brush it aside and say that there was to be only a limited reference—"narrow terms of reference" he said. He went on to say that after a full debate the recommendation was emasculated—that is my word but that was the effect of his remarks—in another place. It is not for me to comment upon the conduct of affairs in another place. I hope I may be permitted to observe that in the course of that debate there was less evidence given than the Special Orders Committee had and all that another place had was the report of the Monopolies Commission.
  I see no practical reason why we in this House should not have the matter referred to a Select Committee. It was against every precedent that the recommendation of the Special Orders Committee in another place was emasculated in this way, and it would be the honourable course for the Government to withdraw this order so that the matter may be referred to a Select Committee. This is the third order that has been based on the Monopolies Commission's Report.
  There is, of course, another facet to this problem to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred. Litigation is impending, and I understand that the company is contending that the conclusion
  668
  of the Monopolies Commission contravened the rules of natural justice. It would be improper for me—and I am in no position to do so—to say whether that case is well founded. Knowing what we do of the Monopolies Commission's procedures, it is possible through inadvertence—and I do not allege malice or bias—that points were not put to the company, and that the company was not given a chance to rebut the substantial case made against it. We shall no doubt hear next week if and when any order is made in the Chancery Division.
  If an order were made on the company's case by the High Court it would follow that the High Court was saying that the Monopolies Commission's conclusions and recommendations could not be relied upon. If that were so my hon. Friend and the Government would find themselves in the embarrassing position of having asked us to pass an order which the High Court subsequently found was based on a misappreciation of the true position by the Monopolies Commission. There is no justification for the order if the Monopolies Commission came to the wrong conclusion. It may be that in the end Roche has charged an artifically high price. I am in no position to judge that. I cannot check it. But I observe that the revenue authorities were satisfied, and the issue on which they had to be satisfied was very much that.
  I am concerned that the company has not had a proper chance to state its case, and I find that particularly distressing because it is all too easy to project this case as another feature of the ugly and unacceptable face of capitalism, particularly Swiss capitalism. It is all too easy to have another tilt at multinational companies—an expression which has practically become a term of abuse, though why I fail to understand. It is all too easy to whip up sentiment on the basis that the National Health Service has been overcharged for drugs by rapacious monopolists. But I feel that in matters where the Government are armed with far-reaching powers they should be seen to act with scrupulous fairness.
  It would be so easy for my hon. Friend to withdraw the order tonight and refer the question to a Select Committee on what he described as the narrow basis recommended by the Special Orders Committee of the other place. If he does

  669
  not, I shall be unable to support this order tonight—
  Mr. Benn: Shame!
  Mr. Rees:—because I have an uneasy feeling that justice may not have been done in this case to this company.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Unlike many of my colleagues, I support the Monopolies Commission's Report in this matter, as I have said before. It is perfectly proper and inevitable that the Monopolies Commission should inquire into the accounts of foreign or multinational companies in the national interest, just as it can those of national companies if it can do so and if it would be impossible for it to fulfil its task if it did not. On the other hand, in view of what we have heard, this seems a very odd moment at which to bring forward this order. I support the order, but its timing strikes me as inopportune.
  I say that for two reasons. The company has alleged that the considerations of natural justice have not been observed by the Monopolies Commission. It is very easy to allege a breach of the considerations of natural justice, and it may be that Her Majesty's Government feel that if they allow that sort of consideration to apply in this case it will be open to everyone who feels himself injured or damaged by a report of the commission immediately to make such an allegation, to issue a writ in the Chancery Division, and to follow the inevitable course of justice by these procedures.
  If that was all it was, the Government should not sit down under it. But there is a bit more substance in it than just that. This distinguished quasi-judicial body in another place has given some sort of prima facie support to it. It is nothing to do with me, but I do not think that there is anything in it. But if the Special Orders Committee says that there is a case to answer on these questions which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) has so eloquently described, and if the company has gone to the extent of taking out its writ in the Chancery Division, which is returnable very quickly, it seems to me that today rather than this time next week is very hasty.
  670
  I am fortified in that view by the fact that there has been, rather late in the day, a sort of death bed repentance on the part of the company to offer these figures. My hon. and learned Friend said that the company had offered these figures all the time to the Monopolies Commission in conditions of confidentiality. if that is so, it puts a very different aspect on the matter.
  We in this House have felt from first to last in this matter that one of the reasons for supporting the Monopolies Commission's Report, as I did, was that the company had made no such offer. The commission is entitled and empowered to observe a strict confidence in such figures. If the figures really were offered in confidence, as my hon. and learned Friend alleges, that puts a very different complexion on the matter. If they were offered in confidence and refused, if they were offered in confidence and accepted but ignored, the whole report is different in that respect.
  I shall be very interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say in reply to what is a very serious charge by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover, namely that these figures, the absence of which have caused such justifiable criticism, were offered from the beginning, offered again, and offered on Friday in terms of what almost amounts to a public offer, namely, that the company is prepared to make them public providing a good reason is shown. It is obvious what the good reason is. It is that we in the House of Commons need them. Can one have a better reason than that? If that is all that is required to let us know what these figures are, it seems to me that this moment for passing the order is an inopportune one.
  I now express a personal view based only on a reading of the report and on no other sources of information or briefing. I have no doubt that at the end of the day the Monopolies Commission is probably right in its conclusions. But I have equal trouble at the moment in thinking that this Wednesday night, with this very important case coming on next week and with the figures having at last been offered quasi-publicly on Friday and perhaps all the time in confidence to the Monopolies Commission, on the

  671
  procedure that we are asked to adopt—not on the merits—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary need not answer the very serious criticisms made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover.
  There is one thing on which I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover. I do not think it is right to refer this matter to a Select Committee of the House. I think the question of whether natural justice has or has not been observed is in very good hands in those of a judge of the Chancery Division. That is a quicker and to my mind less biased or collaterally motived affair, and I am glad to think that it will occur next week. I shall abide by the judge's decision. If, as I believe, he decides that the commission observed considerations of natural justice, I shall be happy to vote for the order. But I should like to vote for it next Wednesday rather than this Wednesday.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: This has been a very important and somewhat surprising debate. I had come hoping to contribute modestly to the arguments which would be brought forward, but I think I am right in saying that not a single hon. Member opposite who has spoken has supported the Under-Secretary of State in his presentation of the order. Since these matters are very important, perhaps I may be allowed to comment briefly on some of the points which have been made.
  First, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was a Minister in the Department when it referred Roche, as he frankly admitted, to the Monopolies Commission. He knows very well how the commission's inquiries take place. Indeed, he was pledged in the election to strengthen the control of monopolies.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred to this as a Star Chamber procedure—a curious phrase. He should compare it with the procedure which the Government have forced through, with the votes of hon. Members opposite, under the Counter-Inflation Act, by which wages are controlled by the Pay Board without its having to come back to the House of Commons at all. There is no procedure for wage controls or, indeed, for price
  672
  controls under the counter-inflation legislation to come back to Parliament at all.
  The Monopolies Commission, unlike the Price Commission, examines its cases over a very long period. I do not know how long it was engaged in the Roche matter, but it must have been from autumn 1970 until spring 1973, which means that it was a fairly long inquiry. To describe that as a Star Chamber procedure is to do less than justice to a fairly established and fairly highly respected body of doctrine and practice which has grown up around the commission, and certainly, when the final decision is open to both Houses of Parliament by vote, does not do justice to the procedure through which the inquiry has been conducted.
  Mr. Peter Rees: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my speech, he would have understood that I was tentative in my analogy. I was not concerned with the policies which the Sitar Chamber was designed to implement, nor particularly with the policies which the Monopolies Commission is designed to implement. I was commenting that the consequences of the decisions of both were of extreme importance to those involved and that the commission does not, and the Star Chamber did not, adopt normal procedures used in our courts, but, instead, uses inquisitorial procedures which possibly in our experience do not give the defence the same opportunities of deploying its case as the more usual methods adopted in the High Court.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well what connotations of the Star Chamber were to the dissenters who had their ears cut off and were generally pilloried. That is the public understanding of the Star Chamber. In the last few weeks, the hon. and learned Gentleman has trooped through the Lobby in support of the Counter-Inflation Act, which lays down that the Minister is not obliged to consult anyone about its provisions, and, although the Minister will consult, that is not to be taken as implying that further consultation is required where he is satisfied that sufficient consultation has taken place and the information available is sufficient for his purpose. In other words, the Minister can brush aside requests from any union which wants to come up with a wage

  673
  claim and say "No. I had these consultations months ago."
  The Monopolies Commission, with all its defects—no commission can be perfect—comes as near to a body making a proper examination of difficult economic and industrial problems as we can devise. It does it at length. It asks for information. Opportunities to appear before it are available, which is not true of the Pay Board or the Price Commission, and both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity of debating its reports. That is not a Star Chamber, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished lawyer highly respected in this field, should not have used that parallel.
  I come now to the point about the bullying of the company in defiance of natural justice. Only a few days ago, on 27th June, the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs had to come to the House and make a statement in these terms:
  "Roche intends to disregard the order and to raise the prices to pre-order levels tomorrow at noon. … It has been reported that, without waiting for the Government's reply, Roche today informed pharmaceutical wholesalers that prices have been raised"—
  one notes the words "have been raised"—
  "in breach of the order as from 9 a.m. today"
  Remembering all the speeches made by hon. Members opposite about law and order and the need for people to obey the law, when I hear a Minister telling us that this international company, in defiance of an order, which, of course, had current validity deriving from this House, intended to raise prices none the less, I can only say that that puts a totally different perspective on the matter from the one given by hon. Gentlemen in this debate.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury asked whether it was wise to keep prices down. Admittedly, he gave some reason for that, but it certainly threw doubt, and the use of such phrases when studied in HANSARD will throw some doubt, upon the seriousness with which the Government are pursuing their counter-inflation policy.
  The matter goes further than that. Two hon. Members said that other companies. British companies, charge profits at this
  674
  level. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I think it was, said that there are British multinationals charging three times as much abroad as they do here. This is getting a little like the Lonrho board. When businessmen fall out, they are quite happy to throw dirt at each other. In fact, this case is revealing for public examination a very important pricing issue which ought to be publicly discussed and decided.
  I support the Minister tonight. He knows that because I indicated my support when the Question was answered a week ago. In my view, Roche has not played a very reputable rôle in this affair. I can only give my own judgment, and I think that it was not a reputable rôle.
  It did not co-operate with the Monopolies Commission, although that commission represents the law of the land in the country in which the company operates. Roche is an important supplier to the National Health Service, one of its customers, and a very good one at that. Its failure to supply all the necessary information to the Monopolies Commission was, I think, wrong. The disclosure which Roche has now decided to make was, in my judgment, a product of Government pressure, and I greatly welcome the fact that the Minister, by sticking to his guns, has succeeded in getting a late disclosure, though even now it is the company which prevents him—not the Minister himself—
  Mr. Ridley: No.
  Mr. Benn: Of course, it is the company which prevents him from making this information available to the House tonight. It is no good the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury shaking his head. Roche could have made this information available to the Monopolies Commission. It could have made it available to the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords, had it chosen to do so. It could have made it available to the sponsoring Minister and to the customer Minister. It could have made it available to the other place when it was discussing whether to accept the report of the Special Orders Committee. It could have published it so that tonight the House could have had an informed debate.
  In the light of all that, it is quite wrong for the company to present itself as an

  675
  aggrieved party in this matter, since it has behaved quite improperly, in my judgment, in its dealings with the Department, with the Minister concerned, and with the Monopolies Commission.
  Mr. Ridley: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman's information only confirms that Roche can do its long division correctly. It backs up the fact that the percentages given in the report are correct. Could it be that the truth is that this information is of no value whatever and that this may be why neither the Department of Trade and Industry nor Roche seems very keen to publish it?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury cannot have it both ways. A few moments ago he was telling the House that as the information was not available to the House it would be unfair for the Minister to ask the House to pass the order. He now says that the information is of no relevance and that there is nothing to stop the House passing the order. Since he was the Minister who was in the Department when the reference was made to the Monopolies Commission, he must now make up his mind.
  I come to the rôle of the House of Lords in handling matters of this kind. It is open to serious difficulty from the point of view of the House of Commons if the hybridity rule applies to orders of this kind in another place so that the Monopolies Commission's recommendation can be subjected to intensely long and detailed discussions in a committee of non-elected members, where the House of Commons is denied such an opportunity. It would be wrong for companies to withhold information that should be given to the Monopolies Commission and to hope that by saying that the commission had not had adequate information it would lead to a further examination of the Monopolies Commission's Report in another place. Whatever may be the precedent for the Special Orders Committee's reports in respect of another place, it clearly was well within the power of another place, as it would have been within the power of this place, to reject advice given to it by one of its committees. As the hon. and learned Member for Dover must know, the House of Lords is free
  676
  to reach what judgment it likes on the recommendation of its own committees. This is not a parallel with the Judicial Committee nor with the House sitting in its judicial capacity.
  The central question is whether the Monopolies Commission's recommendations to us should be upheld by this House by approving an order. I have no doubt in my mind that we are right to support the Minister in coming forward with this order. The argument about whether research and development is valid is not one that can lend itself to expert opinion. Anybody who has any familiarity with research and development knows that companies follow different practices in the amount they put into research and development, how they present it in their accounts, how they fund it, and how they allocate it between different products. It would not be open to either House of Parliament, based on a Select Committee inquiry, to determine the R and D expenditure or how it should be allocated within Roche.
  I believe that this case is an important one because it is one of the cases—not the only case—where the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the Government and the country is being tested against the claims of a multinational company to operate, in effect, outside the law. I do net know whether there have been British companies which have declined to give information to the Monopolies Commission. I can recall no argument on this scale by any British company when asked to give evidence to the commission. Those who follow these matters know that the arrival of multinational companies produces problems of a quite different character from the problems we faced when we were dealing primarily with nationally-based companies which probably had some overseas subsidiaries but which broadly regarded themselves as being within the law of the land in which they were situated.
  When one is dealing with a big motor car company, with IBM, or with any of these other big multinational companies, it is not only the trade unions which find themselves at a disadvantage. Ministers, and Governments, too, find themselves similarly placed. I wanted to participate briefly in this debate because, in speaking about the multinational, we have to appreciate the danger that it

  677
  poses, which is that it may threaten one Government and play off one country against another.
  The danger stems not from a dislike of international industrial operations, but from the fact that we are dealing with organisations that span the world. We are dealing with new sovereign bodies which have to be recognised to be of a different order in the power structure from the old national company. That is why disclosure is so important. That is why international action may well be needed at some time in the future. Where Governments have to deal with a particular multinational company, they may have to meet to discuss how to concert their action. That is why trade unions have a part to play in wage negotiations.
  The Government, somewhat reluctantly, because it is not their wish to alienate multinational companies and have broadly supported them, have stumbled through the Roche case on to an important fact, and that is that international companies must be seen as a potential threat unless they are ready to obey the law of the land in which they operate.
  It is because the Government have been strong and come forward with this order, and because they are seeking an injunction in the courts to prevent the previous order from being disregarded, that I recommend to the House that we should support the order tonight, if necessary in the Lobby, so that it is known abroad that this is not merely a measure brought in by Ministers but that it carries the full support of the Opposition, too.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Emery: If I may, I should like to deal with a number of points that have been raised during the debate. It would be churlish of me not to try to the best of my ability to reply to them.
  There is no doubt on the Government benches, and there never has been, that the drugs Valium and Librium are important. They have played a major part in curative treatment in this country, as they have in the world. Nobody is attempting in any way to cast doubt upon the company or the way in which the drags have been produced.
  678
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that the Government's action was of the most vicious sort and that we were attempting to bully this company. In his brilliant advocacy, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) implied that he did not want to compare the Monopolies Commission with the Star Chamber, but by his own admission that comparison was made. The whole tenor of the debate has been that the Government are being unfair to multinational companies—"tilting at them" was the term used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover—and that this company has not had a proper chance to state its case.
  What the Government want to ensure is that any company—Roche or any other—that is considered by the Monopolies Commission is treated fairly. That has been so with Roche, as with any other reference. Even though legal action has been taken with regard to Roche, it is still the Government's view that the company should be treated absolutely fairly.
  A number of points have been raised concerning the company's ability to have defended itself.
  Mr. Skeet: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Emery: As I said in the debate on the first order, this matter did not just arise at the time of the monopoly reference. It had been going on for years. It was the company's unwillingness to cooperate in supplying information under the voluntary price regulation scheme which had begun to cast doubt. All other drug companies, some with directions for information, and multinational companies and other Swiss companies had been willing to co-operate with the Department of Health and Social Security in allowing the Department to arrive at a price, but this company over the years had been unwilling. This is what gave rise to this matter.
  Then, when other information came to light the Government felt it right that a reference should be made to the Monopolies Commission. That was in 1971.
  The information sought by the Monopolies Commission was difficult to obtain and long and protracted in the obtaining. Hon. Gentleman who suggest that the

  679
  company has not been able to present its case are not facing the facts.
  Mr. Skeet Mr. Skeet rose—
  Mr. Emery: May I answer some of the questions and then, if there is time, I shall be delighted to try to answer other specific points.
  Because I believed that it was probably unnecessary in that they had been stated before, I did not outline some of the Monopolies Commission's major findings, and these have tended to be overlooked tonight. It would perhaps seem to anybody who listened to the debate that they do not arise.
  Mr. Skeet: Some were never considered.
  Mr. Emery: The Monopolies Commission found that Roche Products was responsible for 99 per cent. of the supply of Valium and Librium and that a monopoly existed. Paragraphs 194 to 217 sum up the commission's conclusions and recommendations. In paragraph 201 the commission said that it did not believe that Roche was subject to significant price competition.
  In paragraph 204 the commission concluded that Roche's monopoly position gave it wider than normal freedom to determine its prices and support its monopoly.
  In paragraph 212 the commission, in considering the public interest, was concerned to calculate the group profits on the reference products on a number of assumptions. The commission calculated that if Roche Products' arguments about the calculation of cost and prices were accepted the smallest group profits that could be calculated were nearly 40 per cent. on sales of Librium and about 50 per cent. on sales of Valium, equivalent to a rate of return on capital of about 60 per cent. It has been suggested that the commission did not take into account these sorts of figure. That is not the case.
  In paragraph 213 the commission concluded that the group profits on the reference products were exceptionally high. I could continue. I do not have to restate the Monopolies Commission's case, but it should not go as though it did not exist, because obviously it does.
  680
  There has also been a degree of misunderstanding by some of my hon. Friends which I should like to clear up. As I understand it, the Standing Orders of another place afford private persons or companies an opportunity to appeal to the Special Orders Committee, which may recommend that their case may be heard before the passing of the Private Bill or, in this case, the statutory instrument. But I am informed that such an opportunity is intended to be offered when the person or firm affected by the order has, as yet, had no chance to put his or its case.
  That has not been suggested in any of the argument that we have heard from some of my hon. Friends. No one can suggest that Roche has not had the chance to put its case before the Monopolies Commission, which, after all, is the statutory body whose duty it is fully to consider the arguments put to it. Surely no one can suggest that the company of Hoffmann-La Roche did not believe that it was being criticised for being a monopoly and did not believe that it was being criticised because its prices were too high.
  Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend is surely putting it in the wrong way. What the company did not appreciate was the case that it had to meet. Following the original document, which was a sort of pleading indicating the general argument, when it came to the oral hearing the company had no indication of the way that the Monopolies Commission was thinking and the points about research on which it would have to adduce evidence.
  Mr. Emery: I see my hon. Friend's argument. I believe that this is the whole case that the company will be making in the High Court. That is its argument in natural justice. It is not for me to argue that particular matter now. It would probably be wrong for me to do so.
  I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) for his intervention. However, his conclusions about bringing the whole of the pharmaceutical industry into the public sector are not relevant to this overall position. The position of that industry as a whole has been a great service to this country. It would be wrong for anyone on the Government Front Bench to suggest otherwise.

  681
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover suggested that the figures which were needed were available because they had been agreed by the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Peter Rees: No. Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Emery: If I am misinterpreting my hon. and learned Friend, which is the last thing that I should want to do, I will give way.
  The Revenue figures are not available to the commission. They are for tax information and are strictly confidential. I assumed—perhaps incorrectly—from the argument of my hon. and learned Friend that the Revenue figures had some relevance to the commission and, therefore, would be more easily understood by the commission. That is not the case because the Revenue figures are completely confidential.
  Mr. Rees: As I said, I am not privy to Roche's counsels. I do not know in detail the case that the company has made or will make. But, as I understand it, the figures that it offered to the Monopolies Commission in confidence, on the basis that they should not be for publication—it can be read out of the commission's report that figures were offered to it but not for publication—were only figures designed to support other figures which were produced for the commission. The basis of these other figures had been agreed by it with the Swiss and United Kingdom revenue authorities. Therefore, those figures could have been accepted with relative ease by the Monopolies Commission.
  Mr. Emery: I think I have cleared up the confidentiality aspect. I do not believe that I or my hon. and learned Friend are the people who should make the judgment of the commission for it. It made its judgment. It is open to anyone to say that the commission was wrong, but it is not necessarily right for the person being investigated to suggest that these figures shall not be produced because at that stage it is not believed that they are relevant.
  The timing argument was the main disagreement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr.
  682
  Fletcher-Cooke), whose tribute to the Monopolies Commission I was glad to hear. The timing is a procedural matter. The proceedings next week apply only to the Government application for the injunction which has been forced by Roche's threat to raise the price of its products. There is not much hope that that will be dealt with next week. According to my information, it is likely to run for a number of weeks. The substantive hearing on Roche's writ will not take place at least before October, and is then likely to run many months. So there would be no right time to take the order, if one accepted that argument.
  The Government want to ensure that anyone investigated by the Monopolies Commission is treated absolutely fairly. We believe that nothing has arisen since the first order was made to change our view that this order is right and proper and should have the support of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) (No. 3) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1693), dated 21st June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL (MONEY)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Nature Conservancy Council, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

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

  DIABETIC CHILDREN
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The matter I have to raise tonight is the special needs of diabetic children and their parents. I have in the borough of Redbridge, of which my constituency is a part, a very active and energetic group of members of the British Diabetics Association, who form the Ilford and District Club Parents' Group, now known as the Young Diabetics. The group consists of parents of children who suffer from diabetes.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will wish to join me in thanking the association generally for the service it performs in keeping the problems of diabetics in the forefront of his attention. I am sure that he would like also to join me in thanking my Ilford Young Diabetics for the stimulus they have given us both to consider their problems. I know that my hon. Friend's attendance here tonight will be very much appreciated by those parents and thousands of others in other boroughs who are similarly unfortunately placed.
  About one in a thousand children is diabetic—between 30 and 40 at any given time in the borough of Redbridge. In children the onset of diabetes is usually sudden. The condition is invariably severe from the outset. When I asked one of my constituents what was the first indication, she said that the child went into a coma. This sudden and inevitably very frightening happening is for thousands of children and their parents the beginning not so much of an illness as of a new way of life. The diabetic must conform to a certain exacting regime for life. "It's jabs for life", as they say, in two senses. The injections must go on for the entire life of the individual, and they must go on in order that life may continue.
  There is no known cure, and without the regime of treatment, consisting of a
  684
  balance between diet and injection of insulin, death is inevitable. Therefore, this life regime is especially difficult and especially important for children. It is part of my purpose tonight to ask that we should make it as little difficult as possible for all children, without the extra expense now involved in the special kind of treatment appliances to which I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention. I shall submit that this may be done at a minimal cost, at most, to public funds.
  The main feature, apart from the rigorous imperative of the diet, in the lifelong regime of the child diabetic is the daily—and in some cases two or three times daily—painful, irritating but vital ritual of injections. Without constant artificial injections of insulin which their own bodies will not produce, the necessary balance between just enough and a fatal surplus of blood sugar cannot be maintained. A peculiar misfortunate of child diabetics is that they can get their artificial insulin only by way of injections all their lives. They can never get it from tablets taken by mouth as can many of those who first become diabetics when they are already adult.
  A parent—it is usually the mother—must get her, perhaps very young, child to administer the injections to himself or herself every day, day after day, for ever. Therefore, the actual process is something that matters very much, not only to the child who has to do it and to suffer it but to parents, and to brothers and sisters too.
  The injections can be very much more difficult and painful and irksome than they need be; under the provision made free by the National Health Service it certainly is much more difficult and painful and irksome than it need be or ought to be. That is because the syringes and the needles supplied free by the National Health Service are not so good from the point of view of ease, painlessness, skin damage avoidance and convenience as the disposable syringes and needles which are available to those who are willing and able to pay for them privately.
  My first request to the Minister is to make available free on the National Health Service the superior modern disposable packs of syringes and needles at least to children on general practitioner

  685
  prescriptions. The old kind of syringe and needle supplied free at present has disadvantages. The needle is used again and again and it becomes blunt. The jab is therefore painful. Its bluntness causes painful bumps and scars. The syringe degenerates with use and constant sterilisation. The piston becomes loose in the cylinder, causing it to stick. Further, the joint of the syringe with the needle becomes loose so that the needle detaches itself in the middle of an injection.
  One mother told me that her little daughter had to have three jabs on one occasion before a successful injection could be achieved. That is just one extra part in the task of the family of a diabetic child of getting the family off to school in the morning. In contrast, the disposable syringe and needle is for use only once. The syringe and the needle are brand new every time. The syringe is invariably perfect in functioning. The needle is absolutely sharp so that the child does not feel it enter the skin.
  To buy such disposable packs, which any parent is at liberty to do, would cost for an average regime upwards of £1 a month. It is not so much the sum as the principle and the priority which troubles many parents. The cost of £25 a year could be regarded as a very unwelcome extra tax. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer were for once to refrain from taking £25 in tax from a taxpayer he would expect that to be regarded as a mighty bounteous Budget dowry. But this is a matter of deciding the relative importance and priority which should be given to a need which strikes deeply into the hearts of thousands of families. If I were in their position my feeling would be that the quality of the need was of a high order and that the priority for meeting it out of public funds was correspondingly high.
  I know it may be said that what I am asking for cannot be limited to children and that the cost to public funds would be the cost of providing free disposable needles and syringes for all diabetics, adults included. However, if general practitioners can make distinctions in other cases I do not see why they should not be able to do so when treating diabetics. I do not see why they should
  686
  not be able to distinguish between prescriptions for adults and for children.
  But, even if it were not possible to make that distinction, I should urge that the provision should be made, if necessary at the cost required to supply all adults and children alike, for the sake of the children. Without in the least detracting from the plea which I make, it should be put on record, if only to preserve the position, that I do not believe that value added tax should be eroded as a universal consumption tax by exempting any and every useful and necessary article, no matter how worthy the priorities for which it is used.
  I wish to ask the Minister for three more things which can be stated briefly and need little explanation but are none the less important for that. First, will the Minister take special steps to see that the Secretary of State for Education and Science alerts local authorities to the importance of warning heads of schools of the special precautions necessary in caring for diabetic children? Every teacher with a diabetic child in his care should know that the child is diabetic. He should know something about the child's diet and, most importantly, he should know and be able to recognise the symptoms of hypoglycaemia and be able to give the simple treatment necessary without delay.
  A further useful routine for schools would be to print menus for school meals a week in advance so that they could be circulated to the parents of diabetic children and the parents and the child could agree in advance what the child should eat at school. This would also be helpful for mothers of families in planning family meals at home, which has to be done with a special eye to what the diabetic child has eaten elsewhere.
  There is a need for area diabetic clinics to be established throughout the country. These need not be many, but they must be enough to enable any worried mother of a diabetic child, where-ever she might live or be staying, to have immediate access by telephone at any hour of the day or night to someone on whose advice she can rely with special reference to the needs of the diabetic child. All children get suddenly and frighteningly ill sometimes. Usually it is nothing terribly serious. Even if it is

