Sitting of 8 May 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Ordered,
  That any Committee to which the Zetland County Council Bill may be referred by the Committee of Selection have power to adjourn from place to place.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Hospitals (Private Patients)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the procedures used for the financial accounting for, and monitoring of, private patients in National Health Service hospitals.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): It is the responsibility of hospital authorities to make arrangements to ensure that accommodation and services are made available for private patients within the extent authorised, that private patients give an undertaking to pay the appropriate hospital charges and to ensure that these charges are collected. These arrangements are subject to examination by the Department's auditors.
    Mr. Huckfield: How can the Secretary of State come to conclusions of the kind that he does in his reply to the Select Committee—namely, that private practice benefits the National Health Service— when all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, especially by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, shows that there is no standardised form of accounting or monitoring of private practice in hospitals? Will the Department now give very serious consideration to the introduction of a system of accounting whereby private patients are charged for every item and service of which they make use in hospitals?
    Mr. Alison: It was the conclusion of the Select Committee of the House itself that private practice operated to the overall benefit of the National Health Service. But my right hon. Friend said that he accepted one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, namely, that control procedures in hospitals should be more strictly observed.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Since the hon. Gentleman says that it is left to regional hospital boards to monitor and fix charges, can he say what are the differences in the various regions, and will he publish a list in HANSARD SO that hon. Members can compare one board with another in this respect?
    Mr. Alison: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's request in detail and see whether I can help him at all.

    Disability Income
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking towards the development of a disability income.
    Dr. Traffordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking towards the development of a disability income.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): As I told the Disablement Income Group at its annual general meeting last Saturday, the results of research, DIG's own publications and the experience of other countries are all being fed into a thorough review in which administrators, economists, statisticians and doctors are engaged, and in which

    179
    my Department is co-operating with other Departments. This should provide a firm basis for the development of future policy.
    Mr. Costain: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Is he satisfied, however, that he will deal with those disabled who need the greatest sympathy, namely, disabled housewives? Will the review study what special consideration can be given to them?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. Again as I told DIG on Saturday, the Government regard the disabled housewife as deserving special priority, and the study will have her very much in mind.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reviews are notorious for the length of time they take? There may be some small comfort to the disabled arising from the review that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but will he say whether he accepts the need for a disability income and, if so, whether he expects within a reasonable time to introduce measures into this House to provide for a disability income?
    Sir K. Joseph: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an inquiry can put a subject to sleep for some time. But the Government's credentials in introducing attendance allowance in their very first Bill and then extending it before the higher rate was fully in payment establish our right to study fully the alternatives before us. The disability income covers a number of possible approaches on which DIG itself is not in accord. That is why a study is necessary so that we can decide the next sensible steps.
    Dr. Trafford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some urgency about this? Whether a person is disabled by injury at work for which he is covered or in any other way, or is chronically sick, he is none the less disabled, and the provision of disability income would help him and also simplify the administration of the many other benefits which are available for the disabled.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I agree with that, but the Government are trying to put right the virtual neglect of generations. While on both sides of the House we are naturally impatient, it is right to work out sensible priorities.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Press headlines at the weekend arising from his speech which suggested that nelp for disabled housewives was on the way. How soon will this help be available? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman at least agrees with the principle of a national disability income as proposed by DIG?
    Sir K. Joseph: I must inflict on the hon. Gentleman a copy of my 27-page speech from which he can draw his own conclusions. I will send him one.
    Miss Quennell: Before he inflicts his 27-page speech on the hon. Gentleman, will my right hon. Friend consider the difficulty of the definition of "disability" in this context?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. It does not help if we put together into the same group the severely, the very severely and the appreciably disabled, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled and those with particular disabilities such as deafness or arthritis. We have to study the subject, as the Government are doing, on the basis of all the work that has been done, including visits by officials to six countries in Europe, so as to arrive at a sensible set of practical priorities.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opportunity of moving towards the immediate payment of a disablement income arises on the Social Security Bill which will be before the House this afternoon? Are we to take it that his decision instead to set up an inquiry merely means that the Government are anxious to buy time and have missed that bus?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. The right hon. Lady knows that there are other issues at stake in the Bill which we shall be debating later. The Government have to their credit the paying out of what by the end of next year will be £100 million a year to the civil disabled that was not being paid at all when the Government came to office. We are entitled to study the alternatives before us.

    Meals on Wheels
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress

    181
    has been made in increasing the numbers of meals on wheels served.
    Mr. Alison: During a sample week in November 1972, over 378,000 meals were served by or on behalf of local authorities to 135,000 people in their own homes. This represents a 17 per cent. increase in the numbers of meals provided over the previous year and a 13 per cent. increase in the number of people served. A further 221,000 meals were provided in clubs or centres, 19 per cent. more than in the previous year. In each case these are record increases.
    Mr. Kinsey: My hon. Friend has given us wonderful news. Is he considering the possibility of getting more volunteers to help in taking round the meals, as this would be extremely useful to the people who administer the scheme?
    Mr. Alison: We are extremely dependent upon voluntary workers for this service and my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly paid tribute to the enormous contribution they make. We have recognised their special rôle by considerably increasing central Government financial support for the national headquarters of voluntary organisations.

    Family Planning
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether an advertising campaign will be used to publicise the increased availability of family planning supplies from 1974.
    Mr. Alison: As my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 12th December, he will be making increased funds available for the purposes of education and training, and information of the public about the new service. —[Vol. 848, c. 234-40.] My Department will be in touch with the Health Education Council about an increase in its activity in this field, and the guidance which will be issued to area health authorities will cover the question of publicity at the local level.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Is the Minister aware that, with the great increase in the services available under his proposals, it will be even more important than it has been in the past to use advertising as one of the means of spreading knowledge of the availability of these services, because
    182
    wherever advertising has been used in conjunction with a free service we have achieved the maximum take-up by those least able to afford the full costs?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. The take-up was significant in areas where no free services were supplied but where, on the contrary, a massive effort was made to increase the publicity for a charged service. I entirely share my hon. Friend's anxiety and determination that money should be well spent on increased advertising.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if we are to get the greatest advantage from the increased propaganda for family planning which we all want to see, we need many more general practitioners and doctors generally to be qualified to teach birth control techniques? What is the Minister doing to ensure that all medical students are instructed in these techniques?
    Mr. Alison: We have this under review. Even more important will be the negotiation, as part of their terms of service, with general practitioners about the possibility of becoming more actively and formally involved in the process of advising, prescribing, and, if necessary, treating in matters of family planning.

    Pensioners (Heating Installations)
    Mr. Roger Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider making grants for the installation of all-night heaters for pensioners.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider making grants for the installation of all-night storage heaters for penioners.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The commission can already make payments for this purpose under its discretionary powers.
    Mr. White: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's reply and the Government's concern for pensioners, particularly during inclement weather, but will he give the House further information about the availability of electric blankets for elderly people who suffer from low temperatures?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, although it may involve safety problems. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the practical suggestions that my hon. Friend has made. A number of considerations are now being actively looked into by the Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations in an effort to try to find a variety of ways to improve heating arrangements for elderly people.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How many old people will die as a result of the Government's refusal last week to allow more discussion of a Bill that would have given heating allowances to all the old people who are at risk? Is not the real problem the hypocrisy of the Government in pursuing this subject piecemeal?
    Mr. Dean: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels it right to use emotive language on such a serious subject. He must know that the Government, with the help of local authorities and voluntary bodies, have done far more than have any other Government to deal with this deep-seated problem.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that night storage heaters are a particularly safe form of heating for the elderly? When he is next in discussion with the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will he bear in mind the maxim that a word to the wise is sufficient?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but she will appreciate that the powers of the commission are fairly limited in this respect but substantial powers are available to local authorities. About 400,000 additional people will benefit from the improved heating arrangements which the Government intend to introduce before next winter.
    Mr. O'Malley: Bearing in mind that the system of heating allowances through the commission is still inadequate in spite of the changes recently announced by the Government, and that the commission has discretion to make grants, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the commission's discretion is more generously exercised than it is at present?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission is very exercised on this matter. Not only is
    184
    it doing, and intending to do, all it can to assist more people, but it is also working in close co-operation with local authorities and voluntary organisations which are also doing a great deal to improve the arrangements.

    Illegal Exploitation
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will institute proceedings against organisations which publicise methods of illegally exploiting social security benefits and services, details of which are in his possession.
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will institute proceedings against organisations which publicise methods of illegally exploiting social security benefits and services, details of which are in his possession.>
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am advised that the publication my hon. Friends have in mind contains nothing to justify either civil or criminal proceedings. Provision already exists for prosecuting fraudulent claimants of supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed with that reply? Does he realise that there is growing public concern that false and misleading information printed by organisations such as the Claimants Union is suggesting ways of exploiting and disrupting our very generous social system? Is he further aware that a great number of people right across the political spectrum are annoyed and disturbed at this?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not wonder that there is this feeling which my hon. Friend describes. The handbook to which I believe he refers is one to be deplored. It advocates a most tendentious and mischievous approach which is deliberately calculated to provoke ill feeling between potential claimants and the staff in my Department's local offices. I am glad that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has issued an authoritative leaflet putting the record straight. This has been made available through the offices to all who might be concerned.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the alleged

    185
    abuse in this area is chicken-feed compared with the abuse which takes place through the evasion of income tax and all the rest? Will he ask his right hon. Friends to be as energetic in pursuing these defaulters as he and his committee have been in investigating the defaulters in social security benefits, the number of which is highly marginal? Is he aware that the number of prosecutions is small compared with the number of prosecutions by the Inland Revenue of wealthy taxpayers?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friends, and a great number of people throughout the country who agree with them, have a right to be aggrieved when people not only damage the innocent public by strikes but in addition are led, by the Claimants Union in many cases to a hectoring approach to public officials who are carrying out their humane duty. This is thoroughly deplorable.

    Home Nursing Service
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the home nursing service will be maintained at present standards in the period between local government losing its health powers and the new health authorities taking over.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Redmond: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what will be the length of this interregnum period? Does he agree that any change causes unsettle-ment in the minds of people employed in such organisations? Can he do something to remove any unease in the minds of people employed in this service?
    Sir K. Joseph: There should be no interregnum. The transition will have been prepared for months. The number of home nurses is, I am glad to say, rising at a record level.

    Disabled Children (Rowntree Trust)
    Dr. Vaughanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has in relation to the amount of money available to the Rowntree Trust to assist disabled children.
    Mr. Alison: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend
    186
    made during the debate on 29th November last about the provision of additional money for the fund.
    Dr. Vaughan: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of interest not only among the general public but among professional organisations about how this money is being distributed and what criteria are being used in its distribution? Would it not be helpful if the Rowntree Trust gave more information?
    Mr. Alison: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend. The trust has distributed 20,000 of its explanatory leaflets to local authorities, voluntary bodies and individuals and is about to distribute a further 10,000. It has also received a large number of written and telephoned inquiries which suggest that the publicity is getting across.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How did the Government arrive at the figure of £3 million as the amount of this fund? How many children will benefit? How can we possibly judge the adequacy of the fund if we do not know how many children will benefit?
    Mr. Alison: It is a useful start. The hon. Gentleman will recall, in the context of the thalidomide children, that it is possible when these cases have been settled out of court that consideration might be given to the question of an additional fund.

    Hospital Patients (Consultant Cover)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that all patients in National Health Service hospitals have full consultant cover.
    Sir K. Joseph: All in-patients in National Health Service hospitals have a consultant responsible for their treatment, except for certain general practitioner hospitals or units. The number of consultants is being steadily increased, and hospital authorities' programmes provide for over 400 new consultant posts to be established in the 12 months up to March 1974.
    Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the affluent South East

    187
    there is the highest concentration of consultants per 100,000 of the population? Is he further aware that about 835 consultant posts are vacant and that many regions are not getting the cover which he claims? Does he appreciate that even if he gets his 400 extra consultants they will still not fill all the vacant posts?
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope that I am not being at all complacent. There is certainly a thin coverage in some areas and I am particularly worried about the shortage against the growing recognition of specialties such as geriatrics. The number of vacancies does not reflect the real position because many of the vacancies are covered by locums. We are doing our very best to increase the number of specialists in the specialties where there are shortages.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider linking merit awards, which involve millions of pounds a year, to special consultant posts where there is a shortage, such as in psychiatry and geriatics, and to those areas of the country which are short of consultants, rather than giving merit awards to unknown doctors for unnamed reasons?
    Sir K. Joseph: It would be wrong for me to undertake to consider the use of awards which are designed to reward merit for other purposes. That is not to say that the Government are not anxious to fill the vacancies in the specialties and in the regions.