  687
  serious doctors and hospitals manage marvellously to help, but there are special complications and dangers when a child is diabetic because the diabetes can be affected by the other illness—they react on one another—and special treatment may be required for both the specific illness and the diabetes. That may call for instant specialised advice, and many mothers may be diffident in demanding this, unable to explain exactly what is required and unable to be reassured unless they have someone in whom they have confidence to explain to the doctor who is treating the child for the immediate illness that the diabetic aspect is being properly taken care of.
  Finally, I ask the Minister for a word about fundamental research into the cause and cure of diabetes. I discern a depressing note of fatalism and acceptance in medical attitudes in this respect. It may be that the miracle of insulin has acted against research into the cause and cure of diabetes. It is almost as though, having turned certain death into something that can be controlled, we have somehow exhausted our resources of endeavour.
  I ask the Minister whether anything serious is being done specifically to examine the causes and possible cure. If nothing is being done—as I suspect—why should this be so? Need it be so? What, if anything, can be done? Will the Minister explain what is being done and how hopeful in his assessment is the prospect of finding a permanent cure for a disease which at the moment is bound to be lifelong?
  11.34 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Word, North (Mr. Ire-monger) both on securing the Adjournment and on choosing a subject which, although it is perhaps not so dramatic as some with which I am involved, is nevertheless one of real concern. Perhaps he will allow me to associate myself with the specific commendations he made about the family organisation, the parents in his constituency and elsewhere who are showing such a determined spirit to co-operate together and help themselves and the public good in this manner.
  688
  Fortunately, diabetes is uncommon in childhood. Below the age of five only 0·3 per 1,000 children suffer from it: in the age group five to 15 the incidence is about 1 per 1,000 school children.
  Fifty years ago diabetics who developed the condition in childhood died soon after, usually within 18 months of diagnosis. The introduction of insulin has altered this but the average expectation of life is still less than 20 years from diagnosis.
  Once a diagnosis of diabetes has been made and the acute metabolic disturbance has been corrected in hospital, the stabilisation of the diabetes and education of the child and the parents begin—as my hon. Friend said, the beginning of a lifelong process. Diabetes starting in childhood almost always involves lifelong daily or twice-daily injections of insulin.
  The great majority of diabetics are able to lead reasonably normal lives. Once they have mastered the technique of managing the disease, many remain under the care of their family doctors. For those who need regular specialist medical supervision, this is provided at district general hospitals, most of which run special diabetic clinics for patients of all ages.
  Most diabetic children go to ordinary schools. There is no doubt, however, that diabetes is a limitation on a child. I have already mentioned the need for injections. Meals must be assessed for carbohydrate content and the right amount taken at the right time to balance food, exercise and insulin. Some form of carbohydrate, such as lumps of sugar, must always be carried in case of emergency. Special physical exertion must be matched by taking extra carbohydrate.
  The need for these precautions can lead to stress for the child—there is no doubt of this—for his parents and for teachers. Any child will break the diet rules sometimes and especially during the naturally rebellious period of adolescence: all will need help in keeping to the diet. Many diabetic children show some degree of emotional disturbance, and anxiety symptoms are more prominent in mothers of diabetic children than of other children.
  All the health and social services need to co-operate in helping families who have these problems: family doctors,

  689
  hospitals, health visitors, district nurses, social workers, the medical and nursing staff of the school health service, and teachers. The reorganisation of the National Health Service will, we believe, open the way to the creation of a comprehensive child health service from which all children will greatly benefit. Allied to this reorganisation are arrangements for collaboration between the National Health Service and local authorities—local health authorities in particular—which will provide a frame-work for close working between social workers and the health service.
  Clearly, there are many problems involved in the care of diabetic children. My hon. Friend has touched on several, and I think it would be to the benefit of the House if I now try to outline the Government's views on the points he has raised.
  I take the question of disposable syringes and needles first. Disposable syringes are not available on prescription by a general practitioner under the National Health Service. They were developed especially to meet the needs of hospitals, where it is essential to have available, sometimes in an emergency, a supply of absolutely sterile syringes. This avoids the serious risk of cross-infection which can arise. For the same reasons they are available for use by general practitioners. But these reasons do not apply where a patient has a personal syringe for injections which he administers himself.
  Most insulin preparations are to some extent self-sterilising, and where a syringe is used only by one person the dangers of infection are minimal. The non-disposable glass and metal syringes supplied on prescription are suitable for the vast majority of patients who need regular insulin injections.
  Both the syringes and the needles must comply with the British Standards specification. Provided the needles are treated with reasonable care, I am advised that they normally remain sharp and can give nearly painless injections for quite a time. My hon. Friend described the condition into which some of them can fall with prolonged use, but general practitioners can prescribe these syringes in appropriate quantities, so that problems of
  690
  depreciation, as it were, can be dealt with within the normal prescribing machinery by family doctors.
  In the exceptional case where the family doctor considers that only disposable syringes are suitable on medical grounds, he may refer the patient to hospital, where a consultant, if he agrees, can authorise a supply of them to last until the next visit. I appreciate that some diabetic patients who have no special need for disposable syringes may nevertheless prefer to use them and may find them a little more convenient. We naturally like to meet patients' preferences when we can reasonably do so, but the additional cost of providing disposable syringes and needles on prescription is estimated to be about £2 million a year.
  In a sector such as ours with almost limitless demand for more facilities but where the supply of resources is inevitably limited—my lion. Friend, as the author of a book on economics, will know about this—this is not an insignificant sum. It would enable us to double the expenditure on the invalid vehicle service, or to introduce 10 major operating theatre suites. These are matters of great significance for the groups involved. We are faced with an appalling dilemma of priorities, and the sum of £2 million is critical for many projects which might have to be abandoned.
  My right hon. Friend therefore feels that, as the existing arrangements are considered adequate to meet both general and medical needs, an additional annual expenditure of this order could not be justified while there are so many competing claims on the funds available for the National Health Service. It would not be possible to make special provision for general practitioner prescribing of disposable syringes limited to children, as my hon. Friend proposed. There is no power to restrict prescribing by general practitioners in this way, and even if we had such power I doubt whether an acceptable scheme could be devised.
  If a general practitioner were able to prescribe disposable syringes and needles he would be under pressure to meet parent preferences and would find it very difficult to restrict this prescribing to cases of medical need. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot meet the request that

  691
  disposable syringes should be made available on prescription by a general practitioner.
  I return to the point made earlier, that if the GP feels that there is a medical case for disposable syringes in a family or for an individual he can take it to the consultant who can authorise a supply.
  The arrangements I have described are generally adequate but if my hon. Friend has evidence that individual patients who need such syringes or needles on medical grounds are experiencing difficulty, and it may be that the groups to which he has referred have such difficulty, if he will send me details I will look into the cases.
  I now turn to the suggestion that there should be area diabetic clinics for emergency consultation. On the face of it, this has considerable appeal, and my hon. Friend has eloquently outlined the fears which some parents face when their diabetic children contract one of the childhood illnesses. But I hope that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will agree that the family doctor is responsible for the medical care of a patient who suffers from diabetes, and it is to him that parents should look for advice on the health of their children.
  This applies to emergencies involving patients with diabetes. It is for the family doctor to decide whether it is necessary for reference to be made to the specialist services of the NHS. While parents are naturally concerned when their children are I have seen no evidence that the existing arrangements for the treatment of diabetes need supplementing by special area diabetic clinics for emergency consultation by parents.
  My hon. Friend has pointed out the enormous importance of informing schools of any of their pupils suffering from diabetes. I am happy to assure him that, in order that the school health services and the schools may play a full part in caring for the child who returns to school after the correction of the acute metabolic disturbance, the school health service and the school attended by the child are both informed. The way in which this is done varies. Usually the hospital or general practitioner informs the school medical officer and he, or an administrator in the school health ser-
  692
  vice or general local education authority office, lets the head teacher know. There may well be a part which social workers can play in informing the school of diabetic children and in keeping an eye on the progress of the child at home. On the whole, however, it seems more appropriate for the school health service medical officer, nurse or health visitor to undertake the liaison between health services and school, with social workers playing the equally important but non-medical rôles in welfare work. But we are confident that there is no possibility of a breakdown in the necessary communication between diagnostic and treatment services and what gees on in the schools.
  The final major point raised by my hon. Friend was perhaps the most important of all—the extent of research into the cause and cure of diabetes. Government-sponsored research into the basic mechanisms of diabetes and applied research connected with it is carried out under the general aegis of the Medical Research Council. A number of research teams are working on different aspects of diabetes. For example, fundamental research is being pursued into the structure of the insulin molecule and the way in which it is made naturally in the body, into the mechanisms of its release from the pancreas and the point at which these mechanisms become deranged, thus leading to the clinical disease.
  It is now becoming recognised that there are several distinct types of diabetes each with its own characteristics, possibly each with its own separate cause and differing in symptoms and prognosis. For several years drugs have been developed which can be given by mouth to patients with the less severe type of diabetes as a substitute for injections of insulin. Recently this form of treatment has been criticised on the ground of relative lack of effectiveness in the long term. Earlier this year this problem was referred to the Medical Research Council, which has as a result set up a working party under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Richard Doll at Oxford to conduct a thorough trial of these "oral agents". I shall await with interest the results of these trials.
  I hope that what I have said will lead my hon. Friend to agree that we take

  693
  the problems associated with diabetes in childhood seriously, and that we are conscious of the wide-ranging needs of such children and their parents. If he has any evidence of particular cases where things are going wrong and a child appears not to be getting the help he needs, I would be more than happy to have them investigated.
  My hon. Friend asked me to comment on the pessimism or optimism with which I view the general sphere of research and the possibilities of improvements. It is dangerous to be specific about an imponderable future. I can point out only what happened in the past and remind him that there was a dramatic improvement in the prognosis of the condition as a result of the insulin discoveries, and there is evidence, therefore, on the basis
  694
  of this precedent at least, that there may well be some possibility of a major step forward in the future.
  I cannot be specific but I am optimistic that research will be pursued with vigour and with conscientious zeal by those who are involved in these questions because they know only too acutely what the problems are for those who suffer from the disease.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Bangladesh (Biharis)
  Bangladesh (Biharis)
  French Nuclear Tests
  French Nuclear Tests
  Diplomatic Recognition
  Diplomatic Recognition
  Nigerian High Commission (Parking Offences)
  Nigerian High Commission (Parking Offences)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Mr. Hawkesworth
  Mr. Hawkesworth
  EEC Laws and Papers (Publication)
  EEC Laws and Papers (Publication)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Industrial Development Services (Grants)
  Industrial Development Services (Grants)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Housing (Fixed Price Contracts)
  Housing (Fixed Price Contracts)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Pedestrian Crossings and Speed Limits
  Pedestrian Crossings and Speed Limits
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Local Authority House Building
  Local Authority House Building
  Plaster and Plasterboard Supplies
  Plaster and Plasterboard Supplies
  Transport Policy (Oil Supplies)
  Transport Policy (Oil Supplies)
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Council Flats (Sale)
  Council Flats (Sale)
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Tents (Classification)
  Tents (Classification)
  Airdomes
  Airdomes
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Compulsory Purchase (London)
  Compulsory Purchase (London)
  Caravan Sites (Fire Safety)
  Caravan Sites (Fire Safety)
  Plastic Air-pressure Covers
  Plastic Air-pressure Covers
  Domestic Rates (Hampshire)
  Domestic Rates (Hampshire)
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Motor Insurers' Bureau
  Motor Insurers' Bureau
  Non-Scheme Ports
  Non-Scheme Ports
  Building Societies (Mortgage Rates)
  Building Societies (Mortgage Rates)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Motorway Telephones (M1)
  Motorway Telephones (M1)
  Driving Test Examiners (Renfrewshire)
  Driving Test Examiners (Renfrewshire)
  Highway Authorities (Liabilities)
  Highway Authorities (Liabilities)
  Water Orders
  Water Orders
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Housing (Bedfordshire)
  Housing (Bedfordshire)
  Public Expenditure (Bedfordshire)
  Public Expenditure (Bedfordshire)
  Housing (Battered Wives)
  Housing (Battered Wives)
  Coastal Oil Pollution
  Coastal Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution (North Lincolnshire)
  Oil Pollution (North Lincolnshire)
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Driving Tests (Paisley and Renfrew)
  Driving Tests (Paisley and Renfrew)
  EEC Countries (Investment)
  EEC Countries (Investment)
  Building Society Investment Interest
  Building Society Investment Interest
  Travellers' Tax Concessions (EEC Directive)
  Travellers' Tax Concessions (EEC Directive)
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Natural Gas Reserves
  Natural Gas Reserves
  Factory Space
  Factory Space
  Food Imports and Exports (Scotland)
  Food Imports and Exports (Scotland)
  Wales (Incoming Firms)
  Wales (Incoming Firms)
  Fibre Content Labelling
  Fibre Content Labelling
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Investors)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Investors)
  Marwin Machine Tools Ltd.
  Marwin Machine Tools Ltd.
  Defence Contractors
  Defence Contractors
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
EMPLOYMENT
  Migrant Workers
  Migrant Workers
  Insured Workers
  Insured Workers
  Discrimination Against Women
  Discrimination Against Women
  Community Industry (Greenock)
  Community Industry (Greenock)
  Northolt—Greenford (Departmental Office)
  Northolt—Greenford (Departmental Office)
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Wool Textile Industry
  Wool Textile Industry
  Wages (Purchasing Power)
  Wages (Purchasing Power)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Discipline
  Discipline
  Climatic Research
  Climatic Research
  Teachers (Colleges of Education)
  Teachers (Colleges of Education)
  Frank Holland's Piano Collection
  Frank Holland's Piano Collection
  Schools (Lancashire)
  Schools (Lancashire)
  Schools (Fire Precautions)
  Schools (Fire Precautions)
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Traffic Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Firearms Control (Consultative Document)
  Firearms Control (Consultative Document)
  Mr. Carl Clifford (Entry Application)
  Mr. Carl Clifford (Entry Application)
  Blind Prisoners
  Blind Prisoners
  Mr. Anthony John Seaward
  Mr. Anthony John Seaward
  Prisoners (Health Deterioration)
  Prisoners (Health Deterioration)
  Prisoners (Assaults)
  Prisoners (Assaults)
  Race and Sex Discrimination
  Race and Sex Discrimination
  Industrial Disputes (Special Patrol Groups)
  Industrial Disputes (Special Patrol Groups)
  Opinion Polls
  Opinion Polls
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Battered Wives and Children
  Battered Wives and Children
  Injunctions (Powers of Arrest)
  Injunctions (Powers of Arrest)
  Child Custody (Parental Disputes)
  Child Custody (Parental Disputes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Brewing
  Brewing
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Milk (Fat Content)
  Milk (Fat Content)
  Intervention Board
  Intervention Board
  International Wheat Agreement
  International Wheat Agreement
  Farm Premiums
  Farm Premiums
LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
BATTERED WIVES AND CHILDREN
  BATTERED WIVES AND CHILDREN
  BATTERED WIVES AND CHILDREN
INJUNCTIONS (ENFORCEMENT)
  INJUNCTIONS (ENFORCEMENT)
  INJUNCTIONS (ENFORCEMENT)
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
  MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
  MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ex-Ministers (Employment with Contractors)
  Ex-Ministers (Employment with Contractors)
DEFENCE
  Ex-Ministers (Employment with Contractors)
  Ex-Ministers (Employment with Contractors)
  Retired Officers (Employment with Contractors)
  Retired Officers (Employment with Contractors)
  Property
  Property
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
  Drugs (Misuse)
  Drugs (Misuse)
  Discharge Purchase
  Discharge Purchase
POLITICAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND)
  POLITICAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND)
  POLITICAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ulster Defence Association (Allegations)
  Ulster Defence Association (Allegations)
  Governorship
  Governorship
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Reception (Mid-Wales)
  Television Reception (Mid-Wales)
ELECTORAL LAW
  ELECTORAL LAW
  ELECTORAL LAW
STATE VISITS
  STATE VISITS
  STATE VISITS
PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL
  PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL
  PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL
SCOTLAND
  Technical Teachers
  Technical Teachers
  Hospital Patients (Computerisation)
  Hospital Patients (Computerisation)
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dried Milk
  Dried Milk
  Epidural Anaesthetics (North Staffordshire)
  Epidural Anaesthetics (North Staffordshire)
  Hospital Facilities (West Midlands)
  Hospital Facilities (West Midlands)
  Renal Dialysis Units (Birmingham)
  Renal Dialysis Units (Birmingham)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Disabled Persons (Accidents at Work)
  Disabled Persons (Accidents at Work)
  Elderly and Disabled Persons
  Elderly and Disabled Persons
  Arthritis (Treatment Centres)
  Arthritis (Treatment Centres)
  South Western Hospital Board (Inquiry)
  South Western Hospital Board (Inquiry)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Hospitals (Handicapped Children)
  Hospitals (Handicapped Children)
  Battered Wives and Children
  Battered Wives and Children
  Physically Violent Men (Medical Treatment)
  Physically Violent Men (Medical Treatment)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark):
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM
John Stapylton, Lord Bishop of Durham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN
Rhys Gerran Lloyd, Esquire, C.B.E., Q.C., having been created Baron Lloyd of Kilgerran, of Llanwenog in the County of Cardigan, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Byers and the Lord Tanlaw.

GARTER KING OF ARMS
2.47 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what "public duties" are performed and what are "certain other expenses connected with the Order of the Garter" which are incurred by Garter Principal King of Arms in relation to the annual fee of £3,100 set out in Class XI, 6 of the Supply Estimates 1973–74.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, Garter King of Arms receives a personal honorarium of £3,000 a year in recognition of the professional advice which he gives to the Prime Minister, the Departments of State and the House of Lords on questions of heraldry, title and procedence, and for duties in connection with certain State ceremonies. The "certain other expenses connected with the Order of the Garter"—in respect of which the sum of £100
238
has been included in the Estimates—relate to a contribution to the Garter Fee Fund on behalf of Stranger Knights of the Order of the Garter and do not relate to expenses incurred by Garter King of Arms.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am extremely grateful to him for that reply and for clearing up one or two ends that were rather left in that otherwise excellent debate that we had on the Second Reading of the College of Arms Bill? And while we are on the subject, can my noble friend mention any other honorarium or fees which may be received by the College of Arms or Garter from any other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I shall be glad to clear this up. I know of one other honorarium which Garter receives from the Ministry of Defence. That is £400 a year from general supervisory responsibilities as Inspector General of Regimental Colours. Additional fee payments are made for individual items of service—designing and painting crests, badges and standards. I think those are not within the £400 a year.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question. There seems to be a great abundance of Spiritual Peers here today and a great shortage of Temporal Peers on that side of the House. Can he tell us whether there is something that we on this side are missing?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I thought some of the Bishops had found their spiritual home on our Benches earlier.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, dealing with the previous Question, will the Minister be good enough to clear up a further matter? Will he now establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the grant given from public money to Garter King of Arms is chargeable to the public and is therefore borne on the Vote of some Minister who is accountable both to another place and to this place for its expenditure?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have given the details. The first collection of items that I mentioned I think come under the jurisdiction of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in his capacity as Civil Service Department Minister. The Ministry of Defence obviously comes under a separate Vote. Then I mentioned the purely private arrangement of a very small annual fee which is nothing to do with the Government at all but comes under the Earl Marshal.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to see that the Government will take good care that the Garter King of Arms does not become a recipient of the National Assistance Board?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thought there were certain suspicions about this, one way or the other, in the debate the other day but I can reassure the House that the balance is fairly evenly kept.
LORD WIGG: The Minister is establishing beyond any shadow of doubt there is direct Ministerial responsibility for this money?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hesitate to enter into what happens in another place. I am sure the noble Lord knows, better than I do, that anything that appears on a Vote can always be raised by a Member in another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is replying for the Government and the question is simply: is this matter borne on a Parliamentary Vote and has to be and is subject to being questioned or voted against in another place? I think the noble Lord must give us—he is too experienced to take the point about giving a straight "Yes" or "No", but may I ask him whether he does not agree that this question is susceptible of an answer either, "Yes" or "No"?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it is, and so far as I know, the answer is, "Yes". I am simply saying that I am not personally familiar with all the procedures in another place but it does appear on the Vote and one of the references is that given by
240
my noble friend Lord Teviot in his Question.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords can the noble Lord tell us what happens to the fees for attending the Introductions of Peers when Garter does not come?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I imagine this is an internal matter as we have just seen that there are occasions, but I imagine that he manages to reach an amicable agreement with his colleagues.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, does it appear as an Appropriation in Aid?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is a mystery I cannot answer. If the noble Lord will be good enough to put down a Question, I can look into it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it seems to me that all the information that Garter King of Arms has to impart is of a mediaeval character. Is he compelled to acquire any information which is of a modern character?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, I can give the House a considerable modern example. At present the reorganisation of local government has resulted in an enormous amount of work which Garter King of Arms is doing for the Department of the Environment in relation to the new coats of arms and crests for the new local authorities.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, who pays the Garter in that particular case, the Department of the Environment or local government? What sort of fee does he receive for it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have no break-downs of these figures because this work is covered by the general honorarium that I mentioned in the first place. There would not be any extra payment for this work.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the local authorities each and every one of them, will have to pay a fee for a Garter Coat of Arms?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, but that is a separate issue. The honorarium I have been

241
talking about is one which pays for the provision of services to the Department of the Environment. The individual local authorities are a different matter, and have their own relationship with Garter.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that some of us appreciate highly the work of a very small and economically run Department under the Garter King of Arms?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful for that remark, but feel sure the Garter King of Arms will be even more grateful than I am.

POLICE FIREARMS
2.53 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 the British police forces are to be provided with Model L 39A1 rifles and, if so, for what purposes.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, following a recent review of the firearms available to the police, the majority of police forces in England, Wales and Scotland, have decided to reequip with modified L 39A1 rifles which are intended only for use in an emergency where lives are threatened by armed and dangerous persons.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I put down this Question so that he might reassure the Members on his Back Benches, and that I am very disappointed that they are now at a doctrinal service and will not be able to hear the Minister's Answer? Is it not the case that the Evening Standard, which many of them regard as their "bible", reported that the police force was to be supplied with the Armalite rifle of the most terrible and devastating character? I want to give the Minister the opportunity of correcting that report for the benefit of the Members who are not here.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the reading material of my
242
noble friends is something that I should leave to them, but I appreciate the altruism of the noble Lord in giving me the opportunity to make the explanation I have. We now again have available the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO to-morrow my noble friends will be able to benefit from reading the answer that the noble Lord has given me an opportunity to provide.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give a further assurance that no police force is receiving this Armalite rifle, the ammunition for which can penetrate a wall, go through a room, through another wall and then finally kill a man? Can he give us an assurance that police forces are not receiving this weapon and that sharpshooters are not being trained with it, as was stated in the Evening Standard?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, so far as I know, the police are not acquiring the Armalite rifle, but are having the L39A1. The Home Office have themselves carried out tests on it. It does not fire through walls. It is, however, accurate, efficient and suitable for the very, very rare occasions on which it might have to be used.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, a weapon of this kind, with a high velocity and a small bore, is a much better weapon, in the hands of a person trained to use it, than a shot gun.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is quite right. That is why the police forces, for those quite specific and extremely rare occasions, need to have it at their disposal.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN BIRMINGHAM
2.56 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the reasons for the refusal to accept the proposals of the Birmingham local authority for the reorganisation of secondary education.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, my right honourable friend and I considered over a hundred separate proposals: 52 were approved and 60 rejected. The full reasons were set out in the official decision letters of which the noble Baroness has copies. But, to summarise, I can say that in each case we took account of the weight of local objections; we bore in mind the need to keep open existing opportunities for the children and a wide choice for their parents; we examined the disadvantages of having schools in widely separated buildings, and we considered whether the premises and staffs were adequate for their proposed role.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord for that Answer, but is he aware that it is a typically muddled Answer? Is he aware that parental choice is a myth and has never operated for secondary education? Can he explain how parental choice can operate when the decision whether or not a child goes to a grammar or a secondary modern school is determined by a selective test at the age of eleven? Is he further aware that if only two selective schools had been left in Birmingham, Birmingham would not have had a comprehensive scheme, in that there would have had to be a selective test for all Birmingham children just for those two schools? Is he aware that this is really in line with what Mrs. Thatcher has said all along: that she is going to allow only a certain number of comprehensive schools and will retain selection in some form in most places in the country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think I made it clear from my original Answer that we did not approach this problem in any doctrinaire attitude such as the noble Baroness implies. The kind of choice she describes is not the only kind of choice which needs to be kept open for the parents. I think this is a difficult subject to discuss thoroughly and extensively in answer to a Parliamentary Question, but if the noble Baroness would like to put down an Unstarred Question, we might go into the whole matter more thoroughly.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the Minister stated that among many factors
244
to which attention was given by the Department was the weight of local objections. Is he aware that there is tremendous opposition in Kent to the three-tier system which has been proposed by the local authority and which is a real "dog's dinner", and that many people in that part of the world are under the impression that the Government will accept schemes in accordance with their own political philosophy and reject those that are not?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am aware of the situation in a number of counties, but I think 112 schools in Birmingham are quite enough for one Parliamentary Question.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that the right honourable lady, Mrs. Thatcher, despite all her ability, has not accepted the paramount need to-day to educate most of our children and not just some of them, and that this latest refusal to accept the Birmingham proposals is another proof of what she feels about these things?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not accept that because, in fact, of these 100 or so proposals, 52 have been approved.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, in connection with the attitude that has been displayed towards the Birmingham proposals for reorganisation of secondary education—and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said in his original reply—will he say, as simply as he can, whether he and the Secretary of State are opposed to consortia arrangements in general, or whether their opposition is in regard to the Birmingham proposals in particular; and, if the latter, could he give the reasons?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly, my Lords. My right honourable friend is certainly not opposed to the principle of consortia in general, but in this particular case a system hitherto untried in Birmingham was being devised, not for two or three schools here and four or five there, but over the entire city and for each and every one of the 92 schools of the authority. On the evidence provided for my right honourable friend, she did not feel that sufficient experience and preparation had been made to be certain that this

245
system would work. But she has given approval to the proposals in two of these consortia, and she looks forward very much to seeing how the arrangements will work out in practice.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, in connection with the last remarks of the noble Lord, that not sufficient consideration has been given, is it not a fact that these proposals were considered not only by the local authority but by the teachers as well, and that it was the considered opinion of the local authority and the teachers that this was a workable scheme? Is he further aware that when I was Minister I met the Birmingham Tory local authority on many occasions to try to get them to adopt a comprehensive scheme; that they always refused, and we had no power to compel them to do so? Is he not also aware that Mrs. Thatcher has said on many occasions that she believes in local authority autonomy, yet she is imposing her will on the Birmingham local authority?
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that what weighed with the Minister were local objections to the Birmingham scheme. Is he saying that he is prepared to let a minority opinion override the considered opinion of the majority of citizens of Birmingham through their local education committee?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I said that the weight of local objections was one among a number of factors which were considered. In some cases we have taken decisions which overrode those objections. But I am sure the noble Lord will agree that when objections for which the Statute provides are received they should be weighed in the balance.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to reply Ito the questions put by my noble friend Lady Bacon, particularly in regard to the autonomy of local education authorities? At what point does the Secretary of State feel that she—and indeed at what point does the noble Lord the Minister himself feel that he—is able to make a better judgment than the local education authority? And when can local education authorities anticipate that they will be given that degree of control which has been promised them so long by this
246
Government? In fact, the opposite has been the case; they have lost power.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House will know that the system we are operating here is that provided in Section 13 of the Education Act. It is a combination of local judgment and central Government decision.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, may I have a reply to my questions?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in all that exchange I am not quite sure which questions I have left unanswered.
BARONESS BACON: One was whether or not it was a fact that this scheme had been drawn up by the teachers and the local authorities. The second was the point that my noble friend has just dealt with, about local autonomy.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree that the views of the teachers are also important, but there are also the governors and the parents to be considered.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, was the scheme agreed between the local authority and the teachers?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the schemes here are schemes put forward by the Roman Catholic Diocese, the Church of England Diocese and the local education authority, and it is up to them as to what consultations they carry out.
LORD SHEPHERD: And they agreed?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Then is the noble Lord in point of fact agreeing (he nodded in reply) that this is the case? I think we want to get this matter quite clearly on the Record. Is the noble Lord aware that there is growing discontent throughout the country at the unjustifiable decisions that are being made, and that these decisions are regarded as purely doctrinaire and opposed to the best interests of the children of the country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would not agree with that. Indeed, I think the boot is on the other foot. A number of proposals are coming to us which are the result of pursuing doctrinaire policies, against the evidence of

247
all the practical local considerations on the ground.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while accepting the importance of the point of view of the teachers in this matter, can the noble Lord say whether the Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, is required to take their views specifically into consideration, or whether they have any special statutory position in this matter?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as noble Lords know, the position is that the local education authority, or in some cases Church authorities, have the duty to put forward proposals under Section 13. There is a two-month period for the lodging of objections, after which it is for the Secretary of State to take a decision.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would answer the second part of my question. I am getting rather worried. He told us that the Spiritual Lords had found their spiritual home there; but in view of the large numbers of noble Lords on this side and the frequent defeats the Government have sustained recently, where are his numbers to back up the Government this afternoon? Are they now having instruction in family planning in anticipation of to-morrow's proceedings?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has queried the number of noble Lords sitting on these Benches at any particular time. On one occasion, at his special request the House adjourned so that noble Lords could come into the Chamber. The House reassembled, the Government speaker got up to make an important speech, and there were exactly six noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may address my remarks again to the Leader of the House, and not to the angry Government Chief Whip, may I suggest that he might persuade his noble friend to take life a little more calmly?

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.10 p.m.
TILE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Outline of basic scheme contributory system]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("5(9)") and insert ("5(10)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords. Amendment No. 1 being consequential on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if in moving Amendment No. 1 I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4. 27 and 41. The object of these Amendments is to secure that any special Class 4 contribution collected under Clause 5(9) is separately calculated and collected from any "normal" Class 4 contribution under Clause 5, subsections (1) to (8). For example, if the same person had £2,000 of earnings from "deemed" self-employment, and also £2,000 of profits and gains from genuine self-employment, the Amendment would secure that two separate contributions of, in Bill terms. 5 per cent. of the difference between £2,000 and £1,150 were collected—not a single contribution on aggregate earnings of £4,000. Although the latter course would be right in strict logic, the legal and administrative problems in making provision for the association of two entirely different kinds of earnings, and two entirely different systems of collection, would be quite out of scale given that such cases will in practice never, or very seldom, arise. In short, these are precautionary Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what benefit the contributor would receive as a consequence of this Amendment?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the instance I gave was an example; it was not a description of a particular benefit.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the first intervention was by way of asking a question before the noble Earl sat down. Is it not a fact that the Government are introducing Amendments to give a benefit to a contributor who will be in the higher salary or income profit bracket, and yet at a later part of the Bill the Government are not prepared to grant tax concessions to those who make contributions by Statute to the Reserve Pension Fund? Is this a basis of equity?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord is not right. The whole purpose of this provision under Clause 5 is to see that certain people who are deemed to be self-employed, although they are in fact receiving a normal form of salary, do not pay less than they otherwise would.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Class 2 contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 20, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27 and insert—

("(i) those earnings are such that (disregarding their amount) he would be liable for Class 1 contributions in respect of them if he were not so treated in respect of the employment, and

(ii) no Class 4 contribution is payable in respect of the earnings by virtue of regulations under section 5(9) of this Act.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical and drafting Amendment. A drafting Amendment to Clause 3(4)(b) is in any event necessary because of the Amendment to Clause 5 to which I have already spoken, to tie up with the fact that the new Clause 5(9) no longer refers to deemed "profits or gains". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Class 4contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("and (9)") and insert ("to (10)")
Page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) Provision may be made by regulations so that where—

(a) an earner, in respect of any one or more employments of his, is treated by
250
regulations under section 1(8)(b) of this Act as being self-employed; and

(b) in any year he has earnings from any such employment (one or more) which fall within section 3(4)(b)(i), but is not liable for a higher weekly rate of Class 2 contributions by virtue of regulations under that subsection; and

(c) the total of those earnings exceeds £1,150,

he is to be liable, in respect of those earnings, to pay a Class 4 contribution of an amount equal to 5 per cent, of so much of the total as exceeds £1,150 and does not exceed £2,500.
(10) It shall be for the Secretary of State and not the Inland Revenue to recover Class 4 contributions payable by virtue of regulations under subsection (9) above and generally to be responsible for the relevant administration; and regulations may in relation to contributions so payable—

(a) apply any of the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act (except a provision conferring power to make regulations); and

(b) make any such provision as may be made by regulations under that Schedule, except paragraph 5.").—(The Earl of Cowrie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [General power to limit, and otherwise regulate, liability for contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("that") to ("liability") in line 5 and insert ("their")
Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("prescribed") to. ("contributions") in line 8 and insert—
("(1A) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) above may provide—

(a) for an earner whose liability is subject to a maximum prescribed thereunder to be liable in the first instance for the full amount of any contributions due from him apart from the regulations, or to be relieved from liability for such contributions in prescribed circumstances and to the prescribed extent; and

(b) for").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together, if that is your Lordships' wish. These are both largely technical Amendments which will give more flexibility in the operation of Clause 6(1). This is the provision which enables annual contribution maxima to be prescribed to cater for circumstances in which persons have more than one employment, or are both employed and self-employed at the same time. As now drafted, the provision

251
would enable excess contributions to be refunded, but would not enable liability to be excused in advance—since the provision is
"without prejudice to.… liability in the first instance for the full amounts payable … ".
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Annual review of contributions]:
Clause 8 [Additional power to alter figures in Sections 2 to 5]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together, if that is your Lordships' wish. These Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 4, to which I have already spoken.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 11, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
("(5A) An order under this section, if it contains an amendment altering either of the figures specified in section 5(2), shall make the same alteration of the corresponding figure specified in section 5(9)").
Clause 8, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) An order under subsection (1) above shall, if it contains an amendment altering the percentage rate for Class 4 contributions specified in section 5(2), make the same alteration of the percentage rate specified in section 5(9)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Description of benefits; the earnings factor; crediting of contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 16, line 44, leave out ("longer or shorter than") and insert ("or not a period of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment will enable a benefit year to be prescribed of exactly twelve months beginning on a day other than the first Sunday in January, in addition to the power to prescribe a benefit year of longer or shorter than twelve months. The additional power will be needed for the future, in case it becomes possible to provide for an earlier start to the benefit year. It was always the intention to have this power.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a direct question: will this make it better for the person who is drawing out, or more difficult?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am a great believer in straight answers, but that is not a question pertaining to this particular Amendment. This Amendment is a protective provision in case it becomes possible to provide for an earlier start to the benefit year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I point out that if it is changing the point of time at which one collects one's benefit, it must affect certain individuals who will be drawing those benefits.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this provision is to make it more flexible. I think the noble Baroness at one time was saying that the benefit year should be closer to the contribution period, and this Amendment will allow that to happen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Invalidity benefit]:
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH)BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert—
("(8) Where the earnings of a person entitled to invalidity pension, being a person who has not reached pensionable age, have exceeded £9·50 for the week ending last before any week for which he is entitled to the invalidity pension, the weekly rate of pension for the last-mentioned week shall be reduced—

(a) where the excess is less than £4, by 5 pence for each complete 10 pence of the excess, and

(b) where the excess is not less than £4, by 5 pence for each complete 10 pence of the excess up to £4 and by 5 pence for each complete 5 pence of any further excess.

Provided that this subsection shall not affect the rate of the invalidity pension and invalidity allowance for the first week after the date of the beneficiary's entitlement to the pension.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg leave to move this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Crawshaw. It aims to put the invalidity pensioner on a par with the wife of such a pensioner and with normal retirement pensioners. The retirement pensioner may earn up to £9·50 a week before the sliding earnings rule is applied,

253
whereas the invalidity pensioner can earn only £4·50 a week before forfeiting his entire pension at one fell blow. The retirement pensioners' earnings rule may be a disincentive to work, but it is not quite the effective deterrent facing the invalidity pensioner who will lose his entire pension as soon as he earns more than £4·50 a week.
Let us look first at the objections to this Amendment put up by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, at Committee stage. First, the noble Lord said that he felt we should wait for the results of the review of all the benefits for the disabled; but, as many noble Lords pointed out, reviews tend to be long drawn out, and research is, by its very nature, unending. The second objection was that the Amendment would introduce an entirely new concept of invalidity benefit. The noble Lord admitted that it would proably not cost very much, but explained that invalidity benefit was paid only to an insured person whose physical or mental condition rendered him incapable of working. The existing concept that the invalidity pensioner is incapable of work, that he is permanently retired, is entirely out of line with to-day's idea of rehabilitation. Indeed, in another place, supporters of the Government argued that one of D.I.G.'s Amendments was unacceptable, precisely because it necessitated categorising a disabled person as incapable of ever working again. Another point is that the concept is apparently that the invalidity pensioner must be incapable of working if he is to draw his pension, but the retirement pensioner can be recognised as retired and yet still working and benefiting from the earnings rule. There is an anomaly here.
The noble Lord's third point was that if a change of the earnings rule were considered the position of all disabled people in full-time open or sheltered employment must be taken into account. If there were a sliding earnings rule a pensioner doing a fairly limited amount of work might earn more than a disabled person who was a low wage earner, and who had never received invalidity benefit, could get working full-time. As to those in open employment, there can be no argument for tying their earnings down to the lowest wage earner, and this argument did not arise when considering the earnings rule for the wife of an invalidity
254
pensioner. There is no limit to the income that the wife can earn—the invalidity pensioner will forfeit only the dependant's allowance. This is, of course, as it should be. As for the comparison with those in sheltered employment, the wages in some sheltered workshops are ludicrously low and cannot be a reason for maintaining other disabled people at a similarly low level of income. In fact, I would hope that the employees of some sheltered workshops would benefit from this particular Amendment.
Let me now turn from the objections to the argument put up by the disabled themselves. The first argument is that the earnings stop is a severe deterrent to full rehabilitation. Nothing can faster undermine the spirit of a disabled person than having to accept complete inactivity—mental deterioration sets in and physical deterioration follows. On the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, when speaking on his Amendment to abolish the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, said that a wise geriatrician told him that illness tends to fill the gap formerly occupied by the job. He argued that it might well cost the Health Service a good deal more to look after the old who had been discouraged from working than it would cost the Exchequer to abolish the earnings rule. My Lords, the same is true of the disabled. I have it on good authority that disabled people in employment keep fitter than those who do not work. There are also fewer wives with nervous breakdowns and fewer disturbed children when the husband is interested and satisfied in a worthwhile job, and is supporting the family and pulling his weight, instead of moping about the house, deteriorating mentally and physically, and in a state of enforced premature retirement.
The second argument is that the earnings stop in many cases makes it financially impossible for the disabled person to return to work. I know of a man with bronchial asthma who can work only intermittently. When he is able to work his earnings would be more than £4.50 a week, and therefore he just cannot afford to work. Do the Government want these people back in employment? It cannot be done this way. The earnings stop condemns a man to remain idle for the rest of his life. There is another point against the earnings stop. If there is a

255
ceiling of £4·50 a week some employers may be influenced into offering £4·50 a week for whatever a disabled person is doing and may take this figure as the maximum wage for disabled people.
Surely, my Lords, the right to work is a basic human right; that is all we are asking for. This Amendment seeks to remove the serious disincentive to full rehabilitation which condemns a man to a life of total inactivity when he could be supporting his family, paying his taxes and contributing usefully to the community. Many of your Lordships on all sides of the House spoke on this Amendment during Committee with interest, sympathy and understanding, and I hope that to-day you will give it your full support.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Baroness in moving this Amendment—sympathy for the Amendment itself and for the circumstances under which she moved it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will remember that on Committee there was a full debate and noble Lords from all quarters of the House spoke in support and were generally sympathetic. There is no doubt at all as to what would have been the consequences of the vote on that occasion if there had been a Division.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, then rose to support the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, by pointing out that the Committee was relatively thin in numbers and it would be quite wrong in those circumstances to have a vote on an Amendment of principle. My Lords, when the noble Baroness spoke the House on the other side was a good deal thinner than was the Committee. I would hazard a guess that since the noble Baroness spoke in support of this Amendment, deploying it, at least fifty noble Lords opposite have come from some other quarter of the building, and I doubt whether they are in any position to make a judgment upon the quality of, and the case for, the Amendment. My Lords, I think it would be difficult to ask the noble Baroness to repeat the very full case that she made, but I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, recognising the difficulties of the noble Baroness, and also those of the Committee in response to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in not proceeding
256
with a Division on that occasion, will be more forthcoming than he was on Committee; that the period of reflection which the Committee decided to give him has been amply rewarded, and that we shall have a very sympathetic and satisfactory answer to an Amendment which I believe ought to commend itself to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment I should like to give one example. It is of a married man, aged 39, with a wife and six children. He has bronchial asthma and at the moment receives an invalidity pension of £23·85 per week. He would like to work at home and is learning to type and to do leather work, at which he is extremely good. But it will obviously take him some time before he can build up his earnings to replace the £23·85 invalidity pension. As things stand at the moment when he gets to the point of earning beyond £4·50 he loses the whole of his £23·85.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, this is an identical Amendment to one that I moved at the Committee stage, and therefore I naturally wish to give it my full support. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, I think we gained first innings points on that occasion, and I think that was widely recognised. I also felt that my noble friend Lord Aberdare was receptive and I hope that with more time he might come to terms with the Government and be talking the same language. As the matter was left in limbo, I think it is right that it should have another airing this afternoon. I hope I will not bore your Lordships, many of whom may be feeling that you have only to add the prefix "social" to find yourselves agreeing with the witch in Macbeth who maintained that, "security is mortals' chiefest enemy". I shall not need to restate all the arguments that were advanced on the previous occasion, but I think a brief outline of the case can again be made for those who were not here before.
The object of the Amendment is to encourage the long-term sick or impaired to get back into worthwhile though probably partial employment as soon as possible. To their credit, the Government have created the concept of an invalidity pension as an extended form of sickness

257
benefit to look after the needs of those incapable of any work at all, and this can easily amount to £19 or £20 per week. So far, so good; but the trouble starts when the pensioner wants to get back into some sort of work. As soon as he earns more than £4·50 he loses all entitlement to pension and usually cannot afford to take this risk. My noble friends have quoted examples of this and I quoted one at the Committee stage. The evil of unemployment is something of which we hear a good deal and is usually created unintentionally and in spite of strenuous efforts by the Government to prevent it. Here the evil is allied to other numerous psychological and physical problems of disablement, and I do not think I exaggerate when I say it is positively fertilised and encouraged by Statute. An additional effect of this policy is that between 32 per cent. and 37 per cent. of invalidity pensioners have to resort to supplementary benefit, which is an avoidable charge on the taxpayer. What we seek with this modest Amendment is to put the invalidity pensioners in the same position as the wife of an invalidity pensioner and as the retirement pensioner who can earn up to £9·50 a week without pension rights being affected. I know that our present Foreign Secretary is an exceptional man, but in theory at any rate, he can draw full pension as well as earning as much as he can. So why remove the invalidity pensioner's rights as soon as he earns a modest £4·50? Can we not give him some purpose and more incentive? My Lords, I wish to support my noble friends.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, which has been so lucidly and eloquently moved. I have no sympathy at all with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who always groans and moans about the number of people in the House when he knows perfectly well that that is completely outside anybody's control. I am sure that he would be the first person to acknowledge that there are lots of occasions on which many of us, including the noble Lord, have not been present yet have taken a view on certain matters.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is always fair. I was repeating an appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made during the Committee stage, that we should not vote on
258
this important issue because of the small number of Members present. I was only drawing attention to the difficulties of the noble Baroness in moving an Amendment in what was then a relatively thin House.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not really think that the noble Lord needed to bring this matter to our attention. But still I hope very much indeed that there will be no vote, because I trust I am sufficiently sympathetic to the mover of the Amendment to make it unnecessary to divide. At the Committee stage, I expressed my sympathy and said that I would have further conversations with those who are interested in this point, and this I have been able to do. I was pleased to meet yesterday some of those noble Lords who are interested in this subject and we had a very useful discussion. The problem with this Amendment is that it substitutes, for a benefit which is paid to those who are incapable of work, a benefit payable to those who are disabled. Because it does that by an approach through a relatively minor provision affecting the existing benefit, it inevitably changes the character of invalidity pension in a way which we find difficult to accept and which might indeed be unworkable. I say that it might be unworkable, because it would create a situation in which a doctor was being requested to issue a medical certificate on the basis of incapacity for employment to someone working full-time and earning perhaps £20 a week.
With retirement pension, which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned, we are dealing with a benefit which at 70 becomes an old age pension and escapes completely from the earnings rule. With invalidity benefit we are dealing with a benefit which throughout, hitherto, has been based on incapacity for work. Clearly, at some point the fact of working becomes inconsistent with receipt of a benefit on account of being unable to work. Another factor to be considered is that if the main concern is rehabilitation—which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness and which we also have very great interest in and sympathy with—and if cash benefits are thought to have a bearing on incentives, then we must also look very closely at the level of provision for the invalidity pensioner,

259
for the trainee in an industrial rehabilitation unit, for the Remploy worker and for others, and it is not easy to get the balance right.
I should like to emphasise, as I did earlier, that the present £4·50 disqualification, which was raised only last year from £2, is not in fact an earnings rule in the accepted sense. It was always seen as a therapeutic allowance because, traditionally, it is related to "earnings" from work done, usually in hospital, under medical supervision. Once a job comes into the employment category, it may be inconsistent with incapacity for work whatever the earnings it produces. I would add that few of those who are undergoing therapy and earning a little money in the process are likely to be earning as much as £4·50 a week. Even so, the £4·50 is not sacrosanct and we are taking it into account in our review of benefits. We also have very much in mind the question of some form of provision for the working disabled. But what I must stress is that we should not confuse the two issues. I take the point that the Amendment makes, but to carry it into the Bill would make nonsense of an important benefit with a number of new features which I think we are all anxious to develop sensibly.
On many occasions during the Committee stage I spoke of the review of social security benefit for the disabled which the Government are undertaking. In fact, an Amendment was carried against us at the Committee stage in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which was designed specifically to ensure that that review is completed by a certain date. We have given very careful consideration to this point, and we have accepted the principle which the noble Baroness argued on that occasion. As throughout the Committee stage, where the disabled are concerned. I depended on this review taking place, it is right that there should be a time limit on it. The noble Baroness has kindly put down to-day a slightly modified Amendment, Amendment No. 15B on the Marshalled List, which I shall advise your Lordships in due course to accept. This will mean that the Government will be obliged to
"… review social security provision for chronically sick and disabled persons, and shall
260
lay a report on his review before Parliament by 31st October 1974."
This will be a wide-ranging review, concerned essentially with looking at what we are doing already, at how far that measures up to the need which can be identified, and at what further provisions ought to be, and could be, made.
We are interested in all the points that were raised during the Committee stage on the question of disablement. We are interested in the employed disabled, to which this Amendment refers; we are interested in the disabled housewives, who were the subject of another Amendment moved by noble Baronesses opposite; we are interested in the children and in the elderly, who constitute the great majority of the disabled; and of course, we are also concerned about those who care for the disabled or who have to care for them—their families. In looking at these needs, we are looking, too, at the many suggestions made about the ways in which they might be met. This Amendment is designed to meet one need of one particular type of disabled person, and it is one need with which I confess again I have great sympathy. But I would beg the noble Baroness who moved this Amendment, and her noble friends, not to press it to-day, because by doing so they would pre-empt the review that I have said we are undertaking, on which I am firmly putting a final date. If we pre-empt that review by writing into the Bill one particular type of help, we shall make it very difficult to make a thorough review and to get our priorities right in the long run. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept from me that this Government are indeed extremely interested in the needs of the disabled and that we have shown it by our actions. In the uprating Bill, which is reaching your Lordships' House to-morrow, we have put extra emphasis on the invalidity allowance; we have shown throughout our deep interest in the disabled; we are conducting this review, and we have put a date on its completion. I very much hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, does the Minister say that he wishes to shelve this question until after the review has been made, some time late in 1974, with all that that implies? Surely legislation will

261
have to be brought in to give effect to a new sot of recommendations. What this small but very powerful little lobby in front of us here is trying to do is to remedy something that needs to be remedied now. I am perfectly certain that there is hardly anybody in this House, if this Amendment goes to a Division now—and I hope that there will be one on it failing a more forthcoming statement from the Minister—who would not support it. In a home where there has been slow progress back to a sort of normality, this would give a man or a woman—and I have two cases in mind now—some standard of living that they have really worked hard to achieve, the whole family working with them on it. The cost to the Government to do it now would be chicken-feed. I hope that this Amendment will be pressed.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten me a little further. I am always convinced of the deep sincerity with which he speaks, but I confess that I totally fail to understand what harm would be done by the acceptance of this particular Amendment. What did the noble Lord mean by saying that it would pre-empt what was going on? Did he mean that the people who were considering disablement benefits in the larger sense would be precluded from giving a thought to this problem in future? That seems to me so difficult to understand.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the Minister replies I should like to follow up this point. The Minister appeared to advance two arguments, the first of which was the question of preempting the review. This I found rather difficult to follow. But I found the other argument equally difficult to follow; namely, that by giving a little more we should change the character of the invalidity pension. This particular subsection is within a Bill—and I should like to emphasise this point once again —which does not take effect until the year 1975. The Minister made reference to the fact that the £4·50 allowed now largely covers work done within the hospitals. Surely in 1975, which is when this Act will be first effective, £4·50 will be worth even less than it is now—and it is not worth very much now. So I cannot follow the line of argument that
262
to increase the exemption would be to do something which changed the character of the invalidity benefit. This is within a Bill which deals with other kinds of benefits, so the only thing that can be changed is the figure—and the Minister has told us that the figure is not sacrosanct. If it is not sacrosanct, then it can easily be changed now, because I would remind your Lordships again that we are legislating for the future. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred to this provision taking effect now. We are not asking for it now. It may be asked for in another way, but in this particular Bill we are thinking about the future.
My Lords, work is a great therapy. Anybody who has gone through any period of stress or strain knows the great virtue of work; and anybody who is suffering from an incapacity and who has the courage to go out and earn a little should be encouraged to do so. Indirectly, it would assist the State as the noble Baroness has pointed out. If you do not support in one way those who cannot work, then you will certainly have to support them through the supplementary benefits. So I would ask the Minister not to accept the rather limited argument which he advanced on two fronts, and to show that he can accept something which will be merely flexible.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid we are getting very near a Committee stage. I have no right of reply, but if the House is willing to give me leave because of the speeches which have been made and because this is a very important point, may I briefly answer those who have spoken? My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is this. I do not know whether he was here at the Committee stage, but there is an enormous number of people who want special help given in special areas relating to the disabled. Now resources are not limitless. We must strike a balance; we must get our priorities right; and we must look at all the claims before we can decide how best to help which one. That is the first point I would put to the noble Lord.
To the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I would say that the other point I was trying to make is that, historically, invalidity benefit has always been paid to

263
people who cannot work, and the little bit over and above (it was only £1 at one time; then it became £2; then it became £4·50, and there is nothing to stop it from going higher if need be) is purely to give them some little incentive for the small amount of work that some of them may be able to do despite the fact that they are medically certified as being unable to work. If you give them the benefit of the full earnings rule, which this Amendment wishes to do, what about those other people who are very severely disabled but are not drawing invalidity pension because they are not certified as unable to work and who are getting only what they can earn and no sort of benefit? If this Amendment is passed, you create an anomaly between those who are medically certified as unable to work but who are working and getting the benefit, and those who may be almost completely disabled but are not certified as unable to work, and who do not get the benefit. There are many categories of people concerned among the disabled working people, and this is one large category of people whose position we want to look at and review completely. We want to take into account all the suggestions which have been made before we say, "Yes, this is the right one to go for".
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I was rather alarmed to hear the phrase "therapeutic allowance" used once again in defence of the invalidity pension. I must emphasise that I believe that that concept is entirely out of line with present-day thinking on rehabilitation. However, I feel it is most important to have a more comprehensive policy dealing with all the types of disabled, including those who do not pay, and have not been in a position to pay, National Insurance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has pointed out, the Act will not come into force until 1975, and a truly comprehensive review and statement of policy in 1974 would be extremely valuable. If your Lordships have been impressed by the arguments of my noble friends and myself—and I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have given us tremendous support for this Amendment—I hope you will assist to make sure that the review is well-informed and comprehensive, and that it
264
is acted upon by whatever Government are in office. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Disqualifications and special conditions]:
3.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendments No. 11 to No. 14:
Page 23, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("properly notified to him ").
Page 23, leave out line 40, leave out from ("any") to ("with") in line 41 and insert ("official recommendations given to him"). Page 25, leave out lines 7 and 8.
Page 23, leave out line 26, after ("not") insert—
"(ca)"properly notified", in subsection (2)(b), means notified by an employment exchange, the Employment Service Agency, a local education authority or some other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer.;
(cb) "official recommendations", in subsection (2)(d), means recommendations in writing made by an officer of an employment exchange, the Employment Service Agency or a local education authority;
(cc) "employment exchange" has the same meaning as in the Employment and Training Act 1948").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 together. As your Lordships will be aware, the current Employment and Training Bill is at present under consideration by your Lordships' House. These technical Amendments are needed to cover the situation which will arise when the term "employment exchanges" is replaced under new provisions in the current Employment and Training Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Widow's allowance]:
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 31, line 5, leave out from ("death") to end of line 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to a point that I raised in Committee, and because I feel so strongly about it I should like to move this Amendment. The same point occurs in the next Amendment which I propose to move formally. Your Lordships will be aware that at present certain benefits cease from