    Insurance Cards (Casual Workers)
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider legislation to place a statutory liability on employers to ensure that an employee, when applying for casual work, either produces his insurance card or produces a receipt from his employer confirming that that employer has the insurance card in his possession.
    Mr. Dean: There is already a statutory requirement on every employer to obtain a card from an employee for whom he is liable to pay contributions. It would not be appropriate to extend this so as to impose a similar obligation on employers who are not required to pay contributions.
    Mr. Dixon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that some such measure would go a long way to removing the abuses which are being practised by thousands of "spivs" and fiddlers who obtain money from the Supplementary Benefits Commission and at the same time work on the side—and who are now apparently to be given cheap butter too?
    Mr. Dean: The arrangements about insurance cards should ensure that those who should be paying do so along with their employers. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to take a particular interest in the methods by which we detect abuse. If he has any particular information which he thinks will be helpful, I will be happy to have it from him.

    Cigarette Smoking
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has that cigarette smoking in the United Kingdom has declined during the two years ended in March 1973, following his special provisions, including the health warnings on cigarette packets and attendant matters; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: There is little that I can yet add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 6th February about the changes in the amount of cigarette smoking in the last two years.—[Vol. 850, c. 200–1.]
    The information I published recently about the tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes sold in the United Kingdom should help and encourage those who are unable to give up cigarette smoking to smoke less dangerously.
    Sir G. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend continues to procrastinate about this. Is he not aware that over the last few years it has become quite obvious that to all concerned with promoting the non-smoking campaign that there is a deep divide between himself and myself? He prefers the non-legislative approach while I prefer the legislative approach. Since we have now failed absolutely to make any impact on cigarette smoking, and since all the evidence is that we have made no impact, will he not reconsider his earlier shibboleths and make an investment in legislation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I fear that I am not considering legislation. I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, whose enthusiasm I share. There are a couple of hopeful signs. First, we must give the new tar and nicotine yield tables time to assert what I hope will be a rational hold on the mind of the smoking public. Second, there has been a rise in the proportion of adults who are non-smokers as revealed in the 1971 figures.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a fact that each time the Royal College of Physicians has issued a report on the subject the amount of smoking has decreased, but that already the impact of the last report has been absorbed and the extent of smoking is rising again? Is it not time the Secretary of State took more stringent action in this regard? Is it not also a fact that the publicising of nicotine and tar contents merely changes the kind of cigarette smoked and not the amount of content consumed, and that the growth of emphysema and chest diseases indicates the need for much stronger action on the right hon. Gentleman's part?
    Sir K. Joseph: We shall not begin to be able to judge the effect of the tar and nicotine yield tables for some months, but if they shift the choice of smokers towards the lower tar and nicotine yield content cigarettes the hon. Gentleman's fears will not be realised and there will be a smaller amount of dangerous substances being smoked.
    Mr. Idris Owen: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the hopeful signs he has indicated this afternoon, that if we encourage the owners of public and private establishments and of transport to allocate greater areas for non-smokers, that might act as an additional deterrent to those who wish to smoke continuously?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There are hopeful signs in transport and in some entertainment establishments, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that we cannot go too far ahead of public opinion, because then we may run into enforcement difficulties.

    Reserve Pension Scheme Contributions
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what
    190
    representations he has received in regard to the tax treatment of beneficiaries' contributions to the proposed State Reserve Pension Scheme.
    Mr. Dean: I have had a small number of representations in favour of tax relief being given on employees' contributions to the reserve pension scheme, but it has also been represented to me that the effect would be to handicap our efforts to maximise the membership of recognised occupational pension schemes.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the Life Offices Association and the National Association of Pension Funds? Would I be right in believing that neither of those bodies has specifically asked for the tax bias to be brought back against members of the reserve pension scheme?
    Mr. Dean: We have been in close touch with all organisations interested in these matters in the formative stages of the arrangements for the Bill which is now before the House.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister confirm that a document is passing around the House showing that the Government invited the views of the CBI on the subject following their defeat in Standing Committee on it? Did they at the same time invite the views of the TUC?
    Mr. Dean: I have a number of responsibilities, but I do not think that one of them is documents circulating in the House.
    Mr. O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he has received only a small number of representations on the subject, which is perhaps untypical of the experience of other hon. Members, that could mean only either that members of the public are in despair of earning any kind of social justice between one side of the community and the other from the present Government or that they believe it inconceivable that the Government should attempt to overturn a decision taken by a large majority of backbenchers?
    Mr. Dean: It could be because the country generally realises that the Bill represents a major advance in pension provision, both present and future, for the people of this country.

    Bexhill Hospital (Casualty Unit)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to the future of the casualty unit at the hospital at Bexhill-on-Sea.
    Mr. Alison: None so far, Sir; no proposal has as yet been put to my right hon. Friend. The South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board is, however, seeking his approval to carrying out local consultation on the future of this unit.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Has my hon. Friend directed the attention of my right hon. Friend to the petition presented to the House in March, which was supported by at least one-third of the population of Bexhill? Is he aware that the letter he was good enough to write to me in April gave the impression that he was thinking that Bexhill's was a declining population, which it is not? It probably has the highest population over the age of 65 in Europe. Is not that something that should receive careful consideration? In particular, has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of using retired doctors on a rota basis?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, Sir. All these possibilities have been and are being considered, but my hon. Friend will know that no proposal to close the Bexhill casualty department is before my right hon. Friend yet for decision.

    Homeless Persons (London)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of Social Services what recent discussion he has had with the London Boroughs Association on the question of homelessness in London.
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I met the London Boroughs Association, with the Greater London Council, in January to discuss progress in implementing the recommendations of the first report by the joint working party on homeless-ness in London, and practical ways of reducing family homelessness and making more dwellings available to meet the need. Maximum use of unoccupied and short-life property was among the matters discussed. The suggestions made at the meeting are being followed up and a
    192
    working party has been set up to improve the information collected about homelessness. We shall be glad to meet the London authorities again as soon as they are ready.
    Mr. Cox: While I welcome that statement, may I ask whether the Minister is fully aware of the extent of homelessness in London? Is he aware that it increases week by week, generally because of the vicious activities of certain landlords and property developers? That is what is causing homelessness, which in its wake presents many problems to local authorities. What financial help does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give to local authorities in the London area which are facing the expense of providing accommodation for people once they have been hounded out of their home?
    Sir K. Joseph: I certainly agree about, and am well aware of, the distressing amount of homelessness in London. One of the recommendations that the Government are considering making to local authorities is that the responsibility for dealing with the homeless should be with the housing departments, which dispose of considerable re-lets and housing stock. But it is a very complex and difficult question. I should not presume to make any statements about panaceas, because there is none in this area. We shall be ready to meet the authorities as soon as they are ready.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representation has been made to him by Inner London borough councils on the increase of homelessness in their boroughs.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am well aware of the pressure of homelessness in the Inner London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I met representatives of the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association earlier this year and discussed the problem of homeless families in detail. Several Inner London boroughs have shown concern about particular problems of family or individual homelessness.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major causes of the increase in homelessness,

    193
    certainly in the part of Inner London that I know best, is the activities of winklers and speculators, who are rapidly eroding the supply of rented and furnished accommodation, which is needed so much for people in dire need? Is he aware of the increase of the squatting problem in many of our Inner London boroughs? When he next meets his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he try to shake him out of his smug, complacent approach to the whole problem, and try to find urgent solutions?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that any of my colleagues or I need shaking out of complacency. I was interested that the hon. Gentleman, with all his undoubtedly sincere interest and good will, does not have any panaceas to suggest, because there is none. We are in discussion with the local authorities to use every practical means to improve the position.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the under-occupation of many of the larger accommodation units in our big cities? People are afraid to let part of their houses because of the difficulty of rent control and that kind of thing, and the existing stock of accommodation units is largely underused in many places.
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend tempts me out of my present responsibilities. When I was Minister of Housing, under-occupation was one of the great factors in the housing position.
    Mr. Freeson: Within his own jurisdiction, will the right hon. Gentleman investigate with the regional hospital boards of our big cities the acreage of land that is redundant and being held against the possibility of development in the years to come, land that could very urgently be made available for housing, and particularly the possibility of housing for the chronically sick and disabled, who require frequent and regular weekly hospital servicing?
    Sir K. Joseph: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be a source of land in some cases. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular hospital in
    194
    mind, perhaps he will write to me. Since the Government came into office we have done a systematic survey of suitable land, and release is increasing in pace.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to comment on the part that the shortage of single-person accommodation plays in the overall problem of homelessness, not only in Inner London but elsewhere? Surely, if he urged local authorities to provide much more single-person accommodation and much more special accommodation for old people, that would to some degree resolve much of the homelessness that persists today.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I very much agree that, in the common interest I share in housing, more sheltered housing for the elderly would be a great blessing. Homelessness for the single is a problem in its own right, and has largely been exacerbated by the falling number of lodgings. The Government are taking steps to encourage both local authorities and voluntary bodies to provide more accommodation for the single homeless.

    Mental Health Education
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportions of the Health Education Council's expenditure in 1971 and 1972 were attributable to mental health education.
    Sir K. Joseph: In each of the financial years 1971–72 and 1972–73, less than 01 per cent. of the council's total expenditure was specifically on mental health education.
    Mr. Mayhew: I accept that the council is doing admirable work in physical health education, but are not the proportions astonishing? Will the Minister make it clear that the council's responsibilities include mental health education? Is there not a great need for more awareness of the need for mental health education not only in general subjects, such as the need of small children for emotional security, but in specific subjects—for instance, the possibility of reducing the number of mongol children born to mothers beyond normal child-bearing age? Will the Minister look into this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: I agree that the proportion is astonishing. I am encouraged to think that the present discussions between

    195
    the NAMH and the Health Education Council will lead to a greater concentration of mental health education in future.

    Private Occupation,al Pension Schemes
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of total contributions to contributory private occupational pension schemes employees contribute, according to the latest figures available to the Government Actuary.
    Mr. Dean: About one-third. Of a total of £860 million, £290 million was contributed by employees. The balance contributed by employers includes special payments, for example to finance benefits for back service, to augment benefits or to make good actuarial deficiencies.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State, and not the Under-Secretary, be prepared to admit that the facts which have just been given are in direct conflict with what he said on Second Reading of the Social Security Bill last November? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise for misleading the House on that occasion?
    Mr. Dean: It is the hon. Gentleman who is trying to mislead the House. He should know enough about these matters to realise that there is a fundamental difference between an occupational pension scheme, which is part of the remunerative package over which the employer has control, and the arrangements which we are proposing for the State reserve scheme, which pays special attention to the needs of the lower paid who, amongst other things, cannot benefit from tax relief.
    Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, which was designed to camouflage the facts—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must make his submission in the proper form.

    Abortion Survivors
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the conditions under which medical experiments
    196
    may be performed on children surviving from an abortion.
    Sir K. Joseph: Where a child survives an abortion the overriding responsibility of the medical staff is to promote and preserve its life. What steps are taken to this end is a matter for the clinical discretion of the doctor concerned.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the mother's consent is sought before experimentation on live foetuses? Secondly, before the Government and Parliament come to any firm view on these matters, should there not be an opportunity of discussing Sir John Peel's report?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of any experiments. If my hon. Friend cares to speak to me or let me know what he has in mind, I shall write to him or submit myself to further questioning.

    Census Returns (Information)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of information are to be published for the areas covered by the new parliamentary constituencies, and when, based upon the 1971 census returns.
    Mr. Alison: It is intended to publish the results of the 1971 census analysed by both the existing and the new parliamentary constituencies in two stages: first, the information on population and housing early in the autumn; and second, the economic information including that on employment by industry and occupation group towards the end of the year.
    Mr. Chapman: As at least 30 months will elapse between the census and the publication of the results based upon the new parliamentary constituencies, will my hon. Friend consider making available more quickly the information stemming from future census returns? I ask him to do so not only because the information is of vital importance to hon. Members but because of the increased mobility of the population, which makes the figures less relevant more quickly.
    Mr. Alison: I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

    National Health Service Drugs
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further

    197
    economies he intends to make in the provision of drugs for the National Health Service.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am satisfied that the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme provides a proper means of settling the prices of medicines in this country in a manner fair both to the National Health Service and to the manufacturers.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Monopolies Commission's report on the Roche Group's products reveals merely the tip of the iceberg? Is there not ramp in most of the drugs which are being supplied to the National Health Service which deserves the immediate attention of the Secretary of State? Another reference to the Monopolies Commission would mean another 18 months at least before the commission could report. Does not the pointed reference in paragraph 201 of the Monopolies Commission's report about the lack of competition in non-reference drugs call attention to the immediacy of the problem?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. It is very wrong of him to make such a general denunciation without, so far as I know, a spark of evidence. I disagree with him entirely.

    AID TO INDUSTRY (EEC POLICY)
    Ql. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will propose to the Heads of the Governments of the European Economic Community that all State aids to industry should be replaced by funds from the Community, allocated on the basis of a Community policy designed to put subvention to companies, industries and regions on a European basis.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The Community's policy on State aids for the regions will be determined this year in the course of implementing the regional policy objectives agreed at the summit meeting last October. The remainder of the area covered by my hon. Friend's Question is governed by the competition provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Ridley: Would that be a worthwhile European initiative which the
    198
    British Government could take which would lead to much fairer industrial competition throughout the whole of the Common Market and which would perhaps go some way to correct the impression which is gaining strength on the Continent that?nous ne sommes ici que pour la bière?
    The Prime Minister: We took the initiative at the summit as far as regional policy was concerned. I think that the other Heads of Government would agree that it was because of the action which we took in preparation for the summit that the objective was included in the communique. The Commission has now been working on this matter. The Commissioner responsible, a former Member of this House, has produced the initial proposals. These are now being examined by the other Governments. This is the initiative which my hon. Friend wanted.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there is no link between regional support, and the proposals brought forward by Mr. Thomson, and British membership of the economic and monetary union that might prevent the British float from continuing, thus endangering the growth of the economy?
    The Prime Minister: I have always emphasised, and I did so at the summit, that there is a direct link. However, I think that it is the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The direct link is that it is not possible to move to a satisfactory position vis-à-vis economic and monetary union unless one has a satisfactory regional policy which will allow a proper balance to be created throughout the whole of the Community on the basis of which economic and monetary union could work.
    Mr. Rost: If the Labour Party is interested in more regional aid through Europe, why is it that only the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) represents that party? Even the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln has had his path blocked in an underhand way by the Leader of the Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition would entirely agree with my hon. Friend's premise.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Prime Minister assure us that, whatever conclusions the Commission may arrive at, the needs of the development areas will continue to be met by the Government until unemployment in those areas is substantially brought down?
    The Prime Minister: It is in the interests of these areas that we should have a Community policy which meets their needs. That will be the objective of Her Majesty's Government in working out a policy for the Community as a whole with the Commissioner responsible and in the Council of Ministers.

    OIL REFINERIES
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office with regard to the planning for expansion of oil refineries in the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The three Departments maintain very close contact.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Prime Minister consider it satisfactory that of all the refineries in the United Kingdom only one major refinery is located in Scotland? Will he try to push the Departments out of their absurd complacency in this regard? They seem to think that North Sea oil will only come ashore in late 1974 or early 1975. The time to be planning expansion is now. We must not wait for North Sea oil to come ashore.
    The Prime Minister: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to plan fully in advance for the time when the oil comes ashore. That applies to refinery capacity as well. An interdepartmental working party has produced a note on the selection of sites for oil refineries. That has been sent out to all local authorities as guidance in dealing with specific applications and giving advice on potential sites in their areas where refineries could be to national and local advantage. All the information has been given to those who are concerned with the matter. Much depends on the individual companies making application either for new refinery capa-
    200
    city or for the extension of their existing capacity.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us the extent to which the Government's endeavours to maximise the return in jobs and in cash for the nation from North Sea oil have been frustrated by the apparent threats by the Opposition to nationalise North Sea oil, either with or without compensation, in the event of their return to power?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to give any figures. My judgment is that they have not frustrated the development of North Sea oil and the industries associated with it which have been going ahead very fast indeed, for the simple reason that people have taken no notice of what the Opposition have said. Nor do they expect them to become the Government.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SECURITY)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on progress made in the improvement of security within Government Departments.
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the House, security arrangements in all Government Departments are kept under constant review.
    Mr. Hamilton: When does the Prime Minister or the Government intend to make a statement to the House about the investigations which have been under way for a considerable time and are currently under way by Scotland Yard into the inquiries instigated by the revelations in The Guardian some time ago? When will the House have an opportunity of debating the Franks Report, which is a linked problem? It is becoming in the nature of a major scandal that the House cannot express its views on an extremely important matter.
    The Prime Minister: On the particular matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of course there has been action following the police inquiries in the courts and sentences were passed on four people concerned, but all have given notice of appeal. The hon. Gentleman will therefore recognise that I must await

    201
    the outcome of those appeals before making any further statement to the House about the matter.
    On the other matter concerning V and G, on which there was a leakage, I immediately instituted a tribunal of inquiry and the results are now well known to the House.
    Mr. Hamilton: What about the Franks Report?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of the position about the Franks Report and hopes to arrange for a debate in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Fowler: Going a little further on that point, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that not all Government information requires the protection of the Official Secrets Act and that it is a matter of some urgency that we should come to a decision on the proposals in the Franks Report?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We said that there would be a debate in the House before the Government announced any conclusions about it. I think that this is right.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Leader of the House concerning this matter. Does he recall that I raised this matter with his right hon. Friend last week and also asked when we might expect a statement on the report by the Computer Society and the Royal Statistical Society on the question of security under the census? Since that report has been with the Government for many months, may I ask when we can expect a statement?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give a precise date. I hope that it will be in the near future. We have been having discussions with the two societies concerned about the extent of publication of their reports, because they were responsible for them, and they gave various undertakings about the confidential nature of much of the material in them. Therefore, I think we are in their hands regarding publication of the documents.

    PIPELINES (CONTROL)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-
    202
    ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry over the control of pipelines in connection with oil and shipping installations.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Grimond: If the Prime Minister is satisfied, may I ask who is responsible for planning below high water mark and whether mooring buoys, for instance, come under the Department of the Environment, as they are on or near the surface of the sea, whereas pipelines appear to be a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in what he says about the different responsibilities for these matters. We must deal with them either by saying that only one Department will be responsible for the whole of these matters—this applies not only to Zetland but to the whole of the United Kingdom—or by having a system of co-ordination between the authorities involved in the different aspects of planning. Co-ordination is carried out by the Departments, but for Scotland it has been agreed that it should be carried out direct at regional level. I hope that will assist the right hon. Gentleman in the interests that he has at heart in producing a more speedy conclusion.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is a classic example of taking the delicate balance between the environment, on the one hand, and the economy, on the other hand, and that the real solution to the problem is to ensure that the local planning authorities have properly qualified environmental advisers who can look at the whole matter instead of simply appearing to see that on one occasion commercialism conquers conservation or vice versa on another occasion?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the reform of local government in Scotland, because of the change in the size of the units involved which that brings about, will enable greater resources to be made available to local authorities so that they have better advice in keeping this

    203
    balance. But under our system, which is accepted over the whole country, it is a matter for elected local authorities to take the decisions.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—to clarify one point? Is he saying that under the new Act the regional authorities in Scotland will be empowered to plan below high water mark?
    Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may raise this matter at the end of Question Time.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Whereas there are Departments which are responsible for these matters, in particular the DTI, the DOE and the Scottish Office itself, instead of co-ordination taking place at headquarters departmental level it will now take place at the regional level of the Department concerned.

    RHODESIA
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet Mr. Ian Smith to resume discussions on all outstanding difficulties, including the United Nations sanctions.
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear to Mr. Smith that what is now required is agreement between the races in Rhodesia on the basis for a settlement. We are ready at any time to respond to such an agreement.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the most serious aspect of these matters the fact that the whole of the United Kingdom's trade with Rhodesia has now been virtually sabotaged and taken by the Americans, the Japanese, the West Germans and others— in other words, our most powerful trade competitors all over the world? Are we to sit on the sidelines indefinitely and allow these people to sequestrate our overseas trade?
    The Prime Minister: The loss of trade to the United Kingdom is and has been one aspect since the Rhodesian problem began, but it is only one aspect. The other aspect was that the settlement which we worked out was shown by the Pearce Commission not to be acceptable to the
    204
    great majority of the African population. If my hon. Friend is referring solely to economic matters, I should point out that the impact on British trade in the rest of the African continent has to be considered as well.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the view of a growing number of people, it is time that we brought to an end this period of waiting for Mr. Smith to produce an agreement? Is he aware that the security situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating very fast, that there is a growing danger of bloodshed there and that the time has now come for the British Government to call together for fresh discussions not only Mr. Smith but the Africans, who must be involved in any settlement, otherwise in default of this the situation will continue to deteriorate, there will be bloodshed and the African leadership will pass into more extreme hands?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There has always been a danger of internal violence in Rhodesia, particularly perhaps from those who come into Rhodesia from outside.
    As to the British Government bringing together Mr. Smith and the Africans, that depends on the two parties being prepared to talk together under British Government auspices.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: May I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us whether, in the Government's view, sanctions will become effective in weeks rather than months? Alternatively, does he agree that there may be an argument for and against sanctions but that there is no argument for sanctions which do not work?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no doubt that one reason why Mr. Smith was prepared to negotiate with the Foreign Secretary and to work out an agreement which it was hoped would be acceptable to the Africans was that sanctions were continuing.
    Mr. Rose: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is only one outstanding difficulty—the continuing state of treason and rebellion by Mr. Smith and his friends in Rhodesia? Will he therefore take fresh initiatives to ensure that sanctions are rigorously applied and extended by all

    205
    United Nations members? Is he aware that the problem arises because of a cynical dual standard there and by the lack of determination, for which we all share in the blame, to bring to heel a group of men who have shown their willingness to imprison, to detain and to execute people who are under the protection of this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The Government ensure that their obligations to the United Nations on sanctions are carried out. I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I think that the only way of dealing with the problem is to produce a settlement acceptable to all races in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Awdry: Whatever we may think of the Smith régime, do not recent events indicate that there is in Southern Rhodesia a system of appeal which is a proper system of appeal that is totally absent in other African States which continually criticise the Smith régime?
    The Prime Minister: I do not see why this should be a matter for dispute. One can dispute about the terms on which Mr. Niesewand was allowed to leave Rhodesia. One cannot dispute the fact that after a court decision there was a means of appeal and the higher court came to a different conclusion.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: On the point made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no system of appeal whatsoever for a very large number of Africans who have been in detention for a very long period and that, indeed, in the Matamabuto case there has been a decision by the Privy Council in this matter?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we should all like to congratulate him on the answers he has given this afternoon, particularly his repeated answers on sanctions, remembering the line which he himself took when the sanctions were imposed? Will he now answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he put his question? Is it still the fact, as the Foreign Secretary told us earlier in the year, that the draft agreement of last year, which was turned down by the Africans and the Pearce Commission, still
    206
    lies on the table? Should it not now be made clear that it does not lie on the table but will require substantial amendment as well as African approval?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the first point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he will recall that in the settlement negotiated by my right hon. Friend provision was made for the commission to deal with detainees.
    On the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think one needs to split hairs about this, but surely the position is that one wants Mr. Smith and the Africans to discuss together a settlement, and the basis of this can be the agreement which was worked out with amendments made by either side in the discussions they may undertake. I see no point in removing this entirely from the table and then saying that they have to start all over again, either on the last Rhodesian constitution or on the 1961 constitution.