265
the time of a widow's remarriage or if she cohabits with a man as his wife. This applies also to the widow's allowance, to the widowed mother's allowance, to the widow's pension under the basic scheme and to the widow's pension under the reserve scheme. If we take the case of a widow who remarries, it may be reasonable to assume that the second husband has a duty to provide for her; but if we consider the widowed mother we have a different case. Here the second husband will have to be responsible for the children of the first marriage. When we come to the question of cohabitation I would submit, as I did on Second Reading, that this is a curiously humiliating clause for anybody to read in a pensions book. It is interesting to note that it does not appear in the retirement pensions book. As I have said before, presumably one has a licence to cohabit provided one waits until one reaches a reasonable age to do so. I would emphasise that the social security officers are very small in number and it seems to me appalling that these people should be used to carry out a role of this kind. They can find out if a woman is living with a man as his wife only by making inquiries.
There has never been any evidence that there have been other than a very small number of cases. I have learned over the years that Governments of all kinds do not, in the main, respond to appeals to their heart but will sometimes accept appeals to the head. I would suggest that the amount of money, time and energy spent in finding out whether people are living together is a matter which, in this day and age, should not be concerned with and should not be written into an Act of Parliament. I would seriously say that if we are moving into the next period when this will be a very revolutionary Act, bringing in many changes and many benefits, this is the moment when we could leave out this totally unnecessary clause. To many of the widows who feel very strongly about it, it is a kind of humiliation. I cited previously the case of the widow who dared to look at television with the man who lived next door. This may be putting the matter at its most ridiculous, but once there is this kind of clause it will flourish on gossip. How else do you discover this kind of thing? I would say seriously that the time has come to leave out of an Act of Par
266
liament this kind of squalid and totally uneconomic matter. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has returned to a point that she raised at the Committee stage and she has been perfectly frank about her wishes. The effect of her Amendments would be to remove the remarriage and cohabitation disqualification for widow's allowance, widowed mother's allowance and widows' pensions. Social Security widows' benefits have always been subject to a remarriage and cohabitation disqualification—even before 1948. The benefits are designed to provide a cash benefit to a woman who has lost her husband who is normally the main provider for her and the children of their marriage. To continue payment of a widow's benefit after remarriage or after cohabitation, which is what the noble Baroness is after, would give a remarried or a cohabiting widow financial help at a time when in fact she has resumed the position she was in before she was widowed; that is to say, she again has someone to whom she can look for support.
When a widow who is in receipt of widow's benefit remarries, one would expect her new husband to assume the financial responsibility for her and for her dependants. Accordingly, widows' benefits cease on remarriage. In our view, if a widow cohabits with a man as his wife she ought not to be placed in a better position financially than if she were to marry him. Therefore, a cohabiting widow is similarly disqualified from receiving widows' benefits. Despite the difficulty of establishing cohabitation, it seems to me to be wrong to encourage people to think that they are in a different position, so far as a widow's benefit is concerned, if they cohabit from what they are if they marry.
These Amendments would also open the gates to widows' benefits to those widows who do not at present claim the benefits because at the time of the husband's death they were already separated and living with another man. It would not be generally right that a woman who was already cohabiting at the time of the husband's death, and whose financial circumstances would be little changed by his death, should benefit by such a change in the law as the noble Baroness is suggesting.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is retrospective? That is very unusual in this kind of legislation.
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, it is not retrospective. What happens now is that when a man dies and his wife has been separated for some time and living with another man, she does not claim widow's benefit. Under the noble Baroness's Amendment she probably could and would. Moreover, when one looks at the priorities, thinking in terms of financial cost, the acceptance of these Amendments would cost a lot of money, amounting ultimately to between £40 million and £50 million a year. Even if there were no retrospection, the costs would build up rapidly, to about £25 million a year after ten years and to £40 million a year by the end of the century. In these circumstances, although I know that the noble Baroness is deeply sincere in her feeling about this, I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept her Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, there is one slight point. I rather agree with what the noble Lord has said about cohabitation but, so far as remarriage is concerned, it does not follow that the second husband is necessarily in any position to take over the financial responsibility. He may not be very well off himself. A woman is going to be put into a very difficult position if she is in receipt of widow's benefit and has to make a choice between accepting the proposal of a would-be husband and losing her widow's benefit, or refusing him and keeping it.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, is it really not possible for the noble Lord to reconsider this matter between now and Third Reading? I very much support what the noble Baroness has said about the sordid prying which must inevitably go on to establish whether cohabitation is taking place. Anybody who has ever seen the kind of things which went on to establish a case under the divorce laws previously, knows what a totally unsatisfactory and repugnant business this is. For the Social Security people to be spending time stirring up gossip to find out whether Mrs. X is living with Mr. Y, when it gets down to local level and regarding it in human terms, seems to
268
me quite repugnant. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can be very familiar with this kind of situation if he thinks that when a woman cohabits with a man she is going to get the man to pay the bills. I strongly suspect that it does not work out that way—I speak on hearsay. To assume that a woman living with a man gets the same kind of financial support as a wife has good reason to expect, is normally very wide of the mark, I am certain.
I see the difficulty about the Amendment. If you do not include cohabitation but take away the pension when a woman remarries, there is a strong inducement to continue cohabitation and draw the pension rather than to marry and lose it. The way out of this would be if a remarried wife were permitted to draw the pension for a five-year period. That would be long enough not to be a disincentive to marriage and it would deal with the problem of children of a previous marriage who would be substantially off their parents' hands at the end of the five-year period. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to take this back and look at it again and remove from this very important Bill what I think in ten years' time will be regarded as something extraordinarily outdated and unacceptable?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her support. I was interested in the figures which the Minister produced. I assume that the figures are based on the number of people who remarry, because the Minister could not assess how many people cohabit. It would be a problem similar to that of the number of illegal immigrants: how can you count heads when you do not know where they are? It is an interesting thought that there are that number of people who would be affected. I left the two situations in the Amendment quite deliberately because of the argument which has been advanced by the noble Baroness that no one who remarried would gain anything. I would emphasise that in respect of benefit drawn from the State as seemed to emerge from the discussion on the last Amendment, the moment that you have other moneys the taxation position acts as a regulator. It is unlikely that anyone, whether sick, handicapped, widowed or retired, will collect so much money from the State,

269
because the tax system will see to it that they do not.
I plead again with the Minister to look at this matter once more. We are legislating for the future and I cannot believe that this affects so many people. It is interesting that such figures can be produced, but they must be very inaccurate projections because we have no way of assessing what this would cost in the future. I beg the Minister to give me at least a crumb of comfort by saying that he will look at this again before the next stage.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, again we are getting into a Committee stage and this is Report stage, and noble Lords must not ask me continually to answer questions. I cannot give the assurance for which the noble Baroness has asked. We do not feel that it would be right to preempt a lot of money for remarrying widows or the cohabiting widows.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 20 [Widowed mother's allowance]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 14B:
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 21 [Widow's pension]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 14C:
Page 32, line 30 leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the same point, but I should like to mention one other matter because the Minister cannot make more than one comment and perhaps he will make it at this time. If the noble Lord makes a statement it is a little difficult because I do not know any way in which one can elicit more information except by resorting to the old technique of saying, "Before the noble Lord sits down …." or interrupting the Minister, which I do not like to do. Here we are back to the same clause referring to remarriage and cohabitation. I should like to point out what appears to me to be a mistake. A young widow may
270
receive a reduced pension because she comes into the pension bracket at an earlier age. In previous debates I asked the Minister whether this widow would receive the lower pension until she was aged 50, 60 or 65. Now we see that she will receive it until the age of 65. Yet in Clause 23, which we shall discuss later, we see that pensionable age in the case of a man means 65 and in the case of a woman 60. If the pensionable age is 60, why is this young widow receiving a reduced benefit until the age of 65?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that the normal retiring age for a woman is 60, but Clause 21(3) limits the payment of widow's pension to women below the age of 65. It is to benefit the widow that it extends to 65 rather than to the normal retiring age of 60, because at 65 the woman is deemed to be retired even if she is still working, so a retirement pension will be payable at either the same or a higher rate. During the period between age 60 and her 65th birthday some widows will need to continue to rely on a widow's pension because they cannot satisfy the retirement conditions.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, that is exactly what I mean. I have to ask the Minister this question. I know that the widow will get the pension at 65, but I can give a practical case of a young widow who at the age of 42 receives the princely sum of £3·60 a week. Why should she receive only £3·60 a week until she is 65?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the age is 60.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It says 65.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I take up this point with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber because I think that would be more convenient. Normally a widow or any woman can draw her pension at age 60, the full retirement pension, but in the case of a widow such as the noble Baroness is talking about with the reduced widow's benefit, if she goes on working and has not retired after 60, she can still go on receiving her extra reduced allowance between 60 and 65. She has not retired.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 23 [Matters affecting entitlement to pension]:
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 14D:
Page 34, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert ("no less than the age of 60 and no more than 65").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to a slightly different point. As your Lordships will know, in the Bill now before us we read that the pensionable age for a man is 65 and for a woman 60. We have discussed before, on Second Reading and in Committee, that the work pattern of women in future will undoubtedly be different. It will be possible for the average woman, having brought up her children to a certain age, still to work for another 25 years. She is still asked to retire at 60, though there is no evidence that she is less capable of going on until she is 65. Equally, many men who have been in heavy physical employment have forced themselves to go on to the age of 65, when obviously they should have retired at 60.
What I am saying is that this new piece of legislation presents us with the opportunity to move away from the old-fashioned idea that a woman retired at one age and a man at another. When I gave this matter some thought I could see that I was in a dilemma. If I suggested that everyone should retire at 60, no doubt the Minister would tell me that it would be too expensive, and he would probably have the figures all worked out in his brief—another interesting projection. If, on the other hand, I suggested that women should retire at 65, this would leave many women longer in the labour market than they would like to be. I well recall presenting this case at a large meeting and saying that the retirement age should be the same for men and women. A nurse came up to me after-wards and said: "I do not want to go on working for another five years at my job. I shall have had enough at 60". This seems to emphasise the point that we are moving to the stage where there should be a flexible retiring age. A coal miner, it seems to me, should retire possibly at 50, whereas somebody in a sedentary occupation may well go on until he is 70 or 75. In other words, retirement age is a purely artificially constructed age, decided upon in a period when there
272
was a shortage of work and a surplus of people. This is no longer true. Yesterday I visited a large food factory in the centre of London, and I was informed that it is to close down because of a shortage of labour. This is an interesting point. It might be peculiar to London, but undoubtedly there is more work about. So the age of retirement is a purely artificially constructed thing. Here we have all the old concepts embodied in new legislation.
The age at which people leave off work should no longer be tied to their sex, but to the fact that they are in a certain occupation. I beg the Government to move into the future—to be "with it"—and to give us an opportunity to have a flexible retiring age, one which is devoid of the old-fashioned idea that a woman, because she lives longer, must have a lower pensionable age and is forced to retire at an age which she herself has not chosen. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us of her dilemma and her search for a more flexible system, but I am afraid she has not suggested any way out of the dilemma. The difficulty is that if one takes the standard rate of pension at the moment, it must either apply to the minimum or to the maximum age of retirement for everybody if you want to put men and women into the same scheme. If you apply the standard rate of pension to the maximum age of retirement, then any woman who at present retires between 60 and 65 would be at a disadvantage, as she would have to wait up to five more years before qualifying for the standard rate of pension. If, on the other hand, you put it at the minimum, then the additional cost would be substantial, as it would in effect be granting the option of the present standard rate pension to men at the age of 60. So we are in the same dilemma as the noble Baroness when she talks about the fixed rate. Either you have a flexibility under which people get less than they do at the moment if they retire at the bottom of the scale, which is undesirable because they may not have enough to live on later, or if you fix the bottom of the scale at the present rate of pension, then you get involved in those large figures which the noble Baroness suggested I might have in my brief, and

273
which in fact I have in my brief. The figures are that if one reduced the pension age for men from 65 to 64 it would cost £145 million, and to reduce it to 60 would cost £825 million. This is the difficulty, and one comes back to the question of priorities as to whether this is the right use for the money. We have therefore decided that, at least for the purposes of this Bill, we must stick to the present retirement age, although I admit to the noble Baroness that when we were putting the Bill together we gave consideration to reducing the pensionable age for men. It was simply a matter in that case of the enormous cost, and we did not think that women would wish to have their retirement age of 60 raised. We were in the same dilemma as the noble Baroness.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there is only one thing further I would say, and that is on the point of flexibility and the lower age. A widow already has the option of going on to a lower retirement pension at 60, or of remaining on her widow's pension if she is working because she can add increments to her final retirement pension. So there already exists some flexibility. Also, there are already a number of occupational pension schemes, for example, in the Civil Service, where men have the option to retire at 60. I do not think this is impossible to operate; in fact, I do not think anything that you really want to do is impossible to operate. That is one of the things that I learned in my short time in Government: that if you really want to do something you find a way round your difficulties; and, of course, if you do not want to do it, you call in aid a Royal Commission or something else. I do not think this is impossible. I would say that we have reached the position where we must look at this question much more earnestly and not merely write it into an Act. For the people we are talking about, I believe the operative year will be the year 2014 or something like it, and I imagine that things will have changed quite a bit by then. Perhaps people will then age more rapidly and the retirement age may be about 35. But I can see that I am not going to get very far, and I cannot ask the Minister to answer again.
274
I will just sit down and think what I am going to do about it.
LORD HOY: My Lords, before we pass from this matter may I say that it is foolish to think that you cannot get below the age of 65. I am sure we all know that there are thousands of men who at the present time retire at 60. One thinks of the Civil Service, the banks, the police and so on. I do not want the Minister to think this is an impossible business, because we have demands for it at the present time from the large unions. After all, to take the mining industry, where people have to go down into the bowels of the earth to dig out coal, surely at the age of 60 they are entitled to say that they have earned a retirement pension. These people are denied the right to a retirement pension at that age. It may well be a great struggle for them to exist between 60 and 65, and they may leave this earth altogether, never having enjoyed a pension.
I will not ask the Minister to answer, but when he says that this will cost £800 million, what he is inferring is that this £800 million will be paid by the Government. He knows that that is not so. Insurance policies are not paid for by the Government, but by those who are insured and their employers. The Government's share of the cost is very small. It does not fall on the Government as a form of national expenditure; so the noble Lord should not frighten us with the story of £800 million. That may be the total cost but it is not borne by the Government: certainly not the full cost. I think of how much insurance contributions have increased over the years and I remember that people in industry have quite willingly paid increased contributions in order to get the pensions they would like to receive. It ought to be possible to do it for men at 60 years of age, if it is possible to do it for men in industry. So I should not like the House to think that it is not done at the present time, because it is done for many thousands of people—and the cost is not borne by the Government but by the contributor and his or her employer. The Government's share, of course, is very small in comparison.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions as to Category A and B retirement pensions]
4.21 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. We had a short debate on the earnings rule late at night during the Committee stage and my noble friends and I have put down the same Amendment again for several reasons, one of which of course is to give those noble Lords who were not present in the Chamber at that time an opportunity to voice their opinions. My own reason is the conviction that the Government's defence of the earnings rule was entirely unconvincing. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was himself rather unhappy at the arguments he was putting forward, and he probably did something towards retrieving the situation, which proved to be a close vote, by claiming that no part of this clause had to do with the earnings rule, whereas the whole clause is related to it.
Most of us probably do not realise how closely all our lives are bound up with jobs and with work generally. From almost the moment that a child is born —certainly if the child is a boy—his parents will be talking about his future and will be discussing it in terms of his occupation: what will little Johnny do when he grows up? And so Johnny will be taught to think in the same terms. It might have been that once upon a time he would have wanted to be an engine driver: now he may want to be a truck driver or an air pilot—it does not matter what. But what his parents are recognising by talking in these terms is that the whole of our civilisation and the whole of our existence is dependent on the work of individuals. If we do not work, we die of starvation. I do not say that that is what necessarily should be the case, but that is certainly a fact. Therefore, the child's upbringing by his parents, his education at school, his early training in jobs or at university—throughout this time he is taught how to occupy himself with some kind of work which will be of gain to the community as well as to himself. If he does not work, somebody else will have to keep him.
Apart from the importance of work in our lives, we may also be unconscious of how much people's social lives are bound up with work. Friendships are made and maintained, and work is frequently a topic of conversation. Nowadays, more and more effort is put into trying to make jobs more interesting. Tracts are written about it, the implication being that those with jobs they find interesting get a great deal more out of life than those without such jobs. The age of 65 comes along and suddenly the whole purpose for which a person has been educated is taken away. He is removed from the friends he has made, from the interests of the job and also from the income he receives from that job. Large numbers of people thereby feel cast out, and indeed they have been referred to as "displaced persons". They no longer belong to the society into which they were born and educated.
It is all very well for those who have reached important positions by the end of their working lives. They can be appointed to boards of companies or schools—or they may even perhaps be elevated to the House of Lords. In any case, they have good connections and probably good pensions as well. Even those who are less exalted may, if they wish, be able to continue with other jobs which are interesting and which may bring in enough to allow them to afford to ignore the earnings rule. But the least exalted of all—the ordinary wage-earner —is the most damaged even if, at best and as sometimes happens, he manages to dodge round it in some way. He is actively and positively discouraged from working long enough at odd jobs to add more than a few pounds per week to his already meagre pension. I will not go again into the psychological effects which this discouragement has, because I and other noble Lords emphasised this point in Committee. I would only say that it can be devastating both to the personality and health of the people involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made two points at Committee stage which I must dispute. He said that the pension is for retirement and not for old age. Nevertheless, the earnings rule is relaxed for a man who is over 70, even though he may then take up a fulltime occupation again. As to the cost of removing the rule, I think the Government really must

277
look at the problem in the depth it deserves. First, there is the extra taxation which increased earnings will bring in: then there is the, I admit incalculable, saving to the Health Service which will derive from the improved health of those who can stay in employment instead of being committed to enforced idleness. I said on Committee that the earnings rule has an evil effect upon retired people. That is true, and I beg the Government to take notice of that fact. The earnings rule is wrong and unjust. It bears most heavily on the people who are least able to afford to ignore it. The noble Lord, quite rightly, said that nobody likes it, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of the vast majority of people in saying that it must go. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we come back to the retirement pensions earnings rule, which we have discussed on many previous occasions and most recently at the Committee stage. Perhaps therefore I might repeat the old argument with which the noble Lord is already so familiar: that despite the fact that we are not very enthusiastic about this rule, at the same time we believe that present priorities preclude us from incurring the expense involved in relaxing it at a time when there are so many other demands for help—and not least those we have heard about to-day from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and her friends.
The reason for the existence of the earnings rule is that the scheme provides for a retirement pension and not for an old age pension. The pension is not therefore payable unconditionally to people who have reached the minimum pension age of 65 for man or 60 for a woman. It can be awarded to a person during the five years after that age if he or she can be accepted as retired from regular work. One of the tests used in deciding whether a person can be regarded as retired is that any earnings are not expected to exceed, or only occasionally to exceed, the level at which the earnings rule starts to operate, which is at the moment £9.50 a week. The earnings rule is necessary to support this retirement principle, since without it there would be nothing to prevent token retirements, followed by a return to full-time work with wages paid together with
278
full pension. But at the age of 70 and 65 respectively, a man or woman is automatically treated as retired and at that age the earnings rule no longer applies, as the noble Lord knows.
These two things—the earnings rule and the retirement condition—stand or fall together, and the difficulty is that the cost of abolishing the rule would be about £115 million a year at current rates. Moreover, most of this benefit would go to some quarter of a million people, and their dependants, who have chosen to defer their retirement. The extra money that would be required to pay pensions to these people would have to be found, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has reminded us, by raising contributions. I do not believe that contributors in general would feel that it was right that they should have to pay more in order to pay pensions to other people who were in full-time employment when there were many others who needed help much more: those unable to work, the very old, the chronic sick or disabled or other categories of need.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to ask whether he could state what would be the cost of meeting this Amendment? We have had the figure mentioned in the other place, but it would be useful if the noble Lord could remind the House and we shall then understand better the burden that people would be asked to carry.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the total amount that it would cost to abolish the earnings rule would be £115 million a year at current rates.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that takes account of the revenue from income tax in this connection?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord has a subtle point there. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, at the Committee stage. The answer is: No, it does not. But I can give the noble Lord the figure for income tax. The extra income tax which would be received would be likely to be of the order of £30 million a year. The net figure would be £115 million less £30 million, which is £85 million per annum.

279
This is basically why I resist the Amendment of the noble Lord, as I did last time. The figure is one of £85 million a year, and if we had that sum we should use it for many other needs which we think deserve higher priority, although I sympathise with the noble Lord's campaigning on behalf of people retiring, for I know how hard he works for them.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, as an old campaigner for the abolition of the earnings rule I feel that I ought to be allowed to support my noble friend, even if nobody else does. First of all, while listening with great sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, I do not think this is the right Bill in which to abolish the earnings rule. I can give him a crumb of comfort: the figure of £115 million is not far off the figure of £100 million which I was given in 1955. Times have changed since then, and the total amount of expenditure on pensions has vastly increased; so one can say that in one sense the cost of the earnings rule as a proportion of the total costs secured is gradually dwindling. But we have to face the fact that the earnings rule was a millstone which was mistakenly hung round the neck of this scheme in 1946. As the noble Lord rightly said, it was in some sense made a nonsense by allowing exemption at the age of 70. If the noble Lord reads the debates he will see the mistaken reasons why that was done. I do not think this is the right occasion to abolish the rule. First of all—and this has some reference to earlier debates—the community has to make up its mind whether the pension should ultimately be given for old age or for retirement or, as I am beginning to think, for incapacity—for the inability to earn. But this means a large recasting of our pension scheme yet again, and we could not do it partially on this Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will accept that I am in sympathy with the principle that he has adumbrated. My record on this matter is fairly consistent. I think that when I die "earnings rule" will be written on my heart. It will take its place there with a number of other graffiti, but I am sure it will be the largest. I hope therefore the Amendment will be resisted for the reasons my noble friend gave.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. While acknowledging that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is a campaigner—and I have supported him when he has spoken in this House on the subject—I cannot understand why he says that this is not the Bill by which to exclude it. Surely it is the easiest thing of all to take out a clause. I cannot repeat too often that this is legislation for the future; it is not for what is happening now. If you are doing anything when looking ahead you are surely not always looking back at what you had in the past. This is something which is admittedly expensive to operate.
I have in my hand one of the numerous little books issued by the Department. I have about 40 splendid explanatory leaflets now in my office. None of these can be cheap to print. This booklet contains 42 paragraphs. It starts off with the magic words:
"What is meant by retirement? Giving up paid work altogether is the most obvious example of retirement. But if you intend to carry on work of some kind you may be deemed to be retired."
That is exactly what we are saying—everybody does not want to give up work completely. I also brought up the question of tax because I do not think it has been taken enough into account. If people earn then the tax is a regulator. It would be interesting to do a mathematical calculation (which I will try to do before the next stage of the Bill) to show that somebody collecting £12 a week on their pension may be paying back a substantial part of that pension to the State.
On the question of cost, I have a figure which has been supplied by a reputable organisation which shows that there was a surplus in the National Insurance Fund in the past two years. That would have to be taken into account when talking about spending money. So far everything that we have asked for the Government have said would cost too much. We are not going to have any presents at all. We are going to end up with the Government saying, "This costs too much, and that costs too much". When you say to a child looking into a shop window, "You cannot have that, and you cannot have that",

281
at least you might say, "but you can have this".
I seriously suggest that this rule is costly to operate. You have these different calculations, one on the invalidity benefit, a different one on this clause, a different one regarding the widowed mothers' allowance, and so on; and you have to employ an army of people to sit down and work this out. I read in this book that earnings include wages, overtime, salaries, fees, commissions and regular tips. What is regular? Is that every month, every week, or every six months? That is a very subjective matter. Earnings also include bonuses, other than Christmas bonuses, up to £10. My Lords, they can never make anything straightforward there are always all sorts of exemptions and qualifications.
Another meanness about this—and I work with these people, and that is why I know these cases so well—is that if a retirement pensioner has a wife younger than he is and she earns, the earnings rule operates in relation to the pension he would draw for her. We have passed the point where people are supposed to be living on the pension because they have finally stopped work. They cannot live on it; it is too low. It is a dreadful commentary that the pension is, pro rata to the total earnings, less now than it was when it was instituted in 1914. When wages were 30s. we gave pensioners lOs; when wages now are on average about £32 a week we give pensioners £6.75. So to suggest that people can live on the pension is to belie the facts.
The noble Lord who moved this Amendment pointed out something I saw for myself last week when speaking at a retirement course at a big works. The people on the shop floor were going to retire on £6.75. Some of the people in different positions had already safeguarded their situation and were going to collect something which I suspect does not come under any of these headings, and therefore they would not be subject to any earnings rule; they would be subject to tax. So there is already an inequality. I beg the Government in this new Bill to cut out this provision. I feel certain that what we propose is not as costly as the Minister suggested, because we have not been able to offset the cost of operating; nor indeed the tax, which is the regulator.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I know that we must not turn this debate into a Committee stage, but if the noble Lord is determined to keep the earnings rule, whereas I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, wish we could get rid of it, is it really not possible to look once again at whether the earnings rule has to be operated on a weekly basis? I know that when I raised this point in the House over a year ago now I had a long, but to me completely unconvincing, letter from the Department as to why the earnings rule must be calculated weekly. We are moving into a period when there will be longer holidays, when regular staff will be away from work. Surely, there is everything to be said for having a situation in which the people who have retired in the previous five years can return to work for two, three or four months in the summer during the holiday season or during emergency times, and be allowed to earn in total up to £460, or whatever the figure is which £9.50 a week aggregates during the year, before they lose their pension.
If they could do this, I am sure you would save a great deal on social security and you would gain something on tax. It would help very much in the labour situation where during the holiday period there is a shortage of labour and there are bottlenecks and difficulties in getting work done. It would supply what is perhaps from the human point of view the most important advantage of all for the retired person: a period of two or three months back with his old workmates, in many cases doing a job which needs to be done. He would feel that he was needed, and he would indeed be filling a need and supplementing his pension to the tune of over £400. It would he of enormous help to the old-age pensioner. I cannot accept that the system of aggregation of an annual amount which one may earn, rather than a weekly amount, is something we ought not to consider again at the present time.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord has had some pretty powerful support from the noble Lord. Lord Reigate. Over the years I have watched with the greatest interest and indeed admiration the way in which Lord

283
Reigate has stuck to his championship of this question. He suggested that perhaps this was not the Bill in which to make the change. I cannot help feeling that throughout the years of his advocacy with regard to the earnings rule he will have used any and every occasion on which to advance the cause.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene, because I should like to make clear my reasons for saying that. First of all, while I am grateful for what the noble Lord says about my campaigning, may I say that I have always sought to mitigate the rule rather than actually to abolish it. With regard to this Bill, the point is that if we omit Clause 26, what we shall be doing is abolishing the retirement pension and restoring the old-age pension. I am not in favour of that at this juncture without further consideration of the reasons for people's ceasing work.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Let us get this clear. A great many people die very soon after they retire Many do not live the five-year period from 65 to 70. In my view, if ever there was a time when people ought to be able to enjoy luxuries that have been denied to them throughout most of their working life, it is when they reach their closing years. I think that Lord Reigate indicated that the numbers are falling, and falling fairly rapidly, and the difference between £100 million in 1955 and £115 million to-day indicates that it is a problem of progressively decreasing size.
May I come to the question of incapacity. None of us knows how much it costs local authorities to run schemes to keep people healthy in retirement. Local authorities are just beginning to wake up to the fact that there is a tremendous field for activity here, but we do not know the cost. Neither do we know what the cost is to the National Health Service. I am quite sure that the longer a man remains in full-time employment, the greater the likelihood of his remaining healthy. It is because of this that we must do everything we can to ensure that the case for this Amendment continues to be pressed until it is accepted. I have no doubt at
284
all that nobody would be happier than the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, if he could stand at that Box and say: "I am very pleased to accept the principle". even if the Amendment is defective. He indicates that he would not be happy to do that: then I do him too much credit —I am sorry. We have another stage of this Bill. I hope we shall get to know the view of the House at this stage. That is not for me to decide as it is not my Amendment, but I am very hopeful indeed that, even if we do not make a right decision to-day, we shall come back to the question again before the Bill leaves this House.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, when she says, "Why do we have to have a weekly earnings rule?" I have discussed this point with Americans on a number of occasions. I think I am right in saying that they have an annual rule: one either earns so much for so many days or earns so much in a year. I have always felt that this weekly earnings rule is not at all a good point, and I would suggest to my noble friend that at some day and time this matter should be looked into very deeply indeed.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I answer just the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Aberdeen? We went into this matter carefully, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, who had a letter from the Department, will be very familiar with the facts.
BARONESS SEEAR: I am quite unconvinced, my Lords.
LORD ABERDARE: Not convinced, my Lords, but at least familiar. The matter was examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, who published a Report in January, 1967. A paragraph in the Report states:
"In our judgment, extension of averaging"—
this is what we are speaking about—
"would benefit few pensioners while adding substantially to the complications of the earnings rule both for pensioners and the Ministry."
It was on the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that we have not been able to go ahead on this matter. Perhaps the noble Marquess would like a copy of the Report.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, really want us to believe that there would be far more administrative burden in making a calculation once a year of what a person had earned in a year, than in making a calculation once a week?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, one would have thought that there would have been exactly 1/52nd of the administrative work and burden involved. However, I stand before your Lordships to-day as one of the victims of the earnings rule. After a lifelong term in journalism I retired at 65. I had been writing millions of words during my forty years on newspapers and I decided that I wanted to make a completely fresh start and forget all about writing. But then I wondered what I was going to do with my time, and I found that there was a certain therapeutic value in writing which made me feel that I was still somebody.
By a coincidence, I was approached by an organisation who said, "You know something about local government. Will you write us a monthly article about local government which we can then circulate to provincial newspapers?" I agreed to do this, and in fact I did it for about three years. But every month I had to go up to the Ministry of Labour and explain to them that I had been earning so much in this particular month, and they said, "Oh no; you earned it in a particular week—the week in which you received the money". Had it been calculated over a monthly period it would have been all right from my point of view, but as it was calculated on the basis of the week in which I received the money for the article it was entirely different.
I think there is much in what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. This, like every other item in a person's income, should be calculated on a yearly basis. We do not calculate our income tax on a weekly basis—a figure is taken for the whole year and adjustments are then made for the weekly deductions, or even deductions in respect of dividends. I think that many people feel a sense of
286
grievance when they find that, having worked all their lives and become entitled to a pension for the eventide of their years, some of this money is snatched back from them, not because of any sin on their part but because of the virtue that they have decided that they would like to do some work in order to earn a few pounds to supplement what is really an inadequate pension. I plead with the noble Lord, if he cannot go all the way in abolishing the earnings rule entirely, at least to go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to calculate it on a yearly basis.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland are on a different point from the one to which I was adverting in my original Amendment. But this weekly calculation of the earnings rule underlines the fact that it is the weekly wage-earner against whom it is directed: it is not directed against the monthly salary earner or the yearly income earner, or one receiving yearly income of any kind. It is the weekly wage-earner against whom it is directed, and this is why I so dislike it. It operates against those who are least able to afford it. I am in the hands of the House as to whether or not I press this Amendment. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that one of the Government's original slogans was that they wanted to help people to help themselves, and abolishing the earnings rule is one of the things that does just that. I should like to ask the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, if he will promise that the Government will study this. I have had no help from him in that respect at all. Would the noble Lord like to say something on it now?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is the third time that I have spoken. All I can say to the noble Lord is that we have already relaxed the earnings rule and we shall continue to review it at our annual review of social security benefits in general. If that will help the noble Lord I will certainly give that undertaking.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, that is somewhere along the road, but I think I had better press the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 15 be agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding. I do not think anybody is calling a Division, unless possibly it is the Deputy Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I will put the Question again, as perhaps noble Lords are not clear. The Question is, That Amendment No. 15 be agreed to.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Samuel, V.