MAPLIN (CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY'S REPORT)
The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. JESSEL: TO ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received a report from the Civil Aviation Authority on its recent study of air traffic forecasts and airport capacity in the London area and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heseltine—to answer Written Question No. 40.
The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have received a copy of a report by the Civil Aviation Authority "Forecast of Air Traffic and Capacity of Airports in the London Area" which was published this morning.
The report, which is based on the latest estimates by the British Airports Authority and others of passenger and aircraft movements in 1980 and 1985, gives the Civil Aviation Authority's view on these figures and examines the ability of London's airports to meet the demand projected up to 1985 both for runway capacity and for ground handling

207
capacity. It makes no attempt to evaluate the environmental consequences of the levels of traffic predicted. It emphasises the uncertainties and margins of error in the forecasts.
The report does not conflict with the judgment of the Roskill Commission that new airport capacity will be required in the early 1980s in South-East England. Although the Civil Aviation Authority Study reaches the conclusion that the pressure on runway capacity will be less severe in the early in 1980s than had been forecast earlier, it concludes that even with one runway at Maplin in operation there would be a shortage of available ground handling capacity at Heathrow, Gatwick and Maplin together in 1985. The main differences between the Roskill Commission's estimates and those in the present report are that it would be possible to increase the number of aircraft movements at Gatwick by 50 per cent. above the level assumed by the Roskill Commission, and there will be a little more use of wide-bodied aircraft by 1985 than the commission assumed.
Nothing in this report gives grounds for the Government to reconsider its decision, taken in the light of the Roskill Commission's Report, that a third London Airport is required by the earliest practical date and that the best site for this expansion is Maplin. It offers a unique opportunity of providing for the necessary expansion of air transport for as far ahead as anyone can foresee, combined with a seaport and for sensible economic development in Essex. At the same time it offers the only civilised solution to the problem of bringing relief to many hundreds of thousands living in densely populated areas and increasingly disturbed by aircraft noise and congestion.
In anticipation of the opening of Maplin, the Government have already announced that Luton, Stanstead and Southend Airports will be either closed or severely limited in use in due course and that there will be no second runway at Gatwick. The Government are determined to press on with the construction of Maplin so that the first runway is in operation as early as possible.
Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to stop cramming more and more aircraft over the hundreds of
208
thousands of people living around Heathrow and the other airports to whom he referred? Will he please continue to attach due weight to the need for peace, quiet, and the health and safety of those people? Will he please continue to go full steam ahead with the construction of Maplin?
Mr. Heseltine: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is our intention. If we were to cram aircraft into Gatwick and Heathrow, as my hon. Friend suggests, by 1985 we should have to have some 30 per cent. more operations moving in and out of Heathrow and some 130 per cent. more moving in and out of Gatwick.
Mr. Crosland: The Minister and I have obviously been reading entirely different reports. Is the Minister aware that to any objective reader this excellent report drives yet another nail into the enormous coffin of this absurd white elephant of Maplin, and illustrates beyond any doubt that no additional airport capacity in the South-East is needed before 1985. There are three remaining nails still to be driven in. Perhaps I may put these to the Minister. First, on ground handling capacity, which the Minister mentioned, is he not aware that it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Government and the British Airports Authority to extend ground handling capacity in the space which already exists at the existing airports?
Second, is the Minister aware—he should make it clear to the House—that the report's estimate of surplus runway capacity in 1985 in the South-East area is made without taking any account of the possibility of a deliberate policy of diversion of air traffic movements from the London area to regional airports? Will he ask the Civil Aviation Authority to bear this in mind in its important regional study, for which it has just given a contract?
Third, on the critical problem of noise around existing airports—here I agree with the Minister—will the Minister now invite the CAA to do a noise study and work out—it is perfectly possible; the techniques are well known to the Government—the noise consequences of its central traffic forecast for 1985?
If the CAA does that, I can promise the Minister that with the quieter engines

209
now coming so rapidly into service we shall find that the extra traffic can be accommodated with an impressive reduction in the present level of noise.
Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now in favour of abandoning Maplin and using Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead and Southend as London airports, with no further airport at all. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, he should tell the House plainly, so that we may make a clear judgment on the alternative policies.
Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's three particular points. I deal first with the point that the handling capacity on the ground can be made available in the space which exists. I made that point very clearly on Second Reading of the Maplin Development Bill. I said that on aviation grounds the space could be found around existing airports. The question that the House will have to consider is whether environmentally we are prepared to see the number of movements increased by 130 per cent. at Gatwick and by 30 per cent. at Heathrow between now and 1985. That is one of the principal decisions which guided the Government towards the Maplin decision in the first place.
As to the question whether we should divert more aircraft movements towards the provinces, I see no ground for believing that the pattern of aircraft movements which has grown up so far would not be substantially repeated, as the growth in the whole volume of the market increases. In these circumstances there is no reason to suppose that regional airports would syphon off more than has already been taken into account in the figures before us, which the report considers. In addition, the report assumes that 23,000 movements will be lost to the South-East as a result of the decision to go to Maplin.
As for the question of a noise study, it is perfectly possible to carry these matters onwards and onwards for ever, but anybody living anywhere near airports, even with the quieter aircraft coming in, knows of the great environmental harm that the intrusion of aircraft noise does. As quieter aircraft come in, so the expectancy of the public will rise, and I do not believe that it would be tolerable, having made the commitments we have
210
made in respect of Luton, Stansted and Southend, and having made it clear that we do not see more than limited development of Gatwick, to reverse those proposals, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to intend.
Sir J. Rodgers: Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no increase in commercial aircraft movements at West Mailing either before or after Maplin comes into operation?
Mr. Heseltine: In the welter of studies for this document, West Mailing has escaped my attention, but I will certainly look at that point.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that anyone with constituency responsibilities in the South-East must be conscious of the absolute need to lift some of the noise burden from these constituencies? Therefore it would be quite wrong, in order to maintain solidarity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)— much as I should like to do so—if I were to conceal from the House that I differ strongly from him in this connection. It seems to me that any objective determination on this report must lead to the conclusion that, in spite of the qualifications it makes, it generally follows the line that there must be relief from the burden of aircraft noise and that the only way to achieve this is by reaching the sort of decision which has been reached about Maplin.
Is the Minister aware that he will not be entirely without support on this side of the House if he decides to proceed with his programme and policy for the third London Airport at Maplin?
Mr. Heseltine: It seems to me that it would embarrass the hon. Member if I were to show too much support for him. His question seems designed more for his own Front Bench than for me.
Sir S. McAdden: While not sharing the joy of other hon. Members at the transfer of their nuisances to my own area, may I draw attention to newspaper reports which have been widespread with regard to this report before its publication? If we are to have leaks of this nature, can they in future be accurate leaks?
Mr. Heseltine: We would rather have no leaks at all. I greatly deplore that there should have been leaks with regard to one of the working documents on this report.
A considerable part of the noise which will come into the area to which my hon. Friend refers will be over the sea. That is one of the great advantages of the Maplin site.
Mr. David Steel: Since this report is extremely important, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for an opportunity for the House to have a fresh look at the situation, bearing in mind the cost involved?
Mr. Heseltine: The House already has this opportunity through the Standing Committee which is sitting to deal with the Maplin Development Bill.
Mr. Deedes: In connection with this report, has the Minister made any assumption about the Channel Tunnel?
Mr. Heseltine: The Civil Aviation Authority assumed that there would be a Channel Tunnel by 1980 allowing a four-hour London-Paris journey. It is also its calculation that if that tunnel did not exist it would bring forward the dates in the report by some two years.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister accept that those of us with constituency responsibilities in the North-East and other development areas are very anxious about the decision on Maplin Sands and other decisions affecting the south-east of England? We are extremely concerned, in fact, that two or three decisions, such as Maplin Sands, commit us to so much public expenditure in the future that there will be nothing left to develop the regions. The Government ought to think again on this problem, armed with this report.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure the hon. Member realises that we all share his concern about the regions. That is why it is one of the Government's policies to ensure that the regions get more help than ever before. He may also want to bear the wider national interest in mind. Sixteen per cent. of the country's trade goes by air, and by 1980 air cargo in the London area will treble. That is an
212
indication of the general importance of this industry, which is also a massive earner of foreign currency.
Sir Bernard Braine: It my hon. Friend aware that the report and the exchange this afternoon must inevitably add to the existing uncertainty in South-East Essex about the pressing need to provide new, adequate access roads not merely to the airport but to the proposed seaport? Does my hon. Friend agree that any delay in completing the airport must not be used as an excuse for delaying the provision of adequate access roads for the seaport?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure my hon. Friend knows how much we agree with him about the general communications situation in South-East Essex and also recognises the Government's determination to announce the new communications network proposals in respect of the airport as soon as possible.
Mr. Jay: As the Minister used this report as one of his main arguments in the Second Reading debte, is it not clear that there is no justification for the £800 million outlay when we can get all the runway capacity we need for £8 million or £10 million elsewhere?
Mr. Heseltine: Those figures bear no examination whatsoever. It could certainly not be achieved at the cost the right hon. Gentleman suggests. In fact, massive investments would be required, and the chances are that in any case it would then be found necessary to build a third London Airport at a later date. Nor can we ignore the massive environmental improvement associated with this decision.
Mr. Allason: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether this report adequately covers the situation at Luton, which is expanding at a greater rate than any other airport in this country? This is making life utterly intolerable for the residents of Hertfordshire, whereas the airport lies in Bedfordshire. There is expansion not only of freight but also of passenger traffic, very little of which comes from the locality but in fact from all over the country. Is he aware that we should be very much happier if they would go to the North-East and fly from there?
Mr. Heseltine: I can assure my hon. Friend that the report deals with the future of Luton. It makes two alternative assumptions. One is that traffic after 1980 will be virtually eliminated and the other is that it will be reduced to 20,000 movements a year. It is a matter for Government decision which policy is carried out, but it is our intention severely to restrict growth at Luton once Maplin comes into operation.
Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister tell the House what cost has been attached to a second runway at Gatwick?
Mr. Heseltine: That is not a relevant question for the Government because we do not believe that it would be practicable in all the circumstances to develop a second runway at Gatwick. I am sure the hon. Member remembers that the reason is that to do so would be to imply a policy of basing the growth of London Airport traffic on existing airports. It is because we have set our face against that policy that we are committed to what is environmentally a vastly more attractive scheme—Maplin.
There is one other fact which I think the House will want to take into account. For the first time we have an opportunity at Maplin to plan an airport which is designed for the scale of operations which are presaged for the future. The other airports have grown up piecemeal. They were never expected to have to carry the present traffic. Although this is obviously an area where one can argue about whether it will be 1981, 1982, 1983 or 1984 when demand reaches saturation, no one can deny that in this century the massive growth of this industry will force us into the provision of very expensive and extensive facilities.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you called Question No. Q4 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) you allowed him a second supplementary question. As I understand the situation, the decision is for you whether to allow a second supplementary question, based on the report of the Procedure Committee. However, in. view of the fact that many hon. Members were
214
seeking to put supplementary questions to the Prime Minister and that we are now limited to one question only, would you give some guidance to the House on how you will be operating your discretion?
Mr. Speaker: I think it is something which should be done very occasionally at the discretion of the Chair in order that an hon. or right hon. Member who asks a question may endeavour to get a more satisfactory answer. That was the spirit of the report of the Select Committee, and I try to be guided by it.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister to dismiss a direct question with the assertion that it is irrelevant—as did the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping—and then to give a long answer proving that it is exceedingly relevant?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. The Minister for Aerospace answered Written Question No. 40. It is clear from the mark in the margin of the Order Paper that this question was tabled yesterday after a reply to myself and another hon. Member on the same subject. Had the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) sought to ask a Private Notice Question or had the Minister sought to make a statement, the House would have had notice through the usual channels and by means of the television annunciators. Would you consider this point, Mr. Speaker—that, when a Minister seeks to answer a Written Question in that way on an important matter, we should likewise have notice?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having raised that point. I will consider it.

BILL PRESENTED

  PROTECTION OF LICENSED TENANTS
  Mr. A. W. Stallard, supported by Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Ernest Perry, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Lamborn and Mr. William Price presented a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to give security of tenure to tenants of licensed

  215
  premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the handicapped in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Prior.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
That the Draft Double Taxation Relief flaxes on Incomes) (Denmark) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
Question agreed to.

PENSIONS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SURCHARGE) BILL
3.52 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, for as long as contributions to any reserve pension scheme established by legislation of this Session do not attract tax relief in the same way as contributions to occupational pension schemes, a surcharge of 50 per cent. (£112·50 per annum) shall be payable by Members of Parliament on their contributions to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to offset the tax relief which they receive.
What I am seeking to do is take away from Members of Parliament the tax relief that we now enjoy on the contributions we make to our own Pension Fund. I am not allowed to do that directly by a Ten-Minute Bill, so I am obliged to provide that we should suffer a surcharge of the amount stated on the contributions we pay without getting any additional advantage in return. This may seem, on the surface, a domestic House of Commons matter, but I assure those hon. Members who have not come across the point before that this is definitely not so.
In each constituency there are approximately 10,000 people who, if a vote on the Social Security Bill goes a certain way, will be denied a tax relief, which we Members of Parliament give ourselves and will continue to give ourselves, if the Government get their way. I suggest that that is a situation of serious moral consideration and political content which no hon. Member can afford to ignore unless he has a majority of 25,000-plus.
This is not a party matter. It is a question of fair dealing and of honour. Some Conservatives—I am thinking of the hon. Members for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith), who are in the Chamber, and of their hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), and Chorley (Mrs. Monks)— showed that they attached greater importance to fairness and honour in this matter than to obeying their party Whip when in Standing Committee they voted for or abstained on an amendment of mine which the Government will tomorrow try to kill.
The background should be known to all hon. Members, especially after the

217
excellent editorial in The Times yesterday. In brief, the Social Security Bill creates a new reserve pension scheme. All employees who are not in an occupational scheme will now have to contribute to the new scheme. It has been an established principle in this country for a long time, much stressed by the Conservative Party in opposition that contributions to pension schemes should attract tax relief.
There are 11 million people at the moment contributing to occupational schemes who get that tax relief, which is worth about £150 million a year to them. But the Government are saying that the approximately 7 million people who will contribute to the new reserve scheme should not get the tax relief. 1 hat would amount, under the amendment which has been made to the Bill, to approximately £25 million.
This tax relief is not unimportant to those people. It is the Government's own estimate that, of the 7 million contributors to the reserve scheme, between 5 million and 6 million will be taxpayers, so they will be abe to benefit from tax relief. To any taxpayer, the relief is worth 30 per cent. of the nominal cost of his contributions.
We all understand why the Government want to saddle the reserve scheme with this tax disadvantage. It is because they want as few people as possible to remain in the reserve scheme. There may be hon. Members who disagree with that point of view, but it is a legitimate and respectable point of view for Conservatives to held.
But what I suggest seriously to Conservative Members is that the device proposed to give to these contributions for pension purposes a tax disadvantage in essentially similar conditions to those applying to all other pension schemes is not a legitimate, permissible, or acceptable means of achieving that objective. The Government have made great play with the fact—it is their only argument —that they are arranging for the employer to pay more than the employee to the reserve scheme and that therefore that is as good as tax relief.
The point that hon. Members must take personally as well as seriously is this: in 1971, we gave ourselves a new
218
pension scheme. Until then, contributions for our pension were paid on a 50 50 basis by the Member and the Exchequer. Since 1971, we have paid three-eighths of the total contribution and the Exchequer has paid the remainder, five-eighths.
This change was made on the recommendation of Lord Boyle, in his report. In paragraph 71 of that report, Lord Boyle addressed himself specifically to this point. He said that he was recommending that that ratio be adopted because that was normal in the private pension field. The facts show that he was right. He said that he was also recommending it because that was the ratio that the Government were proposing for the State reserve scheme.
But Lord Boyle did not recommend that we should not get tax relief on our contributions and we have made no arrangement not to get tax relief. Consequently, we are enjoying tax relief on our contributions when the ratio of contribution is exactly the same as is proposed for the State reserve scheme. I suggest that, in those circumstances, for hon. Members to allow the Government tomorrow to whip them into the Lobby to kill the amendment which was made in Committee with the assistance of five Conservative Members would be more than unfair; it would be dishonourable.
If hon. Members are inclined to do so and to overlook the moral considerations, I would ask them to remember that between 5 million and 6 million people being gratuitously given this grievance will mean about 9,000 constituents in every constituency in the country, their wives, their husbands, and their grown-up and voting sons and daughters. That will probably mean about 15,000 voters in every constituency in the country. Let no hon. Member think that they will not know about it. We shall take care that they know all about it. As I have said, few hon. Members can afford a manifest grievance of that kind to be felt by such a large number of their constituents.
If hon. Members are not prepared to stop the Government tomorrow, the Bill at least allows them to be consistent and fair, and to take away from themselves the tax relief which they now enjoy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, and Mr. Michael Meacher.
PENSIONS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SURCHARGE)
Bill to provide that, for as long as contributions to any reserve pension scheme established by legislation of this Session do not attract tax relief in the same way as contributions to occupational pension schemes, a surcharge of 50 per cent. (£112·50 per annum) shall be payable by Members of Parliament on their contributions to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to offset the tax relief which they receive, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
  As amended (in Standing Committee), considered.
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
    New Clause 1

      POWER TO AMEND SCHEDULE 18 BY REGULATION
      The Secretary of State shall have power by regulation to amend Schedule 18 to this Act to provide an equal weekly rate of pension irrespective of sex for every £1 of each year's reckonable contribution factor and for ages of retirement between 60 and 65 inclusive; but there shall be no power under this section compulsorily to raise the retirement age of women above 60.—[Mr. Dell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. Edmund Dell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: I have selected new Clause 1 but I gather from the right hon. Member that it will be for the convenience of the House to consider with it the following amendments:
      No. 53, in Clause 49, page 64, line 37, at end insert:
      and
      (f) it offers to women earners the same rights to membership as it offers to men'.
      No. 172, in page 64, line 37, at end insert:
      ' (f) it offers to women earners the same rights as it offers to men'.
      No. 173, in Clause 51, page 68, line 25, leave out subsection (9).
      No. 174, in Clause 52, page 70, line 5, leave out from 'earner' to 'to' in line 6.
      No. 152, in Clause 69, page 91, line 19, after 'State', insert:
      'of which at least one-third shall be women'.
      No. 131, in Schedule 18, page 179, line 41, leave out from beginning to the end of line 53 on page 180 and insert:
      4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the weekly rate of pension (without bonuses) for every £1 of the earner's contribution factor.
      (2) An earner's weekly rate of pension shall vary according to the age at which he earned his contribution factor (treating him for this

      221
      purpose as having been in any year, of the age which he had attained on the last day of that year).
      (3) The regulations referred to in sub-paragraph 4(1) above shall specify separate rates of pension for pensionable ages of 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 '.
      No. 155, in page 180, column 2, leave out line 5.
      No. 156, in page 180, column 3, leave out lines 5 to 44.
      Mr. Dell: I confess I am in some difficulty because I do not see any member of the Government responsible for this Bill in his place to listen to my persuasive arguments. However, as the Minister has now arrived, I shall be able to advance the arguments relevant to this new clause and Amendment No. 131, which is the other amendment grouped here for which I have primary responsibility. My name is added to other amendments but these are two which deal with the reserve pension scheme. The other amendments grouped here deal with occupational pension schemes.
      To use the attractive language of an hon. Lady who has a letter in The Times this morning, 7 million people under the Social Security Bill will be "relegated"—I quote the hon. Lady—to the reserve pension scheme. This idea of relegation to that scheme is, of course, the baste Government concept about the scheme. It is that it is a fallback scheme and by its nature a very unattractive scheme. Indeed, one might say that never before in human history has a Government cried "stinking fish" so frequently and so enthusiastically about any product of its own conception as this Government have about the reserve pension scheme.
      Nevertheless, the odd fact is that, bad as it is, for many people it will be better than the occupational scheme at minimum levels. There will, for example, be pressure from younger people to be in the reserve pension scheme, and one of the reasons why the Government oppose tax relief on contributions to the reserve pension scheme is that they believe their strategy to be in danger of a choice between the reserve pension scheme and an occupational scheme, which is already very finely balanced. They feel, therefore, that if a tax rebate is given, the balance will fall very much more strongly, for many people in favour of the reserve pension scheme. But in any case, whether or
      222
      not the figure of 7 million which the Government have estimated for the reserve pension scheme turns out to be the figure, or whether it is a larger figure, the Government tell us that these people are to be relegated to it.
      The question is, and the question when the Committee was discussing Part III of the Bill was simply, is there any way in which the reserve pension scheme can be improved? We tried in Committee to improve the reserve pension scheme but the Government were very resistant to the idea of improving it. They said that it was a fallback and that, indeed almost as a matter of principle, it must not be improved. But occupational pension schemes, they said, might be improved. The pressure of members might lead to improvement of the occupational pension scheme but the Minister's view of the reserve pension scheme was that it must not be improved. We had only one success in trying to improve the reserve pension scheme. That was in response to an amendment I moved about enhancement if retirement is deferred.
      Later I shall have something more to say about Government Amendment No. 91, which is relevant to the new clause and the amendment to which at present I am speaking. Amendment No. 91 makes this new clause or Amendment No. 131 more necessary than before if fairness is to be done.
      But the Government so far have resisted all other pressures to improve the reserve pension scheme and I can tell them there will be pressure to do so from at least 7 million people. There will be pressure from Members of Parliament to improve it, again if for no other reason than that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) in the speech that he made a few moments ago—that many constituents will be deeply aggrieved by the nature of the reserve pension scheme. Therefore the Government might as well listen now.
      One of the facts about the reserve pension scheme is its discrimination against women. An important question in Committee was whether there was anything we could do which would, at small cost, go some way towards reducing the discrimination against women. I made a proposal in Committee that we should

      223
      eliminate the present tables in Schedule 18, on page 180 of the Bill, which are divided between men and women and different retirement ages of 65 and 60. I said that we should eliminate that method of showing age and reckonable contribution and that we should insert instead actuarially calculated tables depending simply on the age at which reckonable contributions are made, as they are in Schedule 18, but—and this is the difference—depending also on the age at which actual retirement takes place, those ages being between 60 and 65. Instead of the tables here, there would be not a table for men and a table for women but tables for each age of retirement—at 61, 62, 63, 64 or 65—with the earnings per reckonable contribution depending, as in Schedule 18, upon the age at which they were made. That would be the basis of the table in Schedule 18, and not sex discrimination.
      The table would be based on the age of contribution and the age of retirement, not tables for men and women, depending on different ages of retirement. In other words, if one takes the position that would then arise, women could still retire at 60, as most women will want to do. I have written a provision into the new clause guaranteeing —though that is not a question here— that they can still retire at 60. On the other hand, they could work on voluntarily if they wished to do so and if they saw reason to do so. They would then benefit from it fully according to the contribution which they had made and the pension they had earned.
      Here I make a preliminary remark about Amendment No. 91, to which no doubt we shall return. We shall return to it in the light of what the Government say about my new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 131, because if we accept Amendment No. 91 without some such system as is written into my new clause and my amendment and without, in other words, changing the table in Schedule 18—if Amendment No. 91 is based on the table in that schedule— then actuarially, which is what the Government are concerned with in their reserve pension scheme, women will be "diddled" by Amendment No. 91 instead of benefiting from it. They will get less for their contributions than men
      224
      would get in equivalent circumstances. The very fact that the Government have put down Amendment No. 91 in response to pleas made to them on all sides of the Committee reinforces the need for new Clause 1 and for Amendment No. 131.
      There are many reasons why women might want to work on after the age of 60. They might want to earn a higher pension, which will be particularly important to single women, or they might want to retire at the same time as their husbands. These are the advantages that would accrue for women if the Government accept my arguments.
      There are, then, the arguments for men, because I am not simply putting forward a case for women. Men will still be able to retire at 65 but if for a variety of reasons they retired early they would be able to get their reserve pension at the time they retired. Let us take a typical example which the Government foresee arising with the dual system of occupational and reserve pensions. The Government see many people who work for most of their lives under the occupational pension system spending part of their working lives paying for the reserve pension. In addition to their occupational entitlement they will have a reserve entitlement.
      In many occupational pension schemes people are required to retire earlier than 65—at 62, 60 or even earlier than that. What will be the position of the man who retires before 65 and gets the benefit of his occupational pension when, as the Bill is now drawn, his reserve pension entitlement can be obtained only at the age of 65? It would be very much better for men to be able to claim their reserve entitlement before the age of 65 if it coincides with age of retirement under an occupational pension scheme. My proposal would meet the needs of men in that respect.
      I do not see that the Government can conceivably object as a matter of principle to what I am proposing. It in no way conflicts with the money purchase basis of the reserve scheme. There are genuine reasons for having a flexible reirement age for men as well as women. For women it helps to overcome discrimination against them and it is the only way of dealing with the pension