Bernstein, L.

Hoy, L.

Seear, B. [Teller]

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Blackett, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bowden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Brock, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Stocks, B.

Caradon, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Clancarty, E.

Peddie, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Platt, L.

Thurso, V.

Fiske, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller]

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wigg, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

George-Brown, L.

Royle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merthyr, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Geddes, L.

Monck, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Atholl, D.

Greenwav, L.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Oakshott, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailes, L.

Reigate, L.

Blackett, L.

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

Rhyl, L.

Bourne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Caccia, L.

Headfort, M.

St. Helens, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ironside, L.

Sandford, L,

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Sharples, B.

Craigavon, V.

Kindersley, L.

Stamp, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stonehaven, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Croft, L.

Limerick, E.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Dundonald, E.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Eccles, V.

Maybray-King, L.

Wise, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 30 [Death grant]:
5.4 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 42, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long on this Amendment, nor indeed do I intend to take it to a Division, so those of your Lordships who are enjoying the tennis may return to it. As far as I can work it out Clause 30(3) refers in the main to people who are over 80, because we find in this paragraph which I wish to delete the words:
"a death grant shall not be payable in respect of the death of a person who attained pensionable age before 5th July 1948 nor, except in prescribed cases, in respect of a death occurring outside Great Britain."
I feel that there is an injustice here. The longer one lives the less money one has to live on, and therefore it seems that the death grant becomes more necessary if someone dies over the age of 80 rather than under the age of 80. When we look at the cost of a funeral we see it is rising substantially all the time. I feel that when we come to the point of the Bill again, there will be an even smaller number of people affected, and it seems a rather mean thing that these older people should not receive a death grant in order to provide for their funerals.
My Lords, if we look at the pattern of insurance we see that those who are now in the age group of the thirties, forties or fifties do not go in for commercial insurance in the way that the same group would have done fifty years ago. This group were people who were concerned very much about the cost of a funeral and often they continued to pay small sums of money in order to be sure that the last rites were performed with a sense of dignity. I feel that with the small cost involved here, it will be unfortunate if we declare rather categorically that this older group cannot receive a death grant. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, so far as our Amendment is concerned, as the noble Baroness says, the effect would be to remove the present restrictions which prevent the payment of a death grant in two circumstances: first, in the case of a person who reached pensionable age before the July 5, 1948, and the second
290
except in prescribed cases in respect of a death occurring outside Great Britain. The noble Baroness has concentrated on the first point, and so will I.
The removal of the first of these restrictions would make a half rate death grant payable on the deaths of men reaching the age of 65 and women reaching the age of 60 before July 5, 1948, where at present no death grant is payable. Death grant is a contributory benefit and was introduced for the first time in July, 1948, under the 1946 National Insurance Act, and consequently no part of any contribution paid before July, 1948, went towards death grant, and people of the generation which reached pensionable age before that date, as the noble Baroness so rightly said, had no expectation of such a benefit, and knew they had to make provision by themselves for funeral expenses in the way of insurance, savings, trade union funds and so on. The expense of a funeral is not a burden which always falls entirely on the surviving spouse or children. It is a first charge on the estate and in the majority of cases there are other resources available which meet at least part of the cost. It has always been held that a death grant for someone who had never contributed under the present scheme would be a breach of the contributory principle and might lead to pressure for other benefits to be paid on a non-contributory basis.
The provisions have been looked at on a number of occasions. Once again this is a provision which has been examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and it has always been concluded that the present arrangements should stand. Those are the reasons why I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the Amendment: that it is not and never has been intended for these particular people; they have never contributed towards this benefit and it would be setting a precedent if we were to make a payment under the National Insurance scheme to people who have not contributed.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that his own Government extended benefits to the 80-year-olds on the very ground that they needed the money although they were not entitled to it because they were not covered by the national scheme. The

291
noble Lord is now dealing with a group of 85-year-old women and 90-year-old men. Does he not think that this little concession might be granted to them?
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I think I raised this point in my speech on Second Reading. I had hoped to move an Amendment on Committee stage, but was not able to be here. I do think it is rather a small matter, and unless the cost, which I have not heard my noble friend give, is very extensive I think the Government might look at it again.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, I think it is only fair to say that payments to the over-80s are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and therefore that does not affect the contributory principle to which my noble friend referred. All I can suggest is that the Government, while perhaps not accepting this Amendment to-day, should look at this rather tiny little economy to see whether in due course they could fit it in in some other measure. There cannot be many people whom it affects, and it would not cost very much.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I add my plea? It seems to me quite remarkable. Every now and then the Ministry exercise a certain compassion on behalf of certain groups who have never been covered by insurance. I am thinking of the over-80s who were given a special allowance, and the other people already mentioned to-day. Here we are dealing with men and women who may have worked for the country all their lives and yet die uninsured. They can comprise only a small group, yet on this question the Government show a hardness of heart which is difficult to believe. Long before the noble Lord was born people felt that to die, as they described it, "on the parish" was a great disgrace for the family. In the past there were little clubs which enabled very poor people to contribute so much a week in order that they should be able to pay for their funeral. In the minds of the very poor there is still a desire to feel that when their end comes their funeral will be an affair that has been paid for by themselves or by their family and that they do not have to rely upon any external source which derives from the Government. The noble Lord
292
must know about this; he must surely have read about it or learned about it. I learned about it as a young doctor. I learned that the thing that had to be paid on Monday morning was so much to a club which would ensure that if death came unexpectedly the funeral would be of the kind which would not disgrace the family.
I hope the noble Lord will recognise that he cannot stand by the hard-and-fast rule of an insurance scheme. We have departed from it on so many occasions. Here we are pleading for the dead: and they, poor creatures! cannot plead for themselves. There is one thing the noble Lord must know, that there can be no pressure group for these people for whom we are pleading now. The disabled, quite rightly, have a powerful pressure group in the country—D.I.G., a marvellous organisation which is pressuring for them. We know perfectly well, particularly those of us who have served in the Commons, that when there is a matter which calls for pressure then the Central Lobby is full; when any powerful organisation have a demand at heart they generally find that it is met. because of the pressure they can exercise. Here for the first time we are talking about a comparatively small group which cannot possibly call up to their aid a pressure group, and therefore I ask the noble Lord to act on their behalf.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I know that the Minister cannot reply, and perhaps I am taking an unfair advantage. I think we must emphasise the point that this is not a precedent. I was going to raise this very point about the over-80s who were given this money. It was a marvellous thing; everybody was delighted. I was only unhappy that my own Government had not done it—I see that the noble Lord nods his head. If the money cannot come from one fund, it can come from another. Ultimately where does Government money come from? It comes from the people. Either they pay it in taxes or it is raised in some other way. The difference between the fund which is funded directly and the Government money which comes from taxes seems to me to be very fine. If the Government were going to pay this very small sum I am sure they could find it somewhere.

293
The noble Lord, I thought, introduced a slight note of unreality when he spoke about the funeral being a first charge on the estate. The elderly couple I have in mind certainly would not have any problems about that; they have not got an estate. The average person does not even own his own house. It is rather pathetic to think of the kind of people we are talking about—an elderly man and woman; one dies, and the other
one does not get any help for the funeral. And with the cost of funerals going up all the time, they are getting so expensive that it is almost impossible to die.
5.16 p.m.
On Question Whether the said Amendment (No. 15A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein, L.

Ingleby, V.

Samuel, V.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Brock, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, B.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shackleton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lloyd of Kilgearn, L.

Shinwell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Longford, E.

Slater, L.

Diamond, L.

McLeavy, L.

Snow, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Somers, L.

Fiske, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Stamp, L.

Gardiner, L.

Meston, L.

Stocks, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B.

Summerskill, B.

George Brown, L.

Platt, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Thurso, V.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wade, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Henley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Oakshott, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Reigate, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Barnby, L.

Hailes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, B.

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

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Courtown, E.

Ironside, L.

Sharples, B.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Croft, L.

Limerick, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Templemore, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Vernon, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundonald, E.

Margadale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 36 [Reports on needs of chronically sick]:
5.25 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 15B:
Leave out Clause 36 and insert the following new clause:
Review of provision for chronically sick and disabled persons
"36. The Secretary of State shall review social security provision for chronically sick and disabled persons, and shall lay a report on his review before Parliament by 31st October 1974".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that on this occasion we can be brief. Your Lordships will appreciate that Clause 36, as it stands, is in fact the clause that was achieved (if that is the right word) at Committee stage. The Government have considered this clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has put the point that the Government are willing to accept it and not to oppose it, provided that we make a firm date for October 31 rather than April 30. You will notice that, as the clause stands, it says:
"… 30th April 1974 or such later date as may be approved.…"
I have consulted with most, though I fear not all, of my co-sponsors of the Amendment at Committee stage, and it seems to us that the firm acceptance by the Government that a comprehensive report will be presented to the House not later than October 31 is something so greatly to be welcomed that we should he very glad to accept the proposed change. Therefore I have pleasure in moving the Amendment.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, my name was down with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the Amendment at Committee stage, but it got left off this time. I would support her in what she said. I think that if the Government will lay a report before Parliament, so that everyone can look at the provisions for the disabled, this will be a most sensible move and a very wise course to take. In anticipation, I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I welcome this Amendment in that it requires the Secretary of State to lay a report of his review before Par
296
liament by a definite date. I am however concerned at the exclusion of the lines in Clause 36 as it stands which ensured that the needs of such persons not at present entitled to benefits within the scope of this Bill will also be considered. The disabled housewife comes into this category, and in her own right the disabled housewife at present receives no financial assistance whatsoever, except the attendance allowance if she is exceptionally severely disabled.
There is also the question of the congenitally disabled who have never been enabled to work and so have paid no contributions. Will the noble Lord tell us whether the report will cover these categories of people not at present entitled to benefit because they do not pay contributions, or have not paid sufficient contributions? I sincerely hope that the report will be truly comprehensive. Will the question of the earnings stop be considered, and will there be co-ordination between the Department of Health and the Department of Employment in relation to this matter? Something must be done to remove this serious disincentive to full rehabilitation and the very real impediment to disabled persons returning to work. These are two most important questions on which I should like the Minister to reassure the House, and provided these points are covered, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words about the Amendment, too, because it is the only one which remains on this whole subject after hours of debate in this House and in another place. I think that I and my noble friends have shown a good deal of restraint in not pressing other Amendments. I hope that the Government will give us credit for that. We certainly take the Government on trust on what they have said. I happen to support the Government, so I know that my trust is in good hands. I hope that everybody will feel the same.
There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Government as to what this review will cover. For instance, will they consider treating the position of prolonged incapacity for work consistently with normal retirement? Will they take into account the earnings rule, which we have debated twice in this House, and

297
try to establish some scheme of a pension for partial incapacity? My noble friend has mentioned the acute position of the disabled housewife and the young disabled; will the Government take into account the special expenses incurred by disabled people in their normal lives? We have had debates in this House on this subject, and I think the Minister knows what I am talking about.
Will the Government also maintain close contact with organisations such as DIG—the Disablement Income Group, who, incidentally, have asked me to express appreciation of the Government's attitude in being willing to accept this Amendment so readily—and the Central Council for the Disabled, on other aspects as well as financial ones? I feel that there should be a permanent two-way exchange of thought on this, because DIG and the Central Council are extremely responsible bodies, with a vast fund of experience on these matters, and the Government would do well to make use of this great experience. They should pay close attention to them because if there is not obvious co-operation between these people and the Government then I think there is a danger that mare strident and militant voices will be heard in the wines and the whole atmosphere may well be soured. We are much more likely to make progress if the atmosphere on both sides is kept sweet. In conclusion, I should like to thank my noble friend for his ready acceptance of this new clause.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I also would express my thanks to the Minister for having another look at this particular Amendment. This was the most important Amendment being put forward on behalf of disabled people, and I hope that he will, as my noble friend Lord Crawshaw said, bear in mind our forbearance earlier this afternoon. Speaking as a Cross-Bencher, I think we can trust both sides of the House equally in this matter, and I hope very much that whichever Government is in power on October 31, 1974, will give a sympathetic reception to the proposals when they are brought forward. I would ask, finally, that in this matter the Government will work closely with DIG who have a great fund of expert knowledge.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am delighted to hear all the honeyed words that noble Lords have spoken on this
298
particular Amendment. I am very pleased to accept it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having put it down in this form, and I fully recognise the co-operation which I have received from noble Lords on the Cross-Benches who have taken my word that we are conducting a very serious review into the whole question of social security provision for the disabled. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the other noble Lords will find that I gave most of the reassurances for which they were asking when I replied to Amendment No. 10. This will indeed be a wide-ranging review and will cover all the categories that have been mentioned. It will cover the earnings rule, the attendance, the disabled housewives and all the other problems that arise in connection with disablement. It is, I would stress, a Government review, not a review entirely being conducted by my Department, and therefore the Department of Employment will certainly be fully in on that review. I should like finally to say that we value very much our contact with the Disablement Income Group and the Central Council for the Disabled and other bodies working in this field and shall willingly receive any views that they would like to express to us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Claims for, and payment of, benefit and other ancillary provisions]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 49, line 44, leave out from ("which") to ("certain") in line 45 and insert ("substantially replace").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to provide a more accurate description of Schedule 10, which contains provisions largely reproduced from the 1965 Act relating to the claiming and payment of benefits and other matters ancillary to Chapter 2. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Recognised pensionable employment]:
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 67, line 1, leave out from ("provision") to ("so") in line 2 and insert ("subject to

299
any requirements of regulations, or of the Board, under subsection (4)(d) above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 51(4)(d) enables the Secretary of State or the Occupational Pensions Board to impose requirements about the form which relevant scheme rules—that is to say, those rules about minimum benefits —should take. Clause 51(6)(b), to which the Amendment relates as presently drafted enables the Secretary of State but not the occupational Pensions Board, to require a scheme to adopt the particular words used in the Bill. The Amendment will enable the Board, too, to make such a requirement. While it is unlikely that it will generally be necessary to insist on the scheme using the precise words in the Bill, the Board may wish to do so in the interests of the employees concerned. It would be unwise to preclude their doing this, and the Amendment gives them the facility. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Financing and security of minimum benefits]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 79, line 8, leave out from ("above") to first ("the") in line 9.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment deleting from subsection (6) the phrase
"or the Board are not satisfied under that subsection …"—
that is to say, subsection (3). The phrase achieves no useful purpose and could give rise to ambiguity. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [The Reserve Pension Board]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 96, line 25, leave out ("enactments in force in Northern Ireland") and insert ("Northern Ireland legislation").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to achieve consistency throughout the Bill. However, there may at Committee stage occasionally have been confusion about the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland and it might be to the convenience of the House if I spoke very briefly
300
about this. I hope therefore that when I come later to apply the Bill to Northern Ireland that will go through fairly formally.
My Lords, at present Great Britain and Northern Ireland have separate, but virtually identical, National Insurance schemes governed by the separate legislation of the two countries. Because of the present situation in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to make provisions for their scheme in this Bill; that is to say, the present emergency procedure which of course overrides the normal situation, but we are providing for a permanent and, we must hope, a better situation in Northern Ireland. It became apparent to the draftsmen that the method originally adopted, which briefly was to apply the Bill as a whole to Northern Ireland with the necessary modifications, did not achieve all that was required. The reason was that whereas Part II, the occupational pension scheme, and Part III the reserve pension scheme, had to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, Part I had to be applied separately to the two countries because it is intended that they should have their own separate basic scheme just as they have separate National Insurance schemes at present. Work on the Bill in the Commons made it necessary to postpone the drafting and moving of the necessary Amendments. It was because of time difficulties that clarification of the provisions affecting Northern Ireland had to be deferred until the Bill reached your Lordships' House. The outstanding Amendments that we are considering to-day are part of the process of tidying up the technical application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [The Reserve Pension Fund]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 97, line 36, after ("Board") insert ("and the payment of any interest on money so borrowed").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment designed to remove any uncertainty that there might be in the interpretation of the paragraph, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 97, line 40, leave out ("under") and insert ("for the purposes of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to achieve consistency with subsection (6)(b) of Clause 74. I beg to move.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Management of the Fund and its investments]:
LORD REIGATE LORD REIGATE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 100, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Board shall not exercise their powers under subsection (2) so that the Fund shall have any interest in shares comprised in the relevant share capital of a company to which the said subsection does not apply without the prior consent of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury; and in each report which the Board is required to make under section 76 of this Act it shall set out details of all investments made in accordance with this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Despite some of the assurances that were given during the Committee stage, there are still many people who are concerned at the very wide powers and at the discretion of the Board in regard to investments. Under the proposals as they stand at present, investments in publicly-quoted companies are limited to 10 per cent. During the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment to make the limit 30 per cent. in the case of unquoted companies. That Amendment was resisted, and I must say that I entirely accepted my noble friend's reason for not accepting the limit of 30 per cent. I just want to say that I realise that the Board will be composed of responsible people, but my Amendment suggests, in effect, that they should not embark on a scheme of any magnitude without the approval of the Secretary of State or the Treasury, and that the public should be fully informed in the annual report as to exactly what ventures the Board are embarking upon. My Amendment is really designed to try to prevent the Board from extending their activities into too many totally uncharted seas. I may say to my noble friend that I am not asking for acceptance, and I should be more than surprised and pleased if he accepted the Amendment. All I am
302
asking is that the point should be considered by the Board when they are set up, and I express the pious hope that the Board's first duty will be to read all the Hansard reports of the proceedings on this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has moved this Amendment, and I appreciate the reasons which underlie it. We see it as fundamental that the Board, in the day-to-day exercise of their functions, should enjoy as much independence as possible, and that there should be no question of Government intervention. This is why I was slightly apprehensive about the Amendment. But I can assure my noble friend that the Board, which will be made up of very highly responsible people, will take careful account in deciding on their investment policy of all the relevant circumstances, including the considerations which he has put forward in this Amendment.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is very helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Annual report to Secretary of State]:
LORD REIGATE LORD REIGATE moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 102, line 17, at end insert—
("(5) The Board shall in an annual report not later than that in respect of the third year of the operation of the reserve pension scheme submit proposals to the Secretary of State for the making of arrangements designed to avoid the number of employed earners in respect of whose earnings contributions under this part of this Act continue to be paid into the Reserve Pension Fund exceeding one million, in particular by the establishment under regulations to he made for this purpose of a number of agencies independent of the Board and mutually independent of each other, in each of which would be vested such of the administrative responsibility and other functions conferred on the Board by or under this Act as may be prescribed and as they relate to those employer earners in respect of whose earnings reserve scheme contributions and premiums are payable and who, in accordance with a prescribed procedure, so opt, it being the intention that into a fund administered by each such agency reserve scheme contributions should be payable in respect of the earnings of not more than one million employed earners. The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report giving his conclusions on these proposals and the reasons for such conclusions, together

303
with any drafts of orders and regulations which he considers necessary to give effect to those conclusions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment with even more diffidence, because I doubt whether it will be practicable as drafted. This again reinforces the fact that many people are concerned at the sheer magnitude of the task of this Board. We have to remember that on its success depends the standard of living of very many pensioners. It must be an alarming task for the Board to contemplate investing successfully each year three times the amount of the investment income of the Prudential Assurance Company. Our present occupational schemes—of which I believe there are something like 26,000 in being —are operated, in the main, by some 200 companies including the nine giants, of whom the Prudential is the largest. This, in the case of the present occupational schemes, means that there is a fairly reasonable diversity of investment policies. All my Amendment does is to suggest a means whereby this giant fund will be able to diversify its investment by operating through a number of agencies. This would be very roughly on the lines of the old approved societies which operated prior to the National Insurance scheme in 1948, when they did a wonderful job. I am not asking that this Amendment should be accepted. I am asking only for some reassurance that the Board will consider these proposals when they come into being, and will show that they appreciate the magnitude, complexity and implications of their task, and their very great economic power for the good of this country. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. I could not accept this Amendment as it stands, because it would produce agencies which are self-contained and separately responsible, with separate boards of management deciding their own independent actions. This might be very difficult. We should get investment performances that differ from one agency to another and pension values would vary, and in a national scheme with contributions collected at a uniform rate this would be difficult to justify. However, my noble friend has put his
304
point in rather a different way. I have no doubt that the Board would consider very carefully whether they should make some use of agencies to conduct their investments. I should expect that in this sort of matter they would be prepared to learn by experience, and there is no reason why they should not work through different agencies if that proves the best way of handling their investments.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Reserve scheme contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 103, line 30, leave out ("neglect") and insert ("negligence").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to achieve consistency with corresponding provisions in Schedule 1. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it is all right to talk about consistency in drafting, but there is a distinct difference between the meaning of the two words and the Minister ought to have explained what he meant when he asked us to accept this Amendment. There is a great deal of difference between proving whether someone has neglected to do something, and proving whether there has been negligence. The Minister ought, in fairness, to have explained this point a little more to the House.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sorry if I have not satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I am not entirely clear why he is dissatisfied. Obviously, for the purposes of clarity, we want to achieve consistency in the provisions in the Bill. I am not quite clear what he finds objectionable in this Amendment.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to continue this discussion, because I shall be told by the Minister that we are at the Report stage and not in Committee. But there is a distinct difference between the word "neglect" and the word "negligence". I could not be more specific, and I am sorry if the Minister who has moved this Amendment cannot understand the difference.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this being the Report stage, and as I have not yet spoken on this Amendment, may I come in on it? The word "negligence" is used in the Schedules, and it would seem wrong to use one word in the Bill and a different word in the Schedules. That is the simple answer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 104, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Primary contributions paid by an earner for any year may be deducted from the amount of his emoluments to be assessed to income tax for that year.")
The noble Lord said: Frankly, my Lords, this is a matter which we have discussed before, but I have to return to it because I just cannot conceive that your Lordships' House would be content that such a gross injustice should be perpetrated if your Lordships were fully aware of what was involved. I realise that when this issue was last discussed there was a very small Committee—we all understand the reasons for that; noble Lords have many duties which take them elsewhere—and I think it is right that we should give this matter very careful consideration.
What is involved, as your Lordships probably know, is the question whether contributions to the Reserve Pension Scheme—what I may call the State scheme, as opposed to private enterprise occupational schemes—should be uniquely penalised at the cost of breaching well-established tax principles. I say "uniquely penalised" because what is at issue is whether an employee who, without any say by himself—it is not a question of his own free will, because it is the employer who decides what kind of pension scheme there shall be; whether there shall be an occupational scheme or, if not, the Reserve Scheme—is, under the Bill, compelled to make a contribution to the Reserve Pension Scheme, shall, alone, not have his contribution allowed for tax purposes. I say "alone" because, of course, the employer will get the tax allowance. In occupational schemes, the employer and the employee get their contributions allowed for tax purposes. Members of Parliament, who are legislating this Bill, have legislated their own pension scheme under which contribu-
306
tions by Members of Parliament are, as is the normal rule, allowed for tax purposes.
It is an established tax principle that, where you have a pension scheme, the build-up of the scheme is free of tax but the release of it—that is to say, the receipt of the pension—is taxable. That is going to apply in the occupational schemes; it is going to apply to the employer's contribution in the Reserve Scheme; but so far as the employee is concerned, he is being hit both ways. When he pays his contribution he pays tax on his full wages, not on the wages less the contribution, because, of course, a contribution to pension is merely a deferred wage. He pays tax on his full wages with no allowance for contribution to the pension; and when he receives the pension he pays tax on it again, if he is liable to tax.
That is what the Government propose. Quite frankly, I think the Government have gone out of their mind. It is an intolerable injustice, the most extraordinarily stupid political move, as I shall explain, and it is something which will rankle in the minds of employees week after week after week. It is to be compared only with the same abuse of power perpetrated by the Government in connection with the Industrial Relations Act which still rankles, where the same unique tax penalty was imposed, as a result of which nearly all unions have refused to register. That is a separate issue: I am just saying that that is paralleled only by the crass stupidity of the Government in what they now propose.
Obviously, a Government would not do a thing like this unless they had some reason. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, gave us the reasons on the occasion when we discussed this matter at Committee stage. He said that the Government wanted to have a 50–50 contribution; I shall explain that in a minute. He said—and I am reading from column 224 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of June 18:
"These were the reasons why originally we had thought of a 50–50 split. As the noble Lord also said, it is true that we were not willing to penalise the employee by not giving an income tax rebate and, at the same time, not making compensation for it. It was for that reason that we went on to modify the split contribution to make it 1½ per cent. for the employee and 2½ per cent. for the employer."