      225
      problem created by different retirement ages. For men it enables questions of individual family and health circumstances to be considered. Because the Government cannot object to this in principle, therefore, I offer it to them again to see whether they have any better-informed comments to make on the idea than the Minister brought forward in Committee.
      As usual, in order to encourage them a little in my direction I offer the Government a compromise. I always offer them a compromise and I always try to encourage them forward little by little to try to overcome their resistance to improving the reserve scheme. I offer them Amendment No. 131 or new Clause 1. The amendment provides that the change should be made now, written into the Bill now. The clause says that if the Government do not want to do it now, but if they want to wait a little and think about it, they should take the power to do it by regulation at such time as they think right. The clause gives the Government the power to introduce changes in Schedule 18 by regulation in accordance with the principles I am advancing.
      There is only one possible objection to the proposal—cost, and, in particular, it is sometimes argued, the cost to men. The Under-Secretary in Committee in replying to a debate which I initiated in moving an amendment dedicated to the same purpose as the new clause and the amendment now before us, gave a cost which was totally irrelevant to the argument I was presenting. Indeed, he tried to attribute his answer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), but it was irrelevant to anything that my hon. Friend said. The Under-Secretary said that the cost would be increased by no less than half. He said—
      "despite their"—
      that is women—
      "earlier retirement age"—
      in other words he was referring to a situation in which women retired earlier—
      "… the cost of providing the benefit on women's contributions would be increased by no less than half."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th April 1973; c. 1559.]
      226
      That is not what I was proposing and it is not what I am proposing now. There is no such cost. The figure which the Under-Secretary gave was irrelevant, and when I challenged him to give an accurate cost for my proposal he failed to do so.
      4.15 p.m.
      Under my proposal the pension depends on the contribution and age of retirement, irrespective of sex. The cost of my proposal is very small simply because the additional cost of women's pensions is affected far more by early retirement than it is by a longer life. Ninety per cent. of the difference is accounted for by earlier retirement. A 4 per cent. contribution buys only slightly more pension for a man, including his widow's pension, than it buys for a woman, provided the retirement age is the same.
      In other words, the small amount of transfer that would take place between men and women would be no greater than the transfer which in any case takes place between manual workers and non-manual workers who have different lengths of life, or between people who live in Rochdale and people who live in Brighton who have different lengths of life. This is the measure of the sort of transfer that would take place between men and women if my proposal were adopted. Therefore it is possible for a small cost to make a major advance in overcoming the pension problem created by different retirement ages for men and women. I see no ground of principle and I hope that the Government will not say there is a ground of cost on which they can reject my proposals.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: First may I say how welcome it is to see the Secretary of State here on Report. We missed him sadly during the Committee proceedings during which we fought out long, far-reaching questions of principle affecting the whole foundation of his social security strategy. Nobly as the Under-Secretary has battled on in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, it would have been deplorable for the House to have gone ahead to finish the Bill without the Secretary of State having listened to and, I hope, personally answered a number of the detailed points

      227
      of principle which we thrashed out in Committee for so long.
      I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) not only on the way in which he moved his new clause but on the ingenuity he displayed in approaching one of the central problems and deficiencies of the Bill, namely the problem faced by women under the Government's social security proposals. His proposal shows what can be done in overcoming administrative and actuarial difficulties in the way of complete equality if only one starts passionately motivated by the right principle.
      The trouble is that the Government have approached the needs of women in exactly the opposite way and that is why the Bill as it stands and, if it passes the Report stage unamended, as it will stand is an insult and an injury to the women of this country—and insult and injury of which they are becoming increasingly and angrily aware. This large group of amendments continues the battle for equal pension rights for women which we conducted throughout the Committee. It deals with only a part of the battle because grouped here are amendments dealing with occupational pension schemes and with the State reserve scheme.
      One of the difficulties that we have experienced in getting justice for women in this Bill is that the scheme is so complicated that they have no means of realising the injustice being perpetrated against them unless and until someone can explain the implications to them in very simple language. The whole purpose of these amendments, therefore, can be understood only against the background of the wider concept of women's rights at present embodied in the Bill.
      Our battle for women is first, against the whole two-tier structure of pensions which the Government have introduced. The basic scheme which is to be applicable to everyone and financed by earnings-related contributions will produce only a totally inadequate flat-rate benefit. Even in its limited provisions, the scheme is deeply unequal to women anyway because it is imbued with the now out of date concept of women's dependancy. This is a point to which we shall return
      228
      in the context of other amendments and which I cannot explore too deeply at this stage.
      That was the starting point and, in fighting the concept of dependency in the basic scheme and the subordinate position that it gives to women, we warned that the consequence would be that inequality to women would be perpetrated throughout the rest of the Government's elaborate pensions structure. These amendments prove that our warnings were entirely justified.
      No one is expected to live on the basic flat-rate scheme. For that reason everyone is to have a second earnings-related pension on top of it. As my right hon. Friend has demonstrated and as we said time and again in Committee, that second-tier pension is of two entirely different qualities.
      The Government's most favoured pension scheme for the earnings-related second pension is the private occupational pension scheme. Only those unfortunate enough not to be covered by one—there will be seven or eight million of them— will, to use the famous phrase in The Times this morning already quoted by my right hon. Friend, be "relegated" to the State reserve scheme. It is remarkably significant that the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) should have chosen that word so instinctively to describe the inferior status of the State reserve scheme.
      It is because women gat such a poor deal in the basic flat-rate scheme that it is all the more essential that they should get equality of treatment in the second tier. What have the Government done? To begin with, they have put all the emphasis on the occupational pension scheme. Then they have given women no statutory right to belong to it.
      The Secretary of State has said in many a public speech that it is his hope and aim that eventually everyone will belong to an occupational pension scheme. However it is his intention to rely only upon persuasion. In the meantime he will do nothing to make the State reserve scheme competitive in terms of the level of benefit that it provides. Only those who get into the occupational pension scheme will get a really adequate coverage at the second tier stage.
      The Opposition do not like the concept of the two-tier scheme for reasons

      229
      which I do not intend to elaborate now. But if we have to have one, that second tier must give everyone equality. Above all it must not discriminate purely on sex grounds. But that in effect is what the Bill will do.
      We all know that the occupational pension scheme is more likely to be introduced in those areas where the employee is strongly organised, well paid and able to assert himself. It will be the lower paid and above all the women who will be relegated to the State reserve scheme unless we give them an equal statutory right with men to belong to a private occupational one. Therefore, is not it elementary natural justice to say that women could have the right by law to belong to the better scheme? I repeat— and I can make quotations to support my assertion—that the Under-Secretary has never concealed the fact that he knows the occupational scheme is the better one.
      It may be a tragedy that we have to embody these basic rights for women in the law of the land. It is a pity that we cannot leave them to negotiations across the collective bargaining table. But all our history shows that we cannot. We could not even leave to the negotiating table the establishment of that basic right for women to the same pay for the same work. We had to legislate for it. In so far as pensions are recognised as being deferred pay, so we must legislate for equality of rights for women in pensions. If we do not we shall have a continuance of the present situation where, of those in full time manual work, 17·9 per cent. of women are in occupational pension schemes compared with 46·2 per cent. of men—perhaps because the men are better organised or perhaps because the men are in better jobs. Whatever the reason, that is the fact. It will continue unless we say that where an employer introduces an occupational pension scheme for his employees, women employees must have an equal right to membership with men.
      That proposition is not merely a matter of common justice. It is one of political consistency. The House will remember our debates on the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill, which I had the honour to introduce and to get on to the statute book. At the time that Bill was before the House the TUC represented to me that it would be
      230
      meaningless unless it was accompanied by equal rights for women in employers' pension schemes. By the time that Bill reached its Report stage, I was under a great deal of pressure from a number of my right lion, and hon. Friends to accept an amendment giving equality of pension rights to women as part of that Bill. I announced to the House that, as I wanted to be sure to get that Bill on to the statute book without delay—and how right I was has been proved by events—I did not wish to hold up the Bill by complicating it with what would have to be very detailed consideration of what constituted equality of pension rights under any employer's pension scheme.
      But I gave a pledge that the Labour Government would introduce equal pension rights for women, by legislation, before the Equal Pay Act came into full operation at the end of 1975. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, then on these benches, welcomed it, and seemed to imply what a pity it was we had not been able to incorporate that provision in the Bill itself.
      4.30 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The right hon. Lady is speaking now as if she gave an unqualified undertaking to the House at that time. What she said was:
      "The legislation will prescribe a suitable date for equalising men's and women's pension rights, taking due account of any inherent differences between men and women in regard to pension needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1789.]
      Does she deny that?
      Mrs. Castle: Of course I will not deny my own words. I will come in a moment to the point about the accrual rate, but the right hon. Gentleman is showing that he is suffering from lack of attendance at Committee stage because otherwise he would have known that there are two sharply differentiated points in our amendments, and two separate matters of principle, on which the House will have a chance to vote and to make a decision in a short while.
      The point I am arguing at present on Amendment No. 53 is merely that where a pension scheme is introduced by an employer, women shall have equal rights with the men who belong to it. There is no possible way of saying that that does not

      231
      fall within the definition of equal pension rights, even taking account of differing needs. I am saying that it is a complicated matter, and that is why I could not legislate at that time. That is what I am coming to as a separate point.
      I ask the House to recognise on Amendment 53, and I ask the Secretary of State to realise on Amendment 53, that if the Secretary of State is rejecting it he is rejecting the right of women to belong to an occupational pension scheme covering the men in the same firm. Just that. I defy anybody in this House to say that we can talk about equal pension rights and not give that elementary form of equality.
      When I moved this amendment in Committee, then known as the famous Amendment 205 on which Members have been lobbied since by various women's organisations, the Under-Secretary of State had two alternative but equally astonishing replies. The first was that he tried to say, "Oh, but we have given women equal right to membership in our Bill because if they are not allowed into an occupational pension scheme they have to be in the State reserve scheme." What a glorious definition of equality. If they are not allowed by the employer into the better scheme, then they can go into the inferior scheme. The Under-Secretary of State himself described it as an inferior scheme. In case he tries to deny that, let me remind the House of the exact words he used on 6th March:
      "The chances are that in the majority of cases members of occupational pension schemes will have a higher level of cover than is the case in the reserve scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1973, c. 821.]
      So if we want to give women a chance to be in the better scheme, then we must give them the right to be in an occupational scheme. That argument was self-evident, but then the hon. Gentleman came out with his real answer which is behind the Government's injustice to women throughout this Bill. He said: "Oh, but if we insist that women have the right to belong to a private scheme as well as the men, some occupational pension schemes will just fold up." In other words, the employers will not be prepared to take on the liability of sex equality. That was the attitude
      232
      employers took to equal pay. That is why we had to legislate for it. If we now want to make equal pay a reality, then we have to legislate for this basic equal pension right.
      The Government paid lip service to the Equal Pay Bill, said it did not go far enough. I cannot tell the House how many improvements the Government said ought to have been made in it, yet once they had conned the women of this country in the last election and were taking responsibility from that Front Bench they changed their tune. That is why, for instance, they are not carrying out the provisions of the Equal Pay Act that would have given women 90 per cent. of the men's rate by the end of this year. That is why they are refusing to legislate on equal pension rights.
      Therefore, I say to the House that I do not believe anyone who has ever paid lip service to sex equality can possibly fail to support Amendment No. 53. I dare say all members of the House have had a further communication from Women's National Commission reiterating their support for this amendment, as has the National Joint Council of Working Women's Organisations. That is what the women's nationwide representatives want to see this House do this afternoon.
      I turn to the second aspect of equality, that is, the need for equality of accrual rates. Here again there is a very close link between the State reserve scheme and the occupational pension scheme.
      Our Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 would eliminate the low accrual rate for women in the State reserve scheme. We talked about the same thing in Committee about the occupational pension scheme. We said we thought it was intolerable that the return in pension for a man should be 1 per cent. of his reckonable earnings and that it should be only 0·70 per cent. for the women.
      Here, of course, the Government will come out with their actuarial argument. That is why I believe that the amendments which my right hon. Friend moved earlier are so important. The Government will argue that this different and lower return in pension for women on the same reckonable earnings is due to the fact that women retire earlier and that they live longer. Indeed, in our debate on the difference in accrual rates on