307
So the stance of the Government is: "We do not want to be unfair by allowing no income tax rebate; we want to be fair by allowing, instead of an income tax rebate, compensation in the form of a favourable split."
Now let us examine the favourable split. The Government said that what they had in mind was 50–50, and they have now reduced it to 1½ per cent. and 2½ per cent., which is a total of 4 per cent. The 4 per cent. has never varied, so the 50–50 means that the Government had in mind each side, employer and employee, contributing 2 per cent. each. But now, instead of, or by way of compensation for, no income tax relief, it is to be varied so that the employee pays only 1½ per cent. instead of 2 per cent. and the employer pays 2½ per cent. instead of 2 per cent. I am inviting your Lordships to consider the premise of the argument; namely, that it would be reasonable to have a 50–50 split. It would not. It is not the case that that is the average in occupational schemes. The Government know that it is not. The Government have said so through the mouth of their Minister in the other place.
In fact, the reduced figure of 1½ per cent. is slightly more unfavourable to the employee than the average of all occupational schemes. So the reduced figure is already a disadvantage. The original figure would have been such an intolerable disadvantage that the Government would not have had a chance, of getting it through either House. So that is the first answer of the Government: that they have given it by way of compensation. I reject that utterly, and I invite your Lordships to reject it utterly, because out of the mouth of the Minister himself—I am talking about Sir Keith Joseph—it was stated, absolutely plainly, that the average percentage contribution is in fact less than the reduced figure of 1½.
Moreover, although one does not want to spend a lot of time on this subject, another reason why I think the Government have gone off their head is this. If you want to put the position right (because they have said that they want to make compensation for this lack of tax relief) as between the taxpayer, the contributor, the employee, and the Inland
308
Revenue, you do not achieve it by putting a burden on the back of the employer. He has done nothing to deserve this burden, even if the Government have gone mad. All that this variation proposes is that, in as much as the Government are deliberately giving a compensation for lack of tax relief—that is their intention—what happens? My Lords, £20 million is put on the backs of the employers and £20 million is relieved from the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue collect £20 million more; the employers pay £20 million more; the employee is, broadly, not affected. It is mere nonsense, and an insult to everybody's intelligence, to suggest that the way to deal with the imbalance between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue is to put it on the backs of a third party; namely, the employer. In fact all that the Government are saying—the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, referred to this in his speech in Committee and he is aware of the circumstances—is that if we treat the occupational schemes and the Government Reserve Scheme equally, the occupational schemes will founder.
What the Government say is that the delicate balance will be altered. What they are suggesting is that the private enterprise occupational pension schemes cannot stand up against this State scheme unless the State scheme is penalised to the extent of over 40 per cent. That is the effect of the lack of tax relief: an over 41 per cent. penalty put on the State scheme. I know of no private enterprise insurance representative body who would be so ashamed, so defeatist, as to say, "We need this penalty on State enterprise for us to be enabled to compete." It is only the Government who say this. It is not the pension funds. They do not say this. They say, "We do not want this." It is not the Life Offices Association; they do not ask for this penalty to be put on the competition of State enterprise. It is only the Government which are running down private enterprise in this way by saying that they cannot stand up to a State scheme unless a penalty of over 41 per cent. is put on the backs of those who contribute to the State scheme.
I think I am going some way to satisfy, at all events my mind, if my argument is correct, that the Government have gone

309
off their head. The politics of this are stupid to a degree. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to consider what kind of effect this proposal in the Bill would have on a future Government who may be considering whether or not they should nationalise pension schemes generally. Here is a Tory Government saying deliberately that private pension schemes cannot stand up against a State scheme unless a penalty of 41 per cent. is put on the State scheme. What kind of argument is that for those who support private enterprise? And what kind of argument is it for those who believe that private enterprise has no price in pension insurance schemes? It is the Government who are making the argument—not I. I am saying with the Life Offices Association and with the Pensions Fund Association that this is a totally unnecessary penalty and is grossly inequitable. My noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill referred to it on the last occasion—and he is renowed for his moderation of speech—as a "monstrous injustice". It is totally unnecessary, totally unfair and inequitable—and uniquely so.
I am hoping that your Lordships will do what they did in the Committee stage in the other place. They threw out this proposal and put in something which has the same effect as the Amendment that I am putting before your Lordships. That is what happened on Committee stage where the matter was considered in detail. As you know, every Standing Committee is representative of the numbers in the Chamber; that is to say, there would be a majority of Conservative M.P.s in the Standing Committee. Of course a number of them—I do not have the number in mind but it was a sufficient number—voted against the Government in order to remove this inequity. A number of Conservative M.P.s voted against the Government when it came to the Chamber itself—but not quite enough. I think the fact is that the Division was carried by a majority of four as against the basic 25 or 27 which would be the case if everybody voted on purely Party lines in another place.
I am appealing to your Lordships. The facts that I have given are not in dispute at all. It is the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who says—and I can read it out if your Lordships would wish it—that the real reason for this iniquity is not to
310
disturb the balance between the occupational pension schemes and the Reserve Pension Scheme. I appeal to your Lordships to say: "You must not treat one section of the community grossly unfairly; you must not upset well-established tax principles in seeking to bolster up private enterprise against State enterprise when the private enterprise does not need it and has not asked for it." I beg to move.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, my noble friend knows my views. I should like to pay tribute both to him and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the patience with which they have listened to me and have tried to persuade me that I am wrong in thinking that this is virtually the only blemish on a great Bill, a Bill of which the Conservative Government will be very proud and which will go down in history in the main features of its architecture as a remarkable piece of social progress.
The matter which we are discussing to-day breaches a fundamental principle of taxation. It is quite true that there is a precedent; but the precedent is a bad one. It was from the Finance Bill of 1965, when the Labour Government of the day abolished the tax exemption on contributions to the basic pension. I would ask your Lordships to bear with me very patiently if I quote some words from the Hansard of the other place of May 20, 1965:
"This change"—
the change I have mentioned—
"weakens, if it does not altogether undermine, the principle that because pensions are taxable the contributions towards them should not be taxed, so as to avoid double taxation. It also weakens the principle that pension contributions should get tax relief because they represent income which is postponed until retirement."
Those words were the words of Mr. Paul Dean, now Under-Secretary of State in the Department which is producing this Bill. He went on to say:
"I am bound to ask … whether this represents the thin edge of the wedge and the Chancellor will say to us next year … that tax relief on contributions to occupational pension schemes and the like is now an anomaly and should be removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. 20/5/65; col. 1770.]
His fears on the latter score were not necessary.
In the case of 1965, the Government endeavoured to compensate by increasing

311
personal tax reliefs. And the Conservatives, including Mr. Paul Dean, argued, rightly, that it was a dangerous precedent; and it was dangerous, because it is the precedent which the present Government are now following. The only difference is that Mr. Dean's fears that it might be extended to occupational schemes were proved wrong and the present Government are now extending it to their own Reserve Pension Scheme. My Lords, the Secretary of State is using exactly the same means about which we complained eight years ago, and although the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that he thought the Government had gone out of their minds it is only fair to say that they had a precedent in what his Government did eight years ago.
When we discussed this point during the Committee stage I made a tentative suggestion that the alternative possibility was that if the Government were going to penalise the employees on this matter, they should also penalise the employers and make their contribution equally non-tax exempt. I am not quite sure about the morality of it, but I feel that if the Government are going to commit one inequity they might extend it to both parties, which might then make it faintly equitable. What I was really suggesting was that if it is the intention of the Secretary of State, and his wish, to make the Reserve Pension Scheme less eligible and less attractive than occupational schemes —in effect, to outlaw it—he should do so in a rather more equitable manner as between the two contributing parties. However, that suggestion has not found favour in my noble friend's eyes—perhaps he thinks it might create yet another dangerous precedent. But Governments, as I have shown, are not necessarily bound by precedent, or even by their own past words.
I find myself in some difficulty when I see the Opposition Amendment. I think there is something to be said for the theory that at this late stage in the progress of the Bill, when it is almost law, it would mean renegotiation with very many people. But I certainly cannot support the Government in what they are doing in this matter. The view of the Secretary of State, as I understand it, is that the end justifies the means. I do not accept that, when the means are as
312
inequitable as they are in this case. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, also pointed out, considered opinion in the insurance world does not think that this is necessary, and that is the position so far as I have been able to ascertain from what has been stated in public and from private contacts that I have made.
I should like to remind the Secretary of State, through my noble friend, that although this scheme will go through, there are many in the Conservative Party who think it wrong. I think it fair to say that those of us on both sides of the House who interest ourselves in matters of social security—apart from what I might call the "normal pensioneering" in which we all indulge from time to times—represent a fairly select minority. It is a very technical subject. But the provision in the Bill was defeated in Committee, with Conservative support; and of those whose main interest in another place is in matters of social security, on the Conservative Benches hardly one supported the Secretary of State, and not one noble Lord in this House has spoken in favour of it. Those who have spoken against include the very weighty opinion of a former Minister of Pensions.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, in recent days I have been too deeply immersed in water to have had the opportunity of following this Bill closely. But I realised that this Amendment was likely to be taken at about this time and I felt that I should try to be in my place simply to say that this is one of the issues on which I think that the greatest feeling has been roused. It is a matter of justice and equity. The case has been so admirably put by my noble friend Lord Diamond and by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, that I do not wish to delay your Lordships by rehearsing the arguments again. But I thought it only right that one should express the feeling held by many, including many of the women's organisations with which I am associated, that this is a most unjust provision. It would be very regrettable if it went forward unamended and, having heard the arguments put in your Lordships' House, I hope that even at this late hour your Lordships may feel disposed to emphasise to the Government that this is a most serious error of judgment on their part.
6.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was rather surprised, in a way, that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, should return to the charge on this matter, because we had a debate during the Committee stage on this; we had a Division, and the Government's view was supported in that Division. We now return to an Amendment which, though differently worded, has precisely the same effect as the last Amendment on the Committee stage. All the arguments have been heard before, and nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said to-day was in any way different from what he said in Committee. Nor will my reply be very much different, though I may be able to express myself more clearly. I should also say to your Lordships that in fact this is very much a matter about which this House should tread delicately. It is entirely a matter of taxation policy and one in which the other place has rather a deeper interest and responsibility than we have. But I will try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, through the sequence of points that he made to-day.
The noble Lord began by referring to tax principles. The Reserve Pension Scheme is an entirely new departure and it does not seem to me surprising that perhaps policies apply to it which are different from those that have applied hitherto. My noble friend Lord Reigate —although I realise that he does not agree with Government policy in this matter—himself referred to the fact that there was a precedent, and that to save administrative costs, tax relief on employees' National Insurance contributions was supplanted by a lump sum addition to personal allowances. In other words, in that case the employee was compensated elsewhere in the tax arrangements for the withdrawal of tax relief on his National Insurance contribution. In the present case the compensation comes from the employer or, if one carries the analysis a little further, from the employer and the Inland Revenue by way of tax relief on the employer's contribution. But again it is the employee who is compensated in this way. I do not accept that our proposals can be faulted by reference to traditional tax principles.
My noble friend Lord Reigate returned to his point that if we were not allowing tax relief on the employee's contribution
314
we should not allow it on the employer's contribution either. But we do not think that it would be fair to lay a further burden on the employer, who is already paying 2½ per cent., as against the employee's 1½ per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me to justify the fifty-fifty split in the 4 per cent. contribution which it had originally been our idea to put forward. It has been argued that general practice in occupational pension schemes would justify levying the Reserve Scheme contribution as to only three-eighths from the employee, even though the employee received tax relief on his share. This we do not accept. It seems to us that there is a very real difference between, on the one hand, arrangements which have been voluntarily entered into, following negotiations between employers and employees, and, on the other hand, a contribution compulsorily imposed.
Your Lordships will have observed that under the recognition requirements, in the case where occupational schemes are to be tested by reference to their contributions under a money purchase arrangement the employer is to be required to pay no more than half the total contribution—2·5 per cent. of relevant earnings out of the minimum total contribution of 5 per cent. One really cannot argue that because the total contributions of employers and employees to occupational schemes at present bear a certain relationship to each other that same relationship could properly be embodied in a statutory requirement—any more than one could argue that because some employers run non-contributory schemes all employers should be obliged to do so. Under voluntary arrangements there are opportunities to settle these matters to the satisfaction of employers and employees as part of the total remuneration offered. A requirement statutorily imposed does not provide the same opportunities of flexibility and adaptation to the particular wage structure.
Our departure from the 50–50 basis does of course impose an additional burden on the employer, as the noble Lord said, but we regard this as justified, taking into account the fact that it is ultimately the employer who has to decide to take his employees out of the Reserve Scheme and put them into a recognised occupational scheme.

315
The noble Lord went on to speak about a penalty of 40 per cent. being imposed on the Reserve Scheme as against an occupational pension scheme. This is not the full picture, however, because it is essential to our case that the employee's contribution to the Reserve Scheme is topped up not by tax relief but by an extra contribution from his employer. It would be quite wrong to suppose that 40 per cent. is the measure of the tax relief advantage given to the occupational scheme as a whole in comparison with the Reserve Scheme, because this 40 per cent. is applied only to a minority part of the scheme's contribution income. Under the Reserve Scheme, as under occupational schemes, the employer's contribution will attract tax relief. In considering whether tax relief ought to be given on employee's Reserve Scheme contributions we are discussing a tax relief which would amount to something like £25 million a year in relation to total Reserve Scheme contributions of the order of £300 million. So that, on these figures, in relation to the total contribution income of the Reserve Scheme, tax relief on the employee's contributions would represent less than 10 per cent.
Let me summarise what the Government's position is, and how we are very much in control of our own heads and have by no means gone off them. We had first to make a judgment on the scale on which the Reserve Scheme should operate, taking account of the rate of contribution that could reasonably be charged. This enabled us to strike a balance between a scheme that would not provide reasonable benefits and one that would be so attractive that it would discourage the development of occupational schemes. We calculated that the Reserve Scheme could be financed by a total contribution of 4 per cent. We then had to make a further decisison on how that 4 per cent. total should be split between the employer and the employee, and this entailed finding a further nice balance again to avoid the danger of discouraging the development of occupational schemes; and this balance we believe to be struck at a split of 1½ per cent. for the employee and 2½ per cent. for the employer. An employer who may be contemplating an occupational scheme (as we hope that many will) knows that if he relies on the Reserve
316
Scheme all his employees, whether or not they are taxpayers, will have to contribute 1½ per cent. of their relevant earnings. He could therefore calculate that for any occupational scheme he had in mind a contribution of 2 per cent., subject to tax relief, should be acceptable to his employees—or even, indeed, a higher contribution if he could convince them of the extra benefits provided by the occupational scheme. This gives him the flexibility to propose an attractive occupational scheme.
If, however, this Amendment were carried and tax relief were allowed on the employee's contribution, this would reduce that contribution, at least for those who were taxpayers, to something nearer I per cent. How much more difficult it would then be for an employer to propose an occupational scheme in claiming a contribution from the employee of 2 per cent. or higher! To accept this Amendment would upset completely the delicate balance between the Reserve Scheme and occupational schemes. It would result in the discouragement of occupational schemes, and would probably deprive millions of workers of the opportunity of an occupational scheme. We have deliberately taken into account the absence of tax relief on the employee's contribution by putting it at 1½ per cent. compared to the employer's 2½ per cent. We see considerable advantage in the fact that all employees will be on the same basis, and there will be no advantage to those who pay tax over the lower paid who do not.
I cannot repeat more strongly, my Lords, that one of our main purposes in this Bill is to encourage the maximum development of occupational pension schemes which can bring benefits to their members closely related to their needs. The Reserve Scheme is what its name implies—a fall-back scheme for those without an occupational scheme. To alter the balance now between these two types of scheme to the advantage of the Reserve Scheme would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill and would be unfair to employees— many millions of them. I ask your Lordships once main not to agree with this Amendment.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to make just two points. It has been stated that in 1965 the previous Government laid down a precedent. I think

317
there is a great deal of difference between what was done then and what is being done now. First of all, when the contributions to the ordinary pension were disallowed everybody concerned was given as compensation an increase in the personal allowance. Since everybody was affected, it was reasonable compensation. The ordinary scheme is not in competition with the vocational schemes. Therefore, it might have been an error—perhaps a tactical error—but it was not an injustice. But this is an injustice.
The Minister has said that the Government started their thinking on the basis of 50–50. But this is thinking of a number. Surely it would have been more reasonable if the Government had started their thinking on the same basis as the vocational schemes. The Minister in the other place has admitted that the contributions made by employees to the vocational schemes are certainly not more than 37½ per cent. So that the employee in the vocational scheme is paying not more than 37½ per cent. and is getting the tax allowance. But the Government are proposing that in this Reserve Scheme which is in competition with the vocational schemes the employee shall pay again 37½ per cent. but shall not get the tax allowance. This is a grave injustice and, at the very least, it is a grave psychological error.
6.30 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I believe I have the privilege of replying to the debate since I moved the Amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend, who has saved me the task of explaining what I am sure is well known to your Lordships: that in the days before computers, as a matter of administrative convenience and of saving the taxpayers' money on wasteful administration, it was decided to exchange tax for tax. Instead of the separate assessment of each person's contribution, which is a basic figure throughout the National Insurance scheme, there was a lump sum added on to the personal allowance which gave broadly the same result as a tax relief, being equivalent to the tax relief lost in the "long-way-round" method which had been previously used. Administrative costs saved, the tax position unaltered, no third party brought in—those were the reasons why that was done, in order to save the wasteful
318
expenditure of taxpayers' money. That is not a precedent or anything like a precedent for what we are saying, with justification, is a unique injustice against one particular category alone, is a breach of tax principles and is also foolish in the sense that it does not achieve what it set out to achieve because it does not help the individuals in the same way as it helps the Inland Revenue. It saves £20 million for the Inland Revenue which it puts on the backs of employees. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, wanted to add something.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I just wanted to make the point, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware, that the compensation in 1969 by means of increased personal allowances did not benefit those who were not taxpayers; so there was an injustice there, too.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has come back to that point again, so I must deal with it. The noble Lord is now saying that one of the defects of my Amendment is that a proposal to give tax relief does not help those who in any event pay no tax at all. That is perfectly true and it is true throughout this system. It has nothing to do with this particular case. It is of the quality of all tax systems where you have a threshold below which no tax is paid. If the noble Lord still thinks it is a fair argument to use, let me tell him what it is that he wants—he wants people to enter into the occupational schemes. That is what he is wanting: he wants them to go into occupational schemes instead of entering the Reserve Scheme. In the occupational schemes which the Minister wants and the Government want, those employees who pay will get tax relief. The employees who pay no tax will get no tax relief in the scheme which the Government themselves are propagating.
This is penalising the Reserve Scheme so that the occupational schemes shall flourish. It is really a very odd argument to use, and it hits back at the Minister, because it is a fundamental condition of our taxation system—I dealt with this at Committee stage and I did not want to detain your Lordships by referring to it this evening. And the remedy does not lip with an Amendment

319
to this Bill or with a pension rearrangement. The remedy lies with having a minimum wage so that everybody gets at least an amount of income which is equal to the threshold of taxation and therefore starts to pay a little tax. The minimum wage is not for us to decide: it is not relevant to this Bill. However, this is merely explaining to the Minister that he cannot use the argument about tax structure to affect this particular Amendment. So the Minister is now really falling back on the argument that you cannot compare the 33 per cent.—incidentally, my noble friend was right in saying "less than 37 per cent."; it is in fact 33 per cent.—which is the proportion which the employee is called upon to bear in the average occupational scheme, with the 50–50 which is the sole justification for the whole of this argument. In the Government's mind, you cannot compare those two because one is voluntary and the other is compulsory.
The noble Lord gave two arguments. The first was that there were often arrears of service taken into account in the voluntary schemes. Of course that is so. Of course, when an employer starts a new occupational scheme he frequently makes an extra contribution himself in order to provide for arrears of service worked before the scheme had started. Thus, the employer's extra contribution provides for back service as well as current service so as to give the benefit of pension rights to those employees whom he wishes to benefit. That is a further benefit to the employee. So if you do want to compare these two, then all you are saying is that the contribution should be not 33 per cent. but even less, because the employee in the Reserve Scheme will never—I repeat, "never"—get any benefit in respect of pre-scheme service, or back service. The second argument which the noble Lord used has escaped me for the moment. Perhaps he would be good enough to refresh my memory on that.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was talking about the total contribution of employers and employees to occupational schemes, because at the present time they
320
bear a certain relationship to each other, and that therefore the same relationship should accordingly be a statutory requirement.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord was making comparisons between voluntary schemes and the compulsory scheme, which is what the Reserve Scheme is. Unfortunately, I did not have time to make a note of it while he was speaking, so I will not detain the House any longer on that issue.
The noble Lord then brought in, which I much regretted, a most selective argument about the £25 million of the total contributions. This is merely a way of comparing like with unlike. It is a very familiar exercise. I did not think that the noble Lord's case was so weak that he would need to rely on arguments of that kind. The £25 million is what is expected to be saved for all the taxpayers, some of whom will be paying at the full rate and some of whom will not. Some of them will be paying no tax at all. But the comparison that matters is the comparison the employee will make when he says to his union officer who is going to negotiate with the firm and endeavour to persuade the firm to set up either an occupational scheme or enter the State scheme, "If I, the employee, go into an occupational scheme, I get that amount of pension and it costs me my contribution, less tax; and if I go into the State Reserve Scheme I get the same amount of pension, it costs me the same amount of contribution on average and I get no tax relief." That is the comparison that is going to be made by each individual employee, no doubt acting through his or her organisation. So we are still left with the fact that in order to penalise the State Reserve Scheme the Government have put a penalty on it so that the private schemes can compete with it. As my noble friend said, there was no question of competition in 1965; that issue was not involved at all. It is a matter of bolstering up what the noble Lord alleges to be incompetent private enterprise occupational pensions schemes putting a penalty of 40 per cent. on the State Reserve Scheme. I should think your Lordships would want to reject an argument like that out of hand.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
6.48 p.m.
Clause 81 [Reserve scheme widow's pension]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to bring cross references into line with Amendments made earlier. I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 45, leave out from ("section") to end of line 46 and insert ("77(5) or under Schedule 1 to this Act as applied by section 77(4)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Clause 84 [Questions arising under the basic scheme]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27 which
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hoy, L.

Shannon, E.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, B.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Rhodes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

White, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Tellers.]

Merrivale, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amebrley, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Bourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brook of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

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

Strathclyde, L.

Coleraine, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Courtown, E.

Kindersley, L.

Swansea, L.

Cowley, E.

Kinloss, Ly

Templemore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Landerdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Crathorne, L.

Limerick, E.

Terrington, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Croft, L.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

Loudoun, C.

Waldegrave, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

is a consequential Amendment. I spoke to this on Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 44, leave out ("or (9)") and insert ("(9) or (10)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. I spoke to the substantial point on this on Amendment No. 11, a technical Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("and any other Act of the same session in which this Act is passed").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Information to be given to employees]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 120, leave out line 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 29 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 80 at the same time. Clause 91(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring employers to inform their employees whether they are to be members of a recognised occupational pension scheme or the State Reserve Scheme. The intention is that such information should be given before the appointed day from which employers must be in one or other of these types of scheme. The intention is that the day appointed should be April 6, 1975, but the reference in line 20 to "any time before the appointed day" is not only unnecessary but also could cause confusion in the context of the Bill where there will be different appointed days for different purposes. The desired effect will be simply achieved by bringing Clause 91(3) into force by an appointed day Order before Parts II and III of the Bill are made generally operative. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Priority of certain debts in bankruptcy, etc.]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this Amendment again concerns the Northern Ireland application, to which I spoke on Amendment No. 19. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 38, at end insert ("or the Northern Ireland Ministry").—(The Earl of Cowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 32, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("Schedule 24 to this Act").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Further provisions as to Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment to correct an omission. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 127, line 27, after ("(5)") insert ("88").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 together. These are technical Amendments to correct wrong cross-references. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 127, line 29, leave out ("13 and 14") and insert ("and 13 to 15").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 together. They are drafting Amendments connected with the Northern Ireland application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 127, leave out lines 38 to 40.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 127, line 41, leave out ("7") and insert ("8").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 2, at end insert—
("(d) regulations or orders made by the Northern Ireland Ministry").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Financial provisions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment designed

325
to bring the wording to conformity with paragraph 7(b) of Schedule 19. I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 35, leave out from ("recovered") to end of line 37 and insert ("by the Secretary of State in pursuance of regulations under paragraph 7(b) of Schedule 19 to this Act").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this Act, in relation to any enactment of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation is a reference to, or to any provision of, an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or any order made under or having the same effect as such an Act, for the time being in force corresponding to that enactment.").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Transitional provisions; minor and consequential amendments; repeals]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 together. They are concerned with Northern Ireland application. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, line 38, leave out ("the enactment") and insert ("or an Order made under, or having the same effect as, an enactment of that Parliament, the enactment or Order").
Page 135, line 44, leave out ("an order made under, or having the same effect as") and insert ("any provision of an Order made under").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Levy of Class 4 Contributions by Inland Revenue]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. It is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 17, leave out ("or (9)") and insert ("(9) or (10)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Attendance Allowance Board; Miscellaneous Provisions as to Attendance Allowance]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this Amendment is required to ensure that the existing entry relating to the Attendance Allowance Board in Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (bodies of which all members are disqualified for membership of the House of Commons) continues under the Bill. The existing entry was inserted by the National Insurance Act 1970. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 153, line 17, at end insert—
("1A. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 shall continue with the Attendance Allowance Board included in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act (bodies of which all members are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons) at the place where it was inserted in the Schedule by Schedule 2 to the National Insurance Act 1970.").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [The National Insurance Advisory Committee]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. It amends Part III of Schedule 12, regulations not requiring prior submission to the N.I.A.C., by deleting the reference to Section 2(3) of the National Insurance Act 1969. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 166, line 45, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 46.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Adaptation of Part 1, and Other Provisions for Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together, and to speak in addition to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52. These are technical Amendments relating to the Northern Ireland application. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 167, line 27, after ("49(1)") insert ("other than that section and this Schedule)").
Page 167, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to sneak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 57 together. They are technical Amendments again relating to the Northern Ireland application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 36, in the first column, after ("Board") insert ("(except in paragraph 1A of Schedule 7").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47 to 52 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Amendments moved—
Page 167, line 44, in the first column, leave out ("and section 49")
Page 167, line 46, in the first column, leave out ("(except in section 49)")
Page 168, line 17, in the first column, leave out ("(except in section 49)")
Page 168, line 26, in the first column, leave out ("section 49")
Page 168, line 33, in the first column, leave out ("in section 49")
Page 168, line 36, in the first column, leave out ("(except in section 49)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53 and at the same time I wish to speak to Amendment No. 55. This is a Northern Ireland application.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, leave out lines 47 to 49 and insert—
("(3) In section 1(6)—

(a) in paragraph (c) for "section 27 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965" substitute "section 37 of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965";

(b) for "the Treasury supplement under" substitute "the sums mentioned in"").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54. I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
(" 5. In section 14(6)—
328

(a) in paragraph (ca) omit "the Employment Service Agency, a local education authority";

(b) in paragraph (cb) omit "the Employment Service Agency or a local education authority",

(c) in paragraph (cc) for "the Employment and Training Act 1948" substitute "the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950".").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move Amendment No. 55.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
("13. In section 45—

(a) in subsection (1) for "the Inland Revenue under section 5(4) of this Act and" substitute "the Secretary of State under section 5(5) of this Act and by the Inland Revenue under";

(b) in subsection (4)(a) for the words following "cost" substitute "of the health service in Northern Ireland"").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a Northern Ireland application. I beg to move Amendment No. 56.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, line 42, leave out (""the Old Cases Act"").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 57. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 46.
Amendment moved—
Page 170, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
("16. In Schedule 7—

(a) in paragraph 1, for "4" substitute "3" and for "9" substitute "7";

(b) in paragraph 1A, at the end insert—

"(2) That Act shall continue with the Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland including in the said Part II, as substituted by section 10 of and Schedule 3 to that Act, in relation to membership of the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, at the place where it was inserted in that Part by Schedule 2 to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1970."; and

(c) in paragraph 16, for "section 87(2) of "substitute" paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 25 to".")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this technical Amendment clarifies and