      233
      occupational pension schemes, the Undersecretary of State said that women, because of these two factors, draw their pensions for 19½ years on average compared with 12 years in the case of men.
      There are two answers to this. First and foremost, women have never run away from the need to equalise the retirement age. Women have never asked for an extra bonus as far as the retirement age is concerned. That is why it is the women who have said that the retirement pension should be equalised. Clearly, one cannot and should not raise the compulsory retirement age of women to 65. Equally clearly, the Government are not prepared to bring the men's retirement age down to 60 to bring them into line. That is why we argued the point in Committee. My right hon. Friend has argued it very effectively here again this afternoon. We are in favour of flexibility of retirement ages. Let us by all means link the level of pensions to the retirement age, but let us remember that the present statutory retirement age is imposed on women by this House. Here again, should not they be given the option of working longer for a higher pension and, equally, should not men who want to retire earlier be given the opportunity plus the appropriate pension rate?
      But this sharp difference in the pensions which will be payable to women and to men also arises from the Government taking into account in the case of women a factor which they do not take into account in the case of anyone else, namely, their longevity. The difference of seven and a half years between the duration of the pensions of women and men is not entirely accounted for by the difference in the retirement age. Three years of it is accounted for by the fact that women live longer. But we do not say that different types of male workers shall be penalised according to their life expectation. Non-manual workers have a longer expectation of life in retirement than do manual workers, yet no one suggests that a non-manual worker should because of that get a lower pension.
      We deeply protest at this simple act of sex discrimination against women, particularly because women, being largely among the lower paid, will in any case receive inadequate pensions. To reduce those inadequate pensions still further because women live longer is to condemn
      234
      women to live longer in the poverty by which they are penalised because they manage to survive. If we accept the principle of equality, there are ways of overcoming the difference in the retirement age, and that is the only difference that should be taken into account.
      Finally, Amendment No. 152 provides that when the Government set up the Reserve Pension Board which will operate the State reserve scheme women should form at least one-third of the membership. Here again, I moved an amendment in similar terms in connection with the Occupational Pensions Board. After all, women represent one-third of the working population. Women have been discriminated against in pay and in pensions in the past and will still be discriminated against. It is therefore vital that their needs should be represented strongly on the boards which will operate both schemes.
      When I raised this subject in Committee in the context of the Occupational Pensions Board, the Under-Secretary of State told me that I need have no fears, the Government would choose the members on their merits. He thought that I would be pleasantly surprised when I saw the announcement of the membership of the Occupational Pensions Board. I am still waiting for that pleasant surprise. The first announcement was of the chairman and the vice-chairman, neither of whom was a woman—naturally, from the point of view of the Government. On 18th April six more members of the Occupational Pensions Board were announced—all pensions managers, representatives of pensions companies or actuaries—not a woman among them.
      I am confident that we shall have the same experience when the appointments to the Reserve Pension Board are announced unless the Government's hands are tied by the House accepting Amendment No. 152. Women have remained" under-privileged because of the lack of a positive attitude about their needs. The Government have not begun to grasp, tried to cope with or even accepted that those needs exist. The House is far more sensitive on this issue than are the Government, and the way to show that sensitivity is to assert the rights of women by accepting these amendments.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) described the proposals in this Bill as an insult and injury to the women of this country. That is sheer unadulterated nonsense. On Second Reading the Bill was welcomed as the biggest step forward in combating poverty that this country had taken for many years. There were a few snags, one of which was that women could not build up higher contributions under the scheme by choosing to work beyond the minimum retirement age should they wish to do so.
      I have with me the report of the National Council of Women which states very clearly that it is:
      "in favour of a flexible retiring age for both men and women which would take account of individual circumstances such as health, work pattern, size of family and so on."
      In Committee and behind the scenes many hon. Members have impressed on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the need to introduce flexibility. I was delighted when I read his Amendment No. 91, which largely meets this point.
      This subject is of particular importance in my constituency where there are a large number of women hospital workers including nurses and other professional workers who often come to me to ask why, if they work beyond 60, they cannot build up a better pension. They may have interrupted service. If they are single women they may have been looking after elderly dependants and when the time comes for them to resume work they want to have the chance to build up a higher pension.
      A lady came to my surgery recently who wanted to opt back into the occupational scheme because her husband had suddenly become disabled—
      Mr. Dell: Amendment No. 91 is a response by the Government to an amendment which I moved in Committee on which, I acknowledge, I had the support of hon. Members on the Government benches. The Under-Secretary of State agreed to consider my amendment and, as a result, Amendment No. 91 has been tabled.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) may not yet have appreciated that the fact that the Govern-
      236
      ment have tabled Amendment No. 91 makes even more unjust than before the rates of accrual provided for women in Table 18. If they wish voluntarily to go for a higher retirement age their rates of acrual should on a pure actuarial basis be much closer to the figures given for men. The hon. Lady is therefore emphasising the importance of the arguments advanced by the Opposition.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's observations. I have here the answer that was given to him on 28th March 1973 which contains all the available figures. There is, in fact, considerable flexibility. The pensions which women will be able to earn will be nearer those which men can earn, with the slight difference of the death grant, widows' pensions, and other matters which we must acknowledge affect the actuarial basis of women's contributions.
      The right, hon. Member for Blackburn did not take sufficiently into account that many women greatly value their option not to have to pay into the State basic scheme. Indeed, three out of four working women exercise this option. They are anxious to hang on to this privilege We promised in our election manifesto that they would be allowed to do so. This, therefore, is a fulfilment of that election pledge by which I stand and will continue to stand. Nevertheless, I think it is also important that they should have this chance of building up a better contribution record and a better pension under the State reserve scheme. I believe that under Amendment No. 91 they will get it.
      Mr. Brian O'Malley: Is the hon. Lady aware that she is under a considerable misapprehension if she believes, as she has just stated, that as a result of Amendment No. 91 women's pensions will not be much smaller than men's? In fact the accrual rates will remain exactly the same, even if some flexibility is introduced, and the overall position will be that the woman's pension will be 30 per cent. less than that received by a man.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I believe we made very considerable progress in this Bill and have made further progress with the amendments which the Secretary of State has put forward. I believe the majority of women will regard this as a

      237
      very big step forward. Those of us who have worked for many years for the advancement of the cause of women do not expect to leap into equality at one fell swoop, but we appreciate the steady progress we have made, are making and will continue to make under the Conservative Government as opposed to the large amount of talk we had from the last Government.
      There is, however, one point on which I must admit that I support the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. That is on the absolute right for a woman to join an occupational pension scheme at the same age as that at which a man can join. I think that women should be allowed to do so because too many women do not take a keen interest in pensions schemes, probably because in the first few years of their service they cannot acquire enough years to qualify for preservation. Preservation is as important to women as it is to men. Therefor I am anxious that they should be able to build up a very good preservation right especially because they may have to change jobs willy-nilly not because of their own promotion but simply because their husbands move to other jobs and the home has to be moved elsewhere.
      I very much welcome the tremendous efforts made by the Secretary of State to meet points which we raised with him and many other points such as that of enabling women who marry men over pensionable age also to have an occupational pension when their husbands die before them. It was a great injustice that they could not do so before and it is a very important point to be taken into consideration. We thank the Secretary of State very much for the great step forward he has made for women.
      Mr. Alec Jones: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) was not with us in Committee. She would certainly have enlightened us there. At the same time she would have learned a great deal about this Bill.
      The hon. Lady referred to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had said as "sheer unadulterated nonsense", but judging from correspondence which I have received from women's organisations throughout
      238
      the country I think women are more in agreement with the views of my right hon. Friend than with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Lancaster this afternoon. The hon. Lady also said that she did not expect any great leap forward by this Government. I agree with her on that. I hardly expect them to make one gradual step forward. I call attention to a document which has been circulated to hon. Members and which I am sure the hon. Lady will have received. It is from the National Council of Women. It says:
      "We see in this Bill little reflection of the social changes which are now taking place in our society and especially the rapidly changing position of women both in and outside the home."
      I should have thought that that comment summarises the views of the campaign in criticism of the inadequate provisions for women made in this Bill. Letters I have received from women's organisations have all expressed complete dissatisfaction about the provisions for women made in the Bill. That is a reason why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who drew our attention to the scheme outlined in his new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 131. He seeks to improve the Bill in two ways—first to eliminate the discrimination against women and secondly, as a by-product, to make it easier for men to retire below the statutory age of 65. Both these objectives are particularly commendable. We have the alternative Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 which support the idea of equal accrual rights for men and women.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was right to concentrate on the occupational scheme and the State reserve scheme because both will become increasingly important for women as more and more women go to work. It is envisaged by the Government that they will be in one or other scheme and it seems that they will be more likely to be driven into the inadequate State reserve scheme. If so, the Reserve Pension Board will have very important functions in controlling and managing the scheme in the interests of both men and women. Therefore, Amendment No. 152, which seeks to place a statutory responsibility on the Reserve Pension Board to consist one-third of women, is a right

      239
      reflection because the fund will cover so many women members.
      In talking of the membership and composition of the board it is right to consider it reasonable that women should be members. Everyone would agree that they are most likely to be beneficiaries and that large numbers of them will be contributors. The chances are that the Minister will say, as he has said in the past, "There is nothing in the Bill to stop women being members of this board" and that he expects them to be members. That is a little naive because in practice we know that in all such organisations when this is left to chance and natural selection takes place, few, if any, women are appointed. We therefore wish to place a statutory obligation on the Minister.
      As my right hon. Friend pointed out, up to date no woman has been included among those whose names have been announced as members. In view of women's liberation and the antidiscrimination campaign, the Government are extremely unwise to ignore the view of so many women—and also men—that women should have the right of places on these boards. The amendment suggests that women members should comprise one-third of the membership. That is a price which the Government ought to pay. They should accept the amendment.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith: I think that I can claim some personal responsibility for this matter being discussed now by my abstaining on a vote on this subject in Committee. I demand quite clearly that the Government should encourage the Occupational Pensions Board to use its powers to make mandatory the right of women to be given access to occupational pension schemes. Nothing less is good enough. We must not be fobbed off with the red herring of longevity or early retirement. That is not the problem. The crux of the matter is their right to have an occupational pension. That is something from which we must not move.
      Why should women be so penalised? It seems absolutely indefensible. Such discrimination as may be allowed to go through is totally unacceptable to me. If
      240
      we claim to be the party of antidiscrimination and allow this measure to go through as it stands, what we are saying is outrageous humbug and will not do. As I understand it, the Anti-Discrimination Bill specifically excludes equality for women in the State reserve scheme. This seems to epitomise the injustice. Someone ought to have a word with the Prime Minister and remind him that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
      Since our party is rather dependent on women, we cannot afford to have a lot of scornful supporters. Otherwise we shall have no supporters at all. By objecting to the Government's policy at the moment we may actually incur short-term displeasure but long-term gratitude. I wish to quote a question I asked the Minister on 13th March during the Committee proceedings. I asked him:
      "can my hon. Friend tell me whether there is a demand by women for higher pensions, as expressed through women's organisations? More important, is there evidence that women are prepared to pay more contributions to get higher pensions? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th March 1973; c. 901.]
      We all know from the National Women's Commission and other organisations that there is this will in the country. As has been so ably explained by others, this is a rising trend in society and our party must face up to it and meet it. I hope that the Government will accept that for once the Opposition have got something right. I trust that the Government will find it possible to accept this innocuous clause.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) on his independent standpoint, which he showed on other occasions in Committee. Occasionally marginally regrettable things may happen as a result of back benchers not doing what their Front Benchers tell them to do. On the whole the good government of the country is better preserved by back benchers doing what they think is right, because the Treasury Bench has no monopoly of wisdom. Indeed, sometimes it seems to have lost all access to it.
      On this issue as on all others I would encourage everyone to reach his own conclusions and to require the Government to state their reasons openly. If

      241
      they are not then convinced, they should use their vote accordingly. It is rare that parliamentary democracy raises her lovely head in this Chamber. I hope that she will rear it once or twice in the course of the Bill.
      I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in that I was not able to hear his opening remarks. I may to some extent duplicate them. There are three reasons why women's pensions should by conventional standards be actuarily different from those of men—they have a longer life, they retire earlier and men have to pay for a widow's pension while women do not have to pay for a widower's pension because they do not get it.
      The most important of these is early retirement. That constitutes by far the greatest part of the differential between men and women. Figures which the Minister gave some weeks ago, which apply irrespective of age, show that the difference between the accrual rates of men and those of women, assuming that they both retire at the same age—and that was the only difference from present factors—would be as low as 5 per cent.
      If women were paying for their longer life out of their contributions and men were paying for the widow's pension out of their contributions, the two factors would operate in opposite directions. They would not balance exactly. The result would be that on that basis women would receive a lower pension for the same input as men but the difference would be enormously reduced and it would be approximately 5 per cent. less than that of the man. I see that the Minister acknowledges that my arithmetic is right. If that is the case, then the difference is so small that we might as well ignore it.
      If we did ignore it and all human beings paid for those two benefits without differentiation of sex, the result would be that women would be using their contributions to pay for the pensions of men's widows but men would be using part of their contributions to pay for the longer life of women. The difference would then come down to less than 5 per cent. because we would split the difference between the 100 per cent. and the 95 per cent. and both would end up with benefits which were approximately 98 per
      242
      cent, of those provided for men in Schedule 18.
      There are some women who do not take the point that if women retire earlier than men they have to pay for that. I would not have any truck with any suggestion that women should not pay for that facility. Women will be easily convinced that they can expect equality only if they retire at the same age as men. What these figures show is that once they have accepted that element of equality there is nothing else of any volume to stand in the way of completely un-differentiated treatment of the two sexes for pension purposes.
      At the moment because women live longer they have to pay for it. It is rather hard that throughout the whole length and breadth of the country there are widows living alone in poverty with no one to look after them or care for them. They did not ask to live longer than their husbands. In many cases they regret it. To impose upon them a financial penalty because the Almighty has ordained that they must put up with life after their life companion is gone seems so immoral and unacceptable that I feel that in due course this House will entirely reject such a concept.
      This, I suggest, is the time to reject it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has provided an easy and sensible way of doing so by stating that for those who retire at the same age there shall be the same retirement benefit available for the same input. The Secretary of State is nodding. In that case I hope that he will vote for my right hon. Friend's clause.
      Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cunningham: It seems that I have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's nodding.
      That is surely an objective which we ought to pursue. It is something which ought to come very soon. It has about it the smell of something which is coming soon, however much the Treasury Bench fiddles away and tries to delay. It will come, and pretty soon. If the Government do not want to take credit for introducing it, a Labour Government will be almost certain to do it very soon after taking office. I hope that on those grounds Conservative Members will

      243
      exercise their rights and vote for the clause.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am a trespasser in this debate because I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Therefore I apologise if my lack of knowledge of the Bill shows from time to time. I am fundamentally in sympathy with the objectives of the clause moved by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and with many of the complementary amendments. He criticised my hon. and right hon. Friends for their actuarial assessment of the cost involved and of the real cost. He was delightfully vague about the cost and how it was to be met.
      We must all draw the conclusion that he meant that the cost would be met by means of the somewhat hackneyed and well-known Socialist recourse to higher taxation.
      The right hon. Member would do well on this point to reflect that although the last Socialist Government of which he was a member massively increased taxes they came nowhere near to the record of this Government in increasing benefits. We have a Government who have managed to do this at the same time as massively cut taxes.
      Mr. Dell: The hon. Lady was not on the Committee and says she does not know the Bill well, but she must address herself to the argument. I am suggesting a 4 per cent. contribution. I am not suggesting any subsidy from the taxpayer under the new clause. I am suggesting no more transfer within the body of the reserve pension scheme than, as I have said, takes place between the non-manual worker and the manual worker. There is no question of a subsidy. The hon. Lady is on a false point. I suggest that she does what her heart tells her to do and supports the new clause.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I entirely accept that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the cost could be met out of the 4 per cent. increase in contribution. I am sure he says that with sincerity. But I believe that in practice it would be found that part of it would have to be met from taxation, for a variety of reasons. The philosophy behind what the right hon. Gentleman says has a basic
      244
      fallacy because in the long run the increases in taxation that would, I believe, have to be made, despite the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, would not deprive the rich man of one hot dinner but would deprive the widow—[An HON. MEMBER: "What increase?"] The increase to which I am referring is an increase in taxation which I maintain would have to be made to provide fully for the measures in the new clause and the complementary amendments. [?Interruption.] I do understand that the philosophy behind the proposals the cost of which in terms of taxation would not bring help to those whom we are all seeking to help.
      I noticed that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) spoke to her amendment in support of her right hon. Friend with considerable vehemence. There has been some distortion, both in the debate and in correspondence in the Press, about the likely effect on women of this Bill. The right hon. Lady apologised, as she has done in the case of the anti-discrimination amendment to her Equal Pay Act, that she did not have time to include equal pension rights for women in her Act. We all know the reason. It was that the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, had to cut and run for the cover of a general election.
      I have always recognised and acknowledged the right hon. Lady's considerable talents and abilities. She does herself less than credit in her aggressive approach to the problem. In view of the record of the last Government on women's rights and interests, she should be on the defensive rather than the offensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) said, in relation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. If that is the case, the Prime Minister is in very good shape, in view of the number of measures introduced by the present Government in the interests of women.
      Mrs. Castle: Without going into historical argument, we have a simple opportunity in Amendment No. 53 to vote for the principle that women have an equal right with men to belong to an occupational pension scheme of their firm. Will the hon. Lady support that?
      5.15 p.m.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I entirely accept what the right hon. Lady says. I have told the House that I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the amendment, and particularly with the aspect of the problem that the right hon. Lady has just mentioned. I shall not vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—for reasons that I shall explain.
      The right hon. Member for Birken-head claimed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had tabled Amendment No. 91 in response to his appeal in Committee. I do not think that it really matters whether he did so in response to the right hon. Gentleman or in response to the considerable concern expressed by many hon. Members on this side that as a result of a Bill which constitutes an important measure of reform women might be at a disadvantage with regard to their second pension rights. Whoever provoked it, I welcome my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      Underlying the inequality in women's pension rights that has persisted throughout the years under successive Governments is the anachronistic attitude that regards women as fundamentally the dependants. Naturally, both social changes and divided opinions call for a much more flexible approach to women's pension rights than we have in 1973, let alone 1975. But I feel that the Government's amendment is imaginative and valuable. In giving women the option to retire later and receive a higher pension—admittedly, not necessarily as high a pension as a man's—it takes due note of the fact that social change is gradual, and that changes in attitudes are even more gradual. It also takes note of the fact that it is fair, right and proper to give women the option to work longer for a higher pension during what is, after all, a transition period in the achievement of full equal rights for women; it is only a transition period, much as many of us must regret that.
      While no widespread or co-ordinated research has taken place among women as to whether the majority of them would like to work longer to qualify for a higher pension, I have no doubt that if such research took place it would be found that the vast majority of women would
      246
      welcome that option. It is particularly valuable in certain categories. Some have already been mentioned—single women alone or with elderly dependants, women divorced, deserted or widowed in early middle age whose children have grown up and left home. The economic advantages for such women in terms of continued earnings and a higher pension is self-evident. But the social advantages are perhaps even greater, because, if a woman is fit, those extra five years of work can not only help her to maintain her independence but can help her to avoid what, particularly for those women, is usually the loneliest and most unfulfilled period of a woman's life. Therefore, I welcome the Government's amendment, which will go a considerable way towards dealing with the problem.
      I am not one of those who support what is often an understandable trade union view that we should be moving towards earlier retirement for both men and women. My personal view is that the economic, social and psychological advantages for both men and women in being able to continue to work as long as the normal retirement age demands is indisputable, more particularly at a time when there is a much more widespread acceptance of the need for job satisfaction and job enrichment. That is equally true of men and women, and not just the dis-advantaged group of women that I have already mentioned.
      However, I reject the new clause and the amendments, with which I have already said I am fundamentally in sympathy, because the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that he has told us what the real cost will be of implementing the new clause—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman talks about 4 per cent.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not appear to have an opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 53?
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I accept that.
      The distortion in the arguments of Opposition Members is that they have given the impression that the Bill specifically prevents women from joining occupational pension schemes. I admit that it does not help them to do so to

      247
      the extent that I should like, but it does not prevent them from joining.
      Women have always had to fight every inch of the way in the achievement of women's rights. We have never achieved them easily. This is a matter that women throughout the country will want to continue to fight for.
      I cannot condemn, for not writing into the Bill this particular provision, a Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who have done so much for women's interests and women's pension rights. The Government have also done a great deal with regard to the tax benefits that will accrue to divorced women from the fact that maintenance payments will not be classed as unearned income. They have helped the young widows denied a pension by the previous Government; the older widows denied the age allowance; the war widow now entitled to war widow pension, even regardless of the reason for her husband's death, if he has been a war pensioner and she has received constant attendance allowance.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I am trying to understand the hon. Lady's argument, but I am having some difficulty. Do I take it that she thinks that women are engaged in a fight and that we should not let them win it, because that would stop them going on fighting? That seemed to be the burden of her argument.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Not at all. I refute that as being the motivation for what I said. I regret that women have had to fight every inch of the way, but above all I acknowledge that the present Government have helped them on the way over and over again.
      Mr. Cunningham: But they will have to go on fighting.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Good. That is exactly what we should do. Many of us on this side wish to see women having equal opportunity to join occupational pension schemes. But I have regard to the circumstances of the Bill, of the concessions given and the Government's achievements in connection with women's interests, not least with pensions, and perhaps most of all in the annual review of pensions, apart from the reforming
      248
      aspect of the Bill itself. Therefore, much as I regret that women will still have to fight for equal opportunity the occupational pension rights, I do not think that it is fair to press such a progressive Government to write the provision into the Bill.
      Mr. Michael Meacher: The views expressed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) about how much the Government have done for women in the Bill may well reflect her sincerity, but they also reflect her grave lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bill.
      The group of amendments goes to the heart of one of the aspects of the Bill— the grave discrimination against women throughout the Bill. It is a defect of the Bill that has been well recognised in the country. Many hon. Members will have received correspondence from several organisations representing women, protesting at the grave discrimination against women throughout the Bill. The one that has already been mentioned is the message from the National Council of Women, which is the most important because that body is represented within the Cabinet Secretariat, and it is bipartisan. For example, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has played a prominent part in it. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides can listen to what it says. It wrote that:
      "We strongly deprecate the fact that under Clause 75(2) a personal pension for a woman earner is to be at a rate 30 per cent. less than for a man."
      I should tell the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that that will still continue to be the case even if Amendment No. 91 is accepted. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones)—
      Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his last sentence, finishing with the words, "even if Amendment No. 91 were passed"? It is my fault that I missed what the hon. Gentleman said.
      Mr. Meacher: I am glad to repeat what I said. I indicated that the statement of the National Council of Women that there will be a pension rate 30 per cent. less for women than men will still continue to be the case even if Amendment No. 91 is

      249
      passed. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that view.
      Sir K. Joseph: No, I indicated that I understood it.
      Mr. Meacher: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to assent. It is an important point and one of the patent forms of discrimination.
      I am sure that myy hon. Friend the m Member for Rhondda, West will also agree. My hon. Friend quoted the Women's National Commission statement on 21st February this year, which said that there is little reflection of social changes now taking place in our society. I am sure that he will agree with me that after Committee stage, after all these points had been made fully and forcefully, the position still continues to be as true as it was several months ago when the Committee stage started.
      I commend to the House new Clause I, which was so ably moved, as was often the case throughout the Committee stage, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). It deals with the key fact that the earlier retirement factor rather than the longer life factor as the situation which leads to a lower pension for women. It is the overcoming of that factor which is bound to prevent and which has prevented women from getting an equal pension.
      As women live longer they are roughly balanced with the cost of allocating a man's pension to his widow's benefit. New Clause 1 goes in an ingenious manner to the root of a vexed issue which has been with us for the best part of a decade, if not considerably longer. Certainly we have been aware of it in the last decade. It merely suggests that there shall be separate ages for retirement between 60 and 65. That means that in considering the rate of pension for any human being consideration will be given to the date on which retirement took place and not the sex of the person who has retired.
      I make that point because of the figures which were given in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State. I ask the hon. Member for Gloucester to pay attention to this point. The extra cost which the hon. Lady alleges is bound to be involved will, in fact, not be