329
simplifies the existing wording. I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 170, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 12 and insert—
("(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Requirements as to preservation of benefit under occupational pension schemes]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment, designed to clarify the meaning of this provision without in any way altering its effect. It puts beyond any doubt the fact that the preservation requirements will apply not only to the long service benefit payable to the member himself on his retirement but also to benefits payable in respect of him after he has attained normal pension age; that is to say, cover for death after retirement. I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Amendment moved—
Page 174, line 39, leave out from ("benefits") to ("retirement") in line 45 and insert—
("which will be payable under the scheme, in accordance with legal obligation, to or in respect of a member of the scheme on the assumption that he remains in relevant employment until he attains normal pension age;
and in paragraph (b) above "benefits" means").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 176, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert—
("(2) Subject to the following sub-paragraph, short service benefit must be made payable as from normal pension age or, if in the member's case that age is earlier than 60, then from the age of 60.
(2A) Short service benefit payable on or in respect of the member's death after normal pension age must be made payable as from his death or within such time thereafter as long service benefit payable on or in respect of his death would be payable.
(2B) In applying sub-paragrahs (2) and (2A) above, no regard is to be had to the operation of any scheme rule, taking effect at any time after termination of the member's pensionable service, as to what is normal pension age under the scheme.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment designed to clarify the meaning of this provision in
330
three respects. First, it removes an ambiguity in the paragraph as drafted at present as to the age at which short service benefit must be payable where normal pension age is earlier than age 60. In these cases the benefits need not be put into payment until age 60. Secondly, it puts beyond any doubt the fact that only the personal element of a short service benefit may be deferred in this way: if a short service member does between normal pension age and age 60 any death benefit included in the short service benefit must be payable within the same period of death as in the case of a long service benefit. Thirdly, the opportunity has been taken to ensure that even where a scheme rule is changed while an employee is still a member of the scheme it will not affect his normal pension age unless it actually takes effect while he is still a member. I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment designed to remove any implication that paragraph 16 might override paragraph 17 and thus prevent schemes even from writing off arrears of benefit after six years or more. I beg to move Amendment No. 61.
Amendment moved—
Page 180, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("provision") in line 20 and insert—
("16.—(1) Except so far as permitted by this paragraph, and subject to paragraph 17 below, a scheme must not contain any provision for forfeiture of short service benefit.
(2)")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments No. 62 and 63 together. Paragraph 17 restricts the circumstances in which occupational pension schemes may write off arrears of short service benefit (that is to say preserved pensions) because of failure to claim or to comply with a scheme formality. This is to protect the member or his dependant who has lost touch with his scheme. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 181, line 13, leave out ("the person's failure") and insert ("failure by him or any other person")
Page 181, line 15, leave out ("person's failure") and insert ("failure by him or any other person").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Part IV of National Insurance Act 1965]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 64 to 69 en bloc. These are technical Amendments. The definition of "contributions" in Section 64 of the National Insurance Act 1965 (as adapted by the Bill) is transferred to Section 81(3)(a) of the National Insurance Act 1965, which is its only relevant context. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 193, leave out lines 17 to 23.
Page 193, line 44, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 45.
Page 197, line 33, at end insert—
("(c) in subsection (3)(a) after "contributions" insert "under Part I of the Social Security Act or contributions or premiums under Part III of that Act")
Page 198, leave out lines 10 to 15.
Page 198, line 32, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 33.
Page 209, line 35, at end insert—("under Part I of the Social Security Act or contributions or premiums under Part III of that Act").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move Amendment No. 70.
Amendment moved—
Page 210, leave out lines 18 to 22.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Adaptation of certain provisions of Part IV for Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments No. 71 to 74 en bloc and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 77. This again is the Northern Ireland application.
Amendments moved—
Page 220, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule")
Page 220, line 18, after second ("of insert ("this Part of").
Page 220, line 24, leave out ("49") and insert ("44(4)").
Page 221, line 19, at end insert ("and in its application to regulations or orders made otherwise than by that Ministry that subsection shall have effect as if the words "(other than paragraph 4 of Schedule 10) or of Part IV of the former principal Act" were omitted.").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.10 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this has a Northern Ireland application. I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
Amendment moved—
Page 221, line 23 at end insert ("and after 'in subsection (4) insert', in paragraph (b), for fails' substitute 'refuses or neglects' and".").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 221, line 31, at end insert—
("(bb) in paragraph 5(4)(a) omit "or in Scotland a citation" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, may be relieved to hear that this is a technical Amendment which corrects a reference to a Scots law which is included in this Schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords I have spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 221, line 41, at end insert—
("(ee) in paragraph 12 for "paragraphs 7 to 10" substitute "paragraphs 7 to 9"").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, This has a Northern Ireland application. I beg to move Amendment No. 78.
Amendment moved—
Page 222, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
("(c) in paragraph 5 for "Schedule 11" substitute "Schedule 9";
(d) in paragraph 6—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words from "the Secretary of State" to respectively "substitute" the Northern Ireland Ministry considers appropriate for facilitating the introduction of the basic scheme established by Part I of this Act or the Secretary of State considers appropriate for facilitating the introduction of the reserve pension scheme established by Part HI of this Act;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(c) for "the Secretary of State" substitute "the Northern Ireland Ministry or as the case may be the Secretary of State";

(e) in paragraph 7—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a) for "105" substitute "99"

(ii) in sub paragraph (b) for "84" substitute "79" and omit "and any regulations

333
having effect by virtue of section 22(2) of the Family Allowance Act".").—(Lord Aberdare.)

LORD HOY: My Lords, what we are doing here is removing lines 5 to 11 and replacing them by I cannot remember how many lines, but I think it is something like 22. I do not know why all this explanation is necessary if you take out lines 5 to 11 and have to put in an Amendment to cover this. What is the reason for it?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I did speak to this matter a little earlier, when I talked about the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. These remarks were addressed to Amendment No. 19. I am happy to do this again if the noble Lord wishes. This was the application of the whole of the Bill to Northern Ireland and on Amendment No. 19 I spelt out what we were doing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 223, line 41, leave out ("paragraph 2(1) of Part II") and insert ("paragraph 14(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 79 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 82, 85, 88 and 90 at the same time. Each of these technical Amendments corrects a wrong cross-reference.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move Amendment No. 80.
Amendment moved—
Page 224, line 6, leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 7.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 226, leave out lines 8 to 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendment No. 81 and speak to Amendments Nos. 83, 86, 87, 89 and 91 at the same time. These have a Northern Ireland application.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 82:
Amendment moved—
Page 226, line 27, leave out ("paragraph 2 of Part II") and insert ("paragraph 13")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83.
Amendment moved—
Page 226, line 33, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 34.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
Amendment moved—
Page 227, line 6, leave out ("omit" under this Act" and")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 230, line 20, leave out ("paragraph 2 of Part II") and insert ("paragraph 13")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86.
Amendment moved—
Page 231, line 8, at end insert—
("(c) in subsection (3)(a) after "contributions" insert "under Part I of the Social Security Act or contributions or premiums under Part III of that Act."")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 87.
Amendment moved—
Page 231, leave out lines 28 to 33.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88.
Amendment moved—
Page 231, line 45, leave out ("paragraph 2 of Part 11") and insert ("paragraph 13").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89.
Amendment moved—
Page 232, line 3, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 4.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 239, line 46, leave out ("paragraph 2 of Part II") and insert ("paragraph 13").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABFRDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 19, at end insert ("under Part I of the Social Security Act or contributions or premiums under Part III of that Act").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 92:
Leave out Schedule 27 and insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE 27
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
PART I
ENACTMENTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 (c. 20)
1. In section 118(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "income tax" insert" or Class 4 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) for paragraph (f) substitute—

"(f) all the debts specified in section 93(2) of the Social Security Act 1973.".

The Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c. 59)
2. In section 33(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1914—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "income tax" insert "or Class 4 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) for paragraph (f) substitute—

"(f) all the debts specified in section 93(2) of the Social Security Act 1973".

3. In Schedule 2, paragraph 9, for "payable under the National Insurance Act, 1911" substitute "or premiums payable under Part I or Part III of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935 (c. 8)
4. In section 80(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1935, for "the National Insurance Act, 1946" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Road Haulage Wages Act 1938 (c. 44)
5. In section 6(2) of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938, for "the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41)
6. In section 26(2) of the Fire Services Act 1947, in paragraph (i), for "National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance Act, 1946," substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security".
The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
7. In section 50(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948, for "section twenty-two of the National Insurance Act 1946" substitute "section 30 of the Social Security Act 1973."
8. In section 64(1), for the definition of "trade dispute" substitute—
"' trade dispute' has the meaning given, for the purpose of section 14 of the Social Security Act 1973, by subsection (6)(b) of that section;"
The Companies Act 1948 (c. 38)
9. In section 319 of the Companies Act 1948—

(a) in subsection (1), for paragraph (e) substitute—

"(e) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company, all the debts specified in section 93(2) of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in subsection (8)(c), for the words from "National Insurance" onwards substitute "Social Security Act 1973 as earnings paid in that period; and".

The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948 (c. 39)
10. In section 7 of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948—

(a) for "National Insurance Act 1946" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security"; and

(b) for "the said Act of 1946" substitute "those enactments".

The Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 (c. 41)
11. In section 2 of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, substitute the following for subsection (6)—
"(6) In this section references to any benefit shall be construed as in the enactments relating to national insurance and social security (including enactments in force in Northern Ireland); and for the purposes of this section an industrial disablement gratuity is to be treated as benefit for the period taken into account by the assessment of the extent of the disablement in respect of which it is payable."
The Children Act 1948 (c. 43)
12. In section 18(2) of the Children Act 1948, for "section twenty-two of the National

337
Insurance Act 1946" substitute "section 30 of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Juries Act 1949 (c. 27)
13. In section 1(1)(b) of the Juries Act 1949 (as substituted by section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972), after "national insurance" insert "and social security".
The Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (c. 101)
14. In section 8(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (as amended by section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 and set out in Schedule 4 to that Act), for "the National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1967" substitute "the enactments relating to national insurance and social security".
The Fire Services Act 1951 (c. 27)
15. In section 2 of the Fire Services Act 1951, for subsection (4) substitute—
"(4) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the operation of the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, but the Firemen's Pension Scheme may provide for the reduction or withholding of awards under the Scheme where, in respect of the same matters, benefit is payable under those enactments and awards may be made under the Scheme."
The Local Government Superannuation Act 1953 (c. 25)
16. In section 25 of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953, in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1), for "twenty-two of the National Insurance Act, 1946" substitute "30 of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Friendly Societies Act 1955 (4 Eliz. 2. c. 19)
17. In section 9 of the Friendly Societies Act 1955—

(a) in subsection (1), for "Insurance Acts" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security";

(b) for subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) Where the Secretary of State furnishes a registered friendly society or branch, in connection with a claim for benefit from the society or branch, with information relating to a claim or award under those enactments, the expenses incurred in connection therewith by the Secretary of State or any other government department shall be treated as expenses in carrying those enactments into effect."

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (c. 20)
18. In Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, in Part III, for the entry beginning "Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute—
"Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under section 77 of the National
338
Insurance Act 1965 or section 76 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966";
and in the Part substituted for Part III of Schedule 1 to that Act in relation to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland (in the corresponding entry) for the words "for the purposes of the National Insurance Act" substitute the words "under section 76 of the National Insurance Act."
The Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)
19. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958—

(a) in the second column of the Table. at the end of paragraph 3, after the entry relating to the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Board, insert—

"Occupational Pensions Board, Reserve Pension Board."

(b) the second column of that Table shall continue to have effect subject to the amendment made by paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the National Insurance (Old persons' and widows' pensions and attendance allowance) Act 1970, that is to say, after the entry relating to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, there shall continue to be inserted the following entry—

"Attendance Allowance Board."
The Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (c. 65)
20. In section 2(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1959, in the definition of "benefit", for the words from "National Insurance" to "Parliament of" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security including enactments in force in".
The Wages Councils Act 1959 (c. 69)
21. In section 14(1) of the Wages Councils Act 1959, in paragraph (a), for "National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act, 1946" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security".
The Education Act 1962 (c. 12)
22. In section 9 of the Education Act 1962, in the proviso to subsection (5), for "or national insurance (including industrial injuries insurance)" substitute "national insurance and social security".
The Administration of Justice Act 1964 (c. 42)
23. In section 17(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1964, for "employer's contributions payable in respect of those officers under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1963" substitute "secondary Class 1 contributions, secondary reserve scheme contributions and reserve scheme premiums payable in respect of those officers under Part I or, as the case may be, Part III of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 (c. 81)
24. In section 2(4) of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, for the words from "which is insurable employment" to "any contribution" substitute "in respect of which contributions

339
or premiums are payable under the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, including enactments in force in Northern Ireland, but not so as to render any person liable to any contribution or premium".
The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 (c. 52)
25. In section 5(4) of the Industrial Injuries Act, for "sections 75 and 76 of this Act" substitute "section 76 of this Act and section 94(8) of the Social Security Act".
26. In section 8(2), after "vessel" insert "hovercraft (within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968)".
27. In section 11, after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) Subsection (1)(a) to (e) of section 12 of the Social Security Act, and any regulations made under those paragraphs or under subsection (2) of that section, shall have effect for the purposes of injury benefit as they have effect for the purposes of unemployment benefit or sickness benefit under PartI of that Act.".
28. In section 13A(5), for "Insurance Act" substitute "Social Security Act".
29. In section 17(5), for "29 of the Insurance Act" substitute "22 of the Social Security Act".
30. In section 19(3), in paragraph (d), for "the upper limit of the compulsory school" substitute "school-leaving".
31. Section 27(2) shall continue to have effect subject to the amendment made by section 2(1) of the National Insurance &c. Act 1969, that is to say, for paragraph (b) there shall continue to be substituted—
"(b) for extinguishing the right to payment of any sum by way of benefit if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen.".
32. For section 28(1) substitute—
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on, benefit, and every agreement to assign or charge benefit, shall be void, and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, the benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.
(1A) In the application of subsection (1) of this section to Scotland—

(a) the reference to assignment of benefit shall be read as a reference to its assignation, "assign" being construed accordingly;

(b) the reference to a beneficiary's bankruptcy shall be read as a reference to the sequestration of his estate or the appointment on his estate of a judicial factor under section 14 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 or section 15 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1958.".

33. In section 29(1), for "against which he is insured under this Act" substitute "arising
340
out of and in the course of his employed earner's employment".
34. In section 32(1), for "Part II of the Insurance Act" substitute "Chapter II of Part I of the Social Security Act".
35. In section 34(3), for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) the employed earners have died as a result of accidents arising out of and in the course of their employed earner's employment,".
36. In section 35—

(a) in subsection (2), for "64(1)(d) of that Act" substitute "84(1)(d) of the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (3), for the words from "subsection (1)(a) to (e)" onwards substitute " subsection (1)(a) of this section as it applies in relation to any question arising under the Social Security Act such as is mentioned in section 84(1)(a) of that Act";

(c) in subsection (4) for " the said section 64(1)(a) to (c) of that Act " substitute " section 84(1)(a) of the Social Security Act".

37. In section 50—
(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for "an insurance tribunal" substitute "and a competent tribunal";

(ii) in paragraph (b), for "insurance tribunal" substitute "competent tribunal";

(iii) in paragraphs (c) and (h), for "an insurance tribunal" substitute (in each case) "a competent tribunal";

(iv) in paragraph (g), for "an insurance tribunal" substitute "or a competent tribunal";

(b) in subsection (6), for "insurance tribunal' "substituted "competent tribunal'".
38. In section 54—

(a) in subsections (2) and (8), for "the Insurance Act" substitute (in each case) "Part 1 of the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (4), for"subsections (5) and (7)" substitute "subsection (5)";

(c) for subsection (10) substitute—

"(10) This section is subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act.".

39. In section 62(2), for "2 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Act "substitute "5 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act".
40. In section 71(1), for "injuries and diseases against which persons are insured under this Act" substitute "arising out of and in the course of employment, or injuries and diseases which are due to the nature of employment".
41. In section 73(1), for "against which he was insured under this Act" substitute "due to the nature of his employment".
42. For section 74 substitute—
"Person employed by or under the Crown.
74. This Act shall apply to persons employed by or under the Crown in like manner as if such persons were employed earners in the employment of a private person:
Provided that employment in the naval, military or air force service of the Crown and any other prescribed employment under the Crown shall not be, or be treated as, employed earner's employment."
43. For section 78 substi0tute—
"Persons under school-leaving age.
78. A person who has not attained school-leaving age shall not be entitled to injury benefit except as may be provided by regulations.".
44. In section 85(4)—

(a) for "75 of this Act" substitute "94(8) of the Social Security Act",

(b) for "the said section 75" substitute "the said section 94(8)".

45. In section 86—

(a) in subsection (1), after the definition of relevant loss of faculty" insert "'the Social Security Act' means the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) a person shall be deemed to have attained or not to have attained school-leaving age if he would be treated as being, as the case may be, over or under the upper limit of the compulsory school age for the purposes of that Act (disregarding any regulations made by virtue of section 2 of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967)";

(ii) in paragraph (c), after "of that Act" insert "(as amended by section 1(1)(b) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1968)".

46. In Schedule 3, paragraph 9(c), column 2, for "National Insurance Act 1965 as specified in Schedule 3" substitute "Social Security Act as specified in Part I of Schedule 4".
The Family Allowances Act 1965 (c. 53)
47. In section 5 of the Family Allowances Act—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "section 48(2)(c)" to "payment under this Act)" substitute "paragraph 1(4)(c) of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for "under the Insurance Act" substitute "under Part I of the Social Security Act",

(ii) for "under that Act" substitute "under that Part of that Act", and

(iii) for "of that Act" substitute "of the Insurance Act".

48. In section 7, after subsection (3) insert—
"(4) The regulations to be so made may make provision for extinguishing the right to
342
payment of any allowance if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen.".
49. In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Act" substitute paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act";

(ii) for "80) to (5)" substitute "81(1) to (4)"

(iii) for "section 49(5) of the Insurance Act" substitute "paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act";

(iv) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for "the Insurance Act" substitute (in each place) "Part I of the Social Security Act"; and

(b) in subsection (3), for "the Insurance Act" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act".

50. In section 11(6), for "29 of the Insurance Act" substitute "22 of the Social Security Act".
51. For section 12 substitute—
"Information as to and proof of, age, marriage or death.
12. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Schedule 22 to the Social Security Act shall apply for the purposes marriage or of this Act as they purposes of that Act.".
52. In section 19(1), after the definition of "the Minister", insert ""the Social Security Act" means the Social Security Act 1973,"
53. In section 22, for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) For the purpose of giving effect to any agreement with the Government of any country outside the United Kingdom providing for reciprocity in matters relating to payments for purposes similar or comparable to the purposes of this Act, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying this Act in its application to cases affected by the agreement.
(1A) The modifications of this Act which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) above shall include provision—

(a) for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the law of the country in respect of which the agreement is made shall have a corresponding effect for the purposes of this Act (but not so as to confer a right to double benefit);

(b) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both under this Act and under the law of that country, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned;

(c) for making any necessary financial adjustments.

(1B) Powers corresponding to those conferred by section 93(2) to (4) and (7) of the Social Security Act in relation to Orders

343
in Council under that Act shall be exercisable also in relation to Orders in Council under this section.".
The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (c. 62)
54. In section 17 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965—

(a) in subsection (3), after "week of employment" insert "before the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in computing, in relation to an employee, the period specified in section 8(1) of this Act, or the period specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act, a week of employment after the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973 shall not count if—

(a) the employee was employed outside Great Britain during the whole or part of that week; and

(b) he was not during that week an employed earner for the purposes of that Act;

(c) in subsection (5), after "(3)" insert "or (4A)";

(d) for subsection (6) substitute—

"(6) Any question arising under this section—

(a) whether an employer's contribution was paid, or was or would have been payable, as mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) of this section; or

(b) whether a person was an employed earner for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1973,

shall be determined by the Secretary of State; and any legislation (including regulations) as to the determination of questions which under that Act the Secretary of State is empowered to determine (including provisions as to the reference of questions for decision, or as to appeals, to the High Court or the Court of Session) shall apply to the determination of any question by the Secretary of State under this section."
55. In section 26(3), for the words from "securities" onwards, substitute "such manner as may be specified by an order of the Treasury for the time being in force under section 22(1) of the National Savings Bank Act 1971".
56. In section 31(4), for the words from "the aggregate amount" to "contributions" substitute "equal to the appropriate allocation to the Redundancy Fund (under section 45 of the Social Security Act 1973) from all secondary Class 1 contributions paid by that employer under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
57. In section 36, for subsection (5) substitute—
"(5) In this Part of this Act "employer" and "employee" have the same meanings as in Part I of this Act."
58. In section 43—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "the next following subsection" substitute "subsection (2) of this section";

(ii) for the words from "employer's contributions" to "that employment" substitute "in respect of the whole or part of the period during which that person was in that employment, employer's contributions were paid in respect of him";

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) of this section to employer's contributions is—

(a) as respects any period before the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973, to employer's contributions within the meaning of the National Insurance Act 1965; and

(b) as respects any period beginning on or after that day, to secondary Class 1 contributions paid in respect of the person in question by persons who were in relation to him secondary Class 1 contributors by virtue of section 2(4)(a) of the said Act of 1973.";

(c) in subsection (2), for "the preceding subsection" substitute "subsection (1) of this section";

(d) in subsection (4), for the words from "such contributions" to "were paid" substitute "the conditions of subsection (1) of this section relating to the payment of employer's contributions were satisfied".

59. In section 49(1), for "redundancy fund contributions will be payable under Part II of this Act" substitute "secondary Class 1 contributions will be payable under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The National Insurance Act (c. 6)
60. In section 6(1)(a) of the National Insurance Act 1966, for "the said section 15" substitute "section 15 of that Act".
61. In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the words "68 to 76" onwards substitute "68 to 73, 75 and 76 of the Insurance Act in like manner as a claim for benefit under Part I of the Social Security Act or, as the case may be, a question to which section 84(5) of the Social Security Act applies";

(ii) in paragraph (b), for the words from "Insurance Act" (where first occurring) onwards, substitute "Social Security Act, of local tribunals constituted under section 77 of the Insurance Act or of a Commissioner appointed under section 87 of the Social Security Act";

(iii) in paragraph (ii), for "Part IV of the Insurance Act" substitute "section 84(5) of the Social Security Act and Part IV of the Insurance Act";

345

(iv) in paragraph (iii), for "a reference to the said Part IV" substitute "references to the said section 84(5) and to the said Part IV".

(b) in subsection (2) for the words from the beginning to "section 9 of this Act" substitute "Where any question under the Industrial Injuries Act (not being a special question within the meaning of that Act) first arises in the course of an appeal to a local tribunal constituted under section 77 of the Insurance Act or a Commissioner appointed under section 87 of the Social Security Act".

62. In section 14(3), after paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph—
"(bb) the expression "the Social Security Act' means the Social Security Act 1973.".
63. In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraphs 3(b), 5(a) and 6(a), for "64(1) of the Insurance Act" substitute (in each case) "84(1) of the Social Security Act";

(b) in paragraph 4(b), for "employed persons" substitute "employed earners";

(c) in paragraph 7, for "sections 67 to 70" substitute "section 84(5) of the Social Security Act or sections 68 to 70".

The Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 (c. 10)
64. In paragraph 5(2) of the Schedule to the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966, for the words from "contributions are required to be paid " to liable to any contribution" substitute "contributions or premiums are payable under the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, but the foregoing provision shall not be construed as rendering a person liable to any contribution or premium".
The Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 (c. 20) (The Ministry of Social Security Act 1966)
65. In section 12(1) of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, for "the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
66. In section 16(1), for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) benefit (other than a maternity grant or a death grant) under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973;".
67. Section 17(1) shall continue to have effect subject to the amendment made by section 2(2) of the National Insurance &c. Act 1969, that is to say, the following shall continue to be substituted for paragraph (e)—
"(e) for extinguishing the right to payment of any sum by way of benefit if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen."
68. In section 26(4), for "the National Insurance Acts 1965 and 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
69. In section 36(1), in the definitions of "place of employment" and "trade dispute" for "22 of the National Insurance Act 1965"
346
substitute (in each place) "14 of the Social Security Act 1973".
70. In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 10A—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for "22(2) of the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "14(2) of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in paragraph 12A—

(i) in sub-paragraph (2(a), for "the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for the words from "subsection (2)" onwards, substitute "section 15(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 or, in relation to a disabled child, that subsection as modified by regulations made under subsection (4) of that section";

(iii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Social Security Act 1973";

(c) in paragraph 20—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for "39 of the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute" 30 of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for "section 23" substitute "section 16";

(d) in paragraph 24—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(h), for "Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973",

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for "column 2 or 3 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "column 2 or 3 of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973",

(iii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "under Part I or increase thereof under column 3 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "under Part I, or increase thereof under column 3 of Part III, of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973",

(iv) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for "column 4 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "column 4 of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973";

(e) in paragraph 25(1)(a), for "the National Insurance Acts 1965 and 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".

The Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)
71. In section 67(3) of the Agriculture Act 1967, in paragraph (e) for "the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (c. 28)
72. In section 13 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, for subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section may provide for the reduction or withholding of awards under the regulations in cases where awards are provided for in respect of the same matters under any of the enactments relating to national insurance and social security."
The Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 (c. 34)
73. In section 4(8) of the Old Cases Act, for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) except when made for the purpose of replacing provisions of previous schemes with new provisions to the same effect, or of making provision consequential on the making of an order under section 39 of the Social Security Act 1973, shall not be made unless a draft of the scheme has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House".
74. In section 8(3)(b), for the words from "one of the Commissioners" to "subsection (3)" substitute "a Commissioner appointed under section 87 of the Social Security Act 1973, or by a tribunal constituted under subsection (2)".
75. For section 13 substitute—
"Application of enactments.
13.—(1) Subject to section 8(2) of this Act, the following enactments namely—
(a) section 81(6) of the Insurance Act;
"The Social Security Act 1973 (c.) Schedule 22, paragraph 9.
The Consular Relations Act 1968 (c. 18)
78. In section 1(6) of the Consular Relations Act 1968, for the words from "which is insurable employment" to "liable to any contribution" substitute "in respect of which contributions or premiums are payable under the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, including enactments in force in Northern Ireland, but not so as to render any person liable to any contribution or premium".
The Rent Act 1968 (c. 23)
79. In section 40(3) of the Rent Act 1968, for "the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I and Part III of the Social Security Act 1973".
The International Organisations Act 1968 (c. 48)
80. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the International Organisations Act 1968—
(a) for the words from "for the purposes" to the end of sub-paragraph (a) substitute "for the purposes of the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, including enactments in force in Northern Ireland—

(a) services rendered for the organisation by the representative or officer shall be

348

(b) sections 54(8) and 85 of the Industrial Injuries Act; and

(c) section 8(3) of the Family Allowances Act 1965,

shall have effect as if any reference in those enactments to the Industrial Injuries Act included a reference to this Act.
(2) Paragraphs 9 to 11 (except 11(b)) of Schedule 22 to the Social Security Act 1973 shall apply for the purposes of this Act as they apply for the purposes of that Act."
The Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967 (c. 90)
76. For section 1(4) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967 substitute—
"(4) The provisions set out in Part 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act shall be substituted for those of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965".
The Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (c. 14)
77. In Schedule 3 to the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968, at the end of paragraph 1(b) insert—
The Secretary of State."
deemed to be excepted from any class of employment in respect of which contributions or premiums under those enactments are payable, but";
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "contribution" insert "or premium".
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49)
81. In section 28(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, for "39 of the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "30 of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (c. 10)
82. In section 8(2)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, for the words from "a retirement pension" to "1966" substitute "a Category A retirement pension under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973, no payment of benefit under that Part of that Act".
83. In section 24(3)(a), for the words from "under the National Insurance Act" to "1966" substitute "under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
84. In section 219—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words from "the National Insurance Act 1965" to

349
"those Acts)" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973, except",

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for "the National Insurance Act 1965 or the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) for the words from "employer's contribution" to "1966" substitute "secondary Class 1 contribution or secondary reserve scheme contribution within the meaning of the said Act of 1973".

The Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
85. In sections 11(b)(ii) and 12(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, after "contributions" (in each place) insert "premiums".
86. In Schedule 4, for paragraph 3 substitute—
"3. Class 1, 2 and 4 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 and reserve scheme contributions and premiums under Part III of that Act."
The Family Income Supplements Act 1970 (c. 55)
87. In section 8(4) of the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, for "the National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1970" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32)
88. In section 3(6) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, after "contributions" insert "premiums".
89. In Schedule 2, for paragraph 3 substitute—
"3. Class 1, 2, and 4 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 and reserve scheme contributions and premiums under Part III of that Act.".
90. In Schedule 3, for paragraph 3(b) substitute—
"(b) primary Class 1 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 and primary reserve scheme contributions under Part III of that Act."
91. In Schedule 4, for "National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c. 62)
92. In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, in paragraph 18(d), for "9 of the National Insurance Act 1966 (c. 6)" substitute "87 of the Social Security Act 1973 (c.)".
The Finance Act 1971 (c. 68)
92A. In the Finance Act 1971, Schedule 4, paragraph 1(b), for the words from "under the National Insurance Acts 1965" onwards substitute "under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 which is payable to the wife by virtue (wholly or partly) of her own contributions".
The Social Security Act 1971 (c. 73)
93. In the Social Security Act 1971, after section 4 insert the following new section—
350
"Inspectors appointed under Social Security Act 1973.
4A. Every appointment of an inspector under section 88(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 shall be an appointment for the purposes of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 as well as for those of the said Act of 1973; and—

(a) in Part I of Schedule 22 to the said Act of 1973 references to that Act (except the first reference) shall include the said Act of 1966;and

(b) in paragraph 2(1)(b) of that Schedule the reference to benefit shall include benefit within the meaning of the said Act of 1966."

94. At the end of section 6 add "and this section applies also, with the necessary modifications, to the provisions of the Social Security Act 1973 which correspond to those of the National Insurance Act 1965 mentioned above in this section."
The Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (c. 46)
95. In Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, in paragraph 9(2)(i), for "Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973".
The Housing Finance Act 1972 (c. 47)
96. In Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972, in paragraph 9(2)(j), for "Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act 1965" substitute "Part I of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973".
The Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c. 15)
97. In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Administration of Justice Act 1973, for "National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1967" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security".

PART II
ENACTMENTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND, AND ORDERS IN COUNCIL APPLYING TO NORTHERN IRELAND
The Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 (c. 25)
98. In section 2A(2)(e) of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1939, for "the National Insurance Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (c. 21)
99. In section 13(1)(a) of the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, for the words from "National" to "subsequent enactment" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security".
The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 (c. 22)
100. In section 7(1) of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1948, for "National Insurance Act

351
(Northern Ireland), 1946" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security", and for "the said Act of 1946" substitute "those enactments".
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 (c. 23)
101. In section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948, substitute the following for subsection (6)—
"(6) In this section references to any benefit shall be construed as in the enactments relating to national insurance and social security (including enactments in force in Great Britain); and for the purposes of this section an industrial disablement gratuity is to be treated as benefit for the period taken into account by the assessment of the extent of the disablement in respect of which it is payable."
The Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 (c. 29)
102. In section 3 of the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950, substitute the following for subsection (6)—
"(6) The Ministry may, with the consent of the Ministry of Finance, authorise the payment out of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund of contributions towards expenses incurred under this section in respect of persons entitled to unemployment benefit under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 and persons who would be so entitled but for regulations made under that Act; but contributions under this section shall not in any year exceed one hundred thousand pounds or such greater amount as the Ministry may by order determine, and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution.".
103. In section 5—

(a) in subsection (3) for the words from "being a person" to "1946" substitute "who satisfies the contribution conditions set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in subsection (4) for the words from "or retirement pension to 1946" substitute "invalidity benefit or retirement pension under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".

The Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 (c. 20)
104. In section 3 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951, for "Commissioner appointed or deemed to be appointed under section 9 of the National Insurance (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and" substitute "National Insurance Commissioner".
105. In section 16, for the words from "and for service" onwards substitute "and for service as a National Insurance Commissioner shall require the recommendation of the Ministry of Health and Social Services".
106. In section 20, for the words from "referred to" to "before" substitute "referred to in this Act (other than a National Insurance Commissioner) shall before".
107. In section 22(1), after the definition of "Minister" insert the following definition—
"' National Insurance Commissioner' means a National Insurance Commissioner appointed under paragraph 13 of Schedule 25 to the Social Security Act 1973;".
The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees, etc.) Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 (c. 29)
108. In Schedule 2 to the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees, etc.) Act (Northern Ireland) 1955, at the end insert the following entry—
"The Social Security Act 1973 (1973 c.).".
The Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 (c. 18)
109. The reference in section 1(2)(f) of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 to the National Insurance Joint Authority shall include a reference to the Joint Authority established under section 49(4) of the Social Security Act 1973.
The Fatal Accidents Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 18)
110. In section 2(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, in the definition of "benefit", for the words from "under" to "United Kingdom" substitute "under the enactments relating to national insurance and social security (including enactments in force in Great Britain)".
The Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 (c. 22)
111. In section 28(1) of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, for paragraph (e) substitute—
"(e) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily mrely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company, all the debts specified in section 93(2) of the Social Security Act 1973.".
The Youth Employment Service Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 (c. 8)
112. In section 6 of the Youth Employment Service Act (Northern Ireland) 1961—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "being a person" to "1960" substitute "who satisfies the contribution conditions set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in subsection (3), for "or sickness benefit under the National Insurance Acts (Northern Ireland) 1946 to 1960" substitute ",sickness benefit or invalidity benefit under the Social Security Act 1973".

113. In section 7(1), for the words from "under" where it first occurs to "1967" in the second place where it occurs substitute "under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1972, the Social Security Act 1973".
The Companies (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 (c. 25)
114. In section 3(6)(b) of the Companies (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963, for the words from "National Insurance" onwards substitute "Social Security Act 1973 as earnings paid in that period".
The Preferential Payments (Bankruptcies and Arrangements) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (c. 32)
115. In section 1 of the Preferential Payments (Bankruptcies and Arrangements) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a)(ii), after "income tax" insert "or Class 4 contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) for paragraph (e) substitute—

"(e) all the debts specified in section 93(2) of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in subsection (10)(c), for the words from "National Insurance" onwards substitute "Social Security Act 1973 as earnings paid in that period".

The Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 (c. 19)
116. In section 27 of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965—
(a) in subsection (3), after "week of employment" insert "before the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973";
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in computing, in relation to an employee, the period specified in section 18(1), or the period specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, a week of employment after the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973 shall not count if—

(a) the employee was employed outside Northern Ireland during the whole or part of that week; and

(b) he was not during that week an employed earner for the purposes of that Act.";

(c) in subsection (5), after "(3)" insert or (4A)";
(d) for subsection (6) substitute—
"(6) Any question arising under this section—

(a) whether an employer's contribution was paid, or was or would have been payable, as mentioned in subsection (3) or (4); or

(b) whether a person was an employed earner for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1973,

354
shall be determined by the Ministry; and any legislation (including regulations) as to the determination of question which under that Act the Ministry is empowered to determine (including provisions as to the reference of questions for decision, or as to appeals, to the Court of Appeal) shall apply to the determination of any question by the Ministry under this section.".
117. In section 36(3), for the words from "securities" onwards, substitute "such manner as may be specified by an order of the Treasury for the time being in force under section 22(1) of the National Savings Bank Act 1971".
118. In section 41(4), for the words from "the aggregate amount" to "contributions" substitute "equal to the appropriate allocation to the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund (under section 45 of the Social Security Act 1973) from all secondary Class I contributions paid by that employer under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
119. In section 50—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "employers' contributions" to "that employment" substitute "in respect of the whole or part of the period during which that person was in that employment, employers' contributions were paid in respect of him";
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to employers' contributions is—

(a) as respects any period before the day appointed for the coming into force of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1973, to employers' contributions within the meaning of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, and

(b) as respects any period beginning on or after that day, to secondary Class 1 contributions paid in respect of the person in question by persons who were in relation to him secondary Class 1 contributors by virtue of section 2(4)(a) of the said Act of 1973";

(c) in subsection (4), for the words from
"such contributions" to "were paid" substitute "the conditions of subsection (1) relating to the payment of employers' contributions were satisfied".
120. In section 55(1), for "redundancy fund contributions will be payable under Part III" substitute "secondary Class 1 contributions will be payable under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Family Allowances Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 8)
121. In section 5 of the Family Allowances Act (Northern Ireland) 1966—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "section 47(2)(c)" to "payment under this

355
Act)" substitute "paragraph 1(4)(c) of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for "under the Insurance Act" substitute "under Part I of the Social Security Act",

(ii) for "under that Act" substitute "under that Part of that Act", and

(iii) for "of that Act" substitute "of the Insurance Act".

122. In section 7, after subsection (3) insert—
"(4) The regulations to be so made may make provision for extinguishing the right to payment of any allowance if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen.".
123. In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Insurance Act" substitute "paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act",

(ii) for "80(1) to (5)" substitute "80(1) to (4)",

(iii) for "section 48(5) of the Insurance Act" substitute "paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act",

(iv) in paragraphs (a) and (b) for "the Insurance Act" substitute (in each place) "Part I of the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (3), for "the Insurance Act" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act".

124. In section 11(5), for "28 of the Insurance Act" substitute "22 of the Social Security Act".
125. In section 15(2), for "the National Insurance Commissioner" substitute "National Insurance Commissioners".
126. In section 18, at the end insert—
" 'the Social Security Act ' means the Social Security Act 1973".
127. For section 21 substitute—
"21.—(1) For the purpose of giving effect to any agreement with the Government of any country outside the United Kingdom providing for reciprocity in matters relating to payments for purposes similar or comparable to the purposes of this Act, the Governor may by Order in Council make provision for modifying this Act in its application to cases affected by the agreement.
(2) The modifications of this Act which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) shall include provision—

(a) for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the law of the country in respect of which the agreement is made shall have a corresponding effect for the purposes of this Act (but not so as to confer a right to double benefit);

(b) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both under this Act and under
356
the law of that country, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned;

(c) for making any necessary financial adjustments.

(3) Powers corresponding to those conferred by section 93(3) and (7) of the Social Security Act in relation to Orders in Council under that Act shall be exercisable also in relation to Orders in Council under this section.".
The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 9)
128. In section 5(4) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, for "sections 71 and 75(2)" substitute "section 75(2) and of section 94(8) of the Social Security Act".
129. In section 8(2), after "vessel" insert "hovercraft (within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968)".
130. In section 11, after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) Subsection (1)(a) to (e) of section 12 of the Social Security Act, and any regulations made under those paragraphs or under subsection (2) of that section, shall have effect for the purposes of injury benefits as they have effect for the purposes of unemployment benefit or sickness benefit under Part I of that Act.".
131. In section 13A(5), for "Insurance Act" substitute "Social Security Act".
132. In section 17(5), for "28 of the Insurance Act" substitute "22 of the Social Security Act".
133. In section 19(3), in paragraph (d) for "the upper limit of the compulsory school" substitute "school-leaving".
134. Section 27(2) shall continue to have effect subject to the amendment made by section 2(1) of the National Insurance &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, that is to say, for paragraph (b) there shall continue to be substituted—
"(b) for extinguishing the right to payment of any sum by way of benefit if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen".
135. In section 28(1), after "beneficiary" " insert ", or on his estate and effects vesting in the official assignee under section 349 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act 1857,".
136. In section 29(1), for "against which he is insured under this Act "substitute" arising out of and in the course of his employed earner's employment".
137. In section 32(1), for "Part II of the Insurance Act" substitute "Chapter II of Part 1 of the Social Security Act".
138. In section 34(3), for paragraph (b)substitute—
"(b) the employed earners have died as a result of accidents arising out of and in the

357
course of their employed earner's employment,".
139. In section 35—

(a) in subsection (2), for "63(1)(d) of that Act" substitute "84(1)(d) of the Social Security Act";

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for the words from "subsection (1)(a) to (e)" onwards substitute "subsection (1)(a) as it applies in relation to any question arising under the Social Security Act such as is mentioned in section 84(1)(a) of that Act",

(ii) for "Supreme Court" substitute "Court of Appeal";

(c) in subsection (4) for "the said section 63(1)(a) to (c)" substitute "section 84(1)(a) of the Social Security Act".

140. In section 49—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a) for "an insurance tribunal" substitute "and a competent tribunal";

(ii) in paragraph (b) for "insurance tribunal" substitute "competent tribunal"

(iii) in paragraphs (c) and (h) for "an insurance tribunal" substitute (in each case) "a competent tribunal";

(iv) in paragraph (g) for "an insurance tribunal" substitute "or a compentent tribunal";

(b) in subsection (6), for "'insurance tribunal'" substitute "'competent tribunal'."

141. In section 53—

(a) in subsections (3) and (9), for "the" Insurance Act" substitute (in each case) "Part I of the Social Security Act,"

(b) in subsection (5), for "subsections (6) and (8)" substitute "subsection (6),"

(c) for subsection (11) substitute—

"(11) This section is subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act".
142. In section 67(1), for "injuries and diseases against which persons are insured under this Act" substitute " arising out of and in the course of employment, or injuries and diseases which are due to the nature of employment".
143. In section 69(1), for "against which he was insured under this Act"substitute" due to the nature of his employment".
144. For section 70 substitute—
"Persons employed by or under the Crown.
70. This Act shall apply to persons employed by or under the Crown in like manner as if such persons were employed earners in the employment of a private person:
Provided that employment in the naval, military or air force service of the Crown and any other prescribed employment under the Crown shall not be, or be treated as, employed earner's employment."
145. For section 73 substitute—
"Persons under School-leaving age.
73. A person who has not attained school-leaving age shall not be entitled to injury benefit except as may be provided by regulations."
146. In section 81—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the definition of "Commissioner" substitute—

"'Commissioner' means a National Insurance Commissioner appointed under paragraph 13 of Schedule 22 to the Social Security Act,"

(ii) after the definition of "relevant loss of faculty" insert "the Social Security Act' means the Social Security Act 1973,"

(b) for subsection (2)(b) substitute—

"(b) a person shall be deemed to have attained or not to have attained school-leaving age if he would be treated as being, as the case may be, over or under the upper limit of the compulsory school age for the purposes of that Act (disregarding any regulations made by virtue of section 2 of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1968)".

147. In Schedule 3, paragraph 9(c), column 2, for "National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 as specified in Schedule 3" substitute "Social Security Act as specified in Part I of Schedule 4".
The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 14)
148. For section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 substitute—
"Application of enactments
9. The following enactments, namely—

(a) section 80(6) of the Insurance Act;

(b) sections 53(9) and 80 of the Industrial Injuries Act; and

(c) section 8(3) of the Family Allowances Act (Northern Ireland) 1966,

shall have effect as if any reference in those enactments to the Industrial Injuries Act included a reference to this Act.".
149. In section 11(1), in the definition of "the Commissioner", for the words from "appointed or" onwards substitute "appointed under paragraph 13 of Schedule 25 to the Social Security Act 1973 and includes a tribunal constituted under sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph".
The National Insurance (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 16)
150. In section 6(1)(a) of the National Insurance (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, for

359
"the said section 15" substitute " section 15 of that Act".
151. In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a) for the words from "67 to 75" onwards substitute "67 to 72, 74 and 75 of the Insurance Act in like manner as a claim for benefit under Part I of the Social Security Act or, as the case may be, a question to which section 84(5) of the Social Security Act applies";

1(ii) in paragraph (b) for the words from "Insurance Act" (where first occurring) onwards substitute "Social Security Act, of local tribunals constituted under section 76 of the Insurance Act or of a Commissioner appointed under paragraph 13 of Schedule 25 to the Social Security Act";

(iii) in paragraph (ii) after "including references to" insert "section 84(5) of the Social Security Act and"; and

(iv) in paragraph (iii) for "a reference to the said Part IV" substitute "references to the said section 84(5) and to the said Part IV";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning of the subsection to "section 9 of this Act" substitute "Where any question under the Industrial Injuries Act (not being a special question within the meaning of that Act) first arises in the course of an appeal to a local tribunal constituted under section 76 of the Insurance Act or a Commissioner appointed under paragraph 13 of Schedule 25 to the Social Security Act".

152. In section 14(3), after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraph—
"(bb) the expression "the Social Security Act" means the Social Security Act 1973;".
153. In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraphs 3(b), 5(a) and 6(a), for "section 63(1) of the Insurance Act" substitute (in each case) " section 84(1) of the Social Security Act";

(b) in paragraph 4(b), for "employed persons" substitute "employed earners";

(c) in paragraph 7, for " sections 66 to 69" substitute " section 84(5) of the Social Security Act or sections 67 to 69".

154. In Schedule 3, in paragraph 2(a), the amendment in section 3 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 set out in paragraph 104 above.
The Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 28)
155. In section 12(1) of the Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, for "the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
156. In section 17(1), for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) benefit (other than a maternity grant or a death grant) under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973;".
157. Section 18(1) shall continue to have effect subject to the amendment made by
360
section 2(2) of the National Insurance &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, that is to say, the following shall continue to be substituted for paragraph (e)—
"(e) for extinguishing the right to payment of any sum by way of benefit if payment is not obtained within a prescribed period, not being less than twelve months, from the date on which the right is to be treated under the regulations as having arisen.".
158. In section 26(4), for "the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
159. In section 40(1), in the definitions of "place of employment" and "trade dispute" for "21 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute (in each place) "14 of the Social Security Act 1973".
160. In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 10A—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for "21(3) of the Insurance Act" substitute "14(2) of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(b) in paragraph 12A—

(i) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for "the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for the words from "section 4(2)" onwards substitute "subsection (1) of section 15 of the Social Security Act 1973 or, in relation to a disabled child, that subsection as modified by regulations made under subsection (4) of that section";

(iii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Social Security Act 1973";

(c) in paragraph 20—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for "38 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "30 of the Social Security Act 1973 ", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for " section 22" substitute "section 16";

(d) in paragraph 24—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1)(h), for "Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "Part I of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973",

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for column 2 of 3 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "column 2 or 3 of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973",

(iii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "under Part I or increase thereof under column 3 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966"

361
substitute "under Part I, or increase thereof under column 3 of Part III, of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973 ", and

(iv) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for " column 4 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 " substitute " column 4 of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1973";

(e) in paragraph 25(1)(a), for " the National Insurance Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute " Part I of the Social Security Act 1973 ".

The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 15)
161. In section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 the amendment made by paragraph 98 above to section 2A of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1939.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 25)
162. In Schedule 2 to the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, at the end, insert the following entry—
"the Social Security Act 1973 (1973 c. ).".
The Family Allowances and National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 1)
163. For section 1(4) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 substitute—
"(4) The provisions set out in Part II of Schedule 2 shall be substituted for those of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Industrial Injuries Act.".
The Youth Employment Service (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 13)
164. In section 1 of the Youth Employment Service (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the amendment made by paragraph 113 above in section 7 of the Youth Employment Service Act (Northern Ireland) 1961.
The Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34)
165. In section 119(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, for " 38 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute " 30 of the Social Security Act 1973 ".
The Friendly Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 31)
166. In section 102 of the Friendly Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1970—

(a) in subsection (1), for "Insurance Acts" substitute "enactments relating to national insurance and social security";

(b) for subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) Where the Ministry of Health and Social Services furnishes a registered friendly society or branch, in connection with a claim for benefit from the society or branch, with information relating to a claim or award under those enactments, the expenses incurred in connection therewith by that Ministry or any other
362
government department shall be treated as expenses in carrying those enactments into effect".

The Welfare Services Act Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 2)
167. In section 25(4) of the Welfare Services Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, for "38 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "30 of the Social Security Act 1973".
168. In section 45, in the definition of "trade dispute" for "21 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "14 of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Family Income Supplements Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 8)
169. In section 8(4) of the Family Income Supplements Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 for "the National Insurance Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1970" substitute "Part I of the Social Security Act 1973".
The Social Services (Parity) Order (Northern Ireland) 1971 (S.R. & O. (N.I.) 1971 No. 224)
170. In Article 9 of the Social Services (Parity) Order (Northern Ireland) 1971, the amendment in section 13A of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 in paragraph 131 above.
The Social Security Act (Northern Ireland 1971 (c. 28)
171. In section 1(2) of the Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, the amendments in paragraph 10A of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 in paragraph 160(a) above.
172. Insert the following new section after section 4—
"Inspectors appointed under Social Security Act 1973.
4A. Every appointment of an inspector under section 88(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 shall be an appointment for the purposes of the Supplementary Benefits Act as well as for those of the said Act of 1973; and—

(a) in Part I of Schedule 22 to the said Act of 1973 references to that Act (except the first reference) shall include the Supplementary Benefits Act; and

(b) in paragraph 2(1)(b) of that Schedule the reference to benefit shall include benefit within the meaning of the Supplementary Benefits Act.".

173. At the end of section 6 add "and this section applies also, with the necessary modifications, to the provisions of the Social Security Act 1973 which correspond to those of the Insurance Act mentioned above in this section ".
The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
(S.I. 1972 No. 1263 (N.I. 12))
174. In Article 36(5) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, for "or national insurance (including industrial injuries)"substitute", national insurance or social security".
The Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
(S.I. 1972 No. 1265 (N.I. 14))
175. In Article 39(2) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, for "38 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" substitute "30 of the Social Security Act 1973"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment replaces the former Schedule 24 which contained minor and consequential Amendments of earlier legislation with a revised form of Schedule. The new version reflects changes made in the Bill during its progress through Parliament and incorporates a number of minor drafting changes in the Schedule as printed in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I should first of all like to express my thanks to the Minister for arranging for copies of these
Leave out Schedule 28 and insert the following new Schedule—

("SCHEDULE 28

Repeals

Part I

Enactments of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 41.

The Superannuation and other Trust Funds (Validation) Act 1927.

Sections 1 to 8.

Section 10.

Section 11(2) from "but save as aforesaid" onwards.

9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 62.

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946.

The whole Act, except section 89.

9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 67.

The National Insurance Act 1946.

The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.

10&U Geo. 6. c 41.

The Fire Services Act 1947.

Section 27(5).

4 Biz. 2. c. 19.

The Friendly Societies Act 1955.

Section 9(5).

5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

In Schedule 1, Part I, the entry beginning "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part III of the National Insurance Act 1965".

5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 26.

The National Insurance Act 1957.

The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. C. 37.

The Payment of Wages Act 1960.

In the Schedule, in paragraph 12, sub-paragraph (a); and sub-paragraph(6)from "which does not" onwards.

1960 c. 39.

The Dock Workers (Pensions) Act 1960.

The whole Act.

Amendments to be sent to us with their explanation. We are grateful for them, and I should like to put this on Record. However, I am bound to say that with the tremendous number of changes taking place in this Bill, and with the number of drafting Amendments that have been made, one comes to the conclusion that it was the apprentices that were put on to the job of drafting this particular piece of legislation and it has now to be put right. Or possibly it was the instructions they received from the Government which got them into trouble. However, I do not think we have any objection to the new Schedule, although I am bound to point out the feelings expressed about it at an earlier stage. But I should not like to say that without repeating how grateful we are to the Minister for sending us the copies.
LORD ABERDARE: I thank the noble Lord for those words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 28 [Repeals]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 93:

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1965 c. 51.

The National Insurance Act 1965.

Sections 1 to 63.

Section 67.

In section 68(2), the words "under this Act".

Section 74.

In section 81, subsection (5); in subsection (6), the words "under this Act "; and subsection (8).

Sections 82 to 117.

In section 118, in subsection (2), the words from first "except" to first "Ireland"; and subsection (3).

Schedules 1 to 5.

Schedules 7 to 11.

1965 c. 52.

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965.

Sections 1 to 4.

In section 18(3A), the proviso.

Section 32(2) from the beginning to "1961".

In section 34(3)(o), the words "first-mentioned".

Section 35(1 )(6) to (e).

Section 54(7) and (9).

Section 56(1).

Sections 59 to 61.

In section 64, in subsection (3), the words from "contributions" to "or whether "; and subsection (5).

Sections 65, 67 and 69.

In section 70(1), in paragraph (a), the word "or"; paragraphs (b) and (c); and the words "to (e)".

Section 75.

Section 79(2) and (3).

Section 82(2) from "as they apply" onwards.

In section 83, in subsection (1) the words "of insurance"; in subsection (4)(a)(iii),the figures" 3(4),4(2)", "65" and "69" and the words from "and the provisions" onwards.

In section 86, in subsection (1) the definitions of "contribution", " contribution week ", " the Insurance Act of 1946" and "insured person"; and in subsection (4) paragraphs (c) and (d).

In section 87(3), paragraph (6) and the words "where-ever those words occur".

Schedule 1, Parts II and III.

Schedule 2.

1965 c. 53.

The Family Allowances Act 1965.

In section 16, subsection (l)(c); and in subsection (2)(a) the words "the National Insurance Commissioner and deputy".

Section 17(8).

1965 c. 54.

The National Health Service Contributions Act 1965.

The whole Act.

1965 c. 62.

The Redundancy Payments Act 1965.

In section 26(1), the words from " into which" to " Act, and ".

Sections 27, 28 and 29.

In section 31(1), the words "who are liable to pay redundancy fund contributions ".

Section 36(1) to (4).

In section 55, subsection (5)(b); and subsection (6) from " except" onwards.

1966 c. 6.

The National Insurance Act 1966.

Sections 1 to 4.

Section 5(1) and (3).

Section 8(3).

Section 9.

In section 10, subsections (1) to (4); in subsection (5) the words " section 75(2) of the Insurance Act or "; and subsection (6).

Sections 11 and 12.

Schedule 1.

1967 c. 25.

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act 1967.

Section 2.

1967 c. 34.

The Industrial Injuries and Diseases(Old Cases) Act 1967.

In section 14(1), in the definition of " prescribed ", the words " in relation to insured persons employed in insurable employment.

Section 15(4).

PART II

ENACTMENTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND

ORDERS IN COUNCIL APPLYING TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Chapter or Number

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

18 & 19 Geo. 5. c. 6 (N.I.).

The Superannuation and other Trust Funds (Validation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1928.

The whole Act.

1946 c. 21 (N.I.).

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.

Section 6.

1946 c. 23 (N.I.).

The National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.

The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.

1955 c. 29 (N.I.).

The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees, etc.) Act (Northern Ireland) 1955.

In Schedule 2 the entry relating to the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.

1959 c. 21 (N.I.).

The National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

Section 3.

1960 c. 22 (N.I.).

The Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960.

In section 92(2) the words", and the reference in section 287(1)(f) to the winding up order or resolution shall be construed as a reference to,".

In section 287, subsections (1)(f) and (5A).

1964 c. 18 (N.I.).

The Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.

Section 17.

1964 c. 32 (N.I.).

The Preferential Payments (Bankruptcies and Arrangements) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.

In section 1, subsections (1)(f) and (3).

The noble Lord said: This Amendment replaces the former Schedule 25 which contained minor and consequential repeals of earlier legislation with the revised form of the Schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  BYRON ANNIVERSARY: ANGLO-GREEK COMMEMORATION
  BYRON ANNIVERSARY: ANGLO-GREEK COMMEMORATION
  KIELDER WATER RESERVOIR PROPOSAL
  KIELDER WATER RESERVOIR PROPOSAL
  PEERS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
  PEERS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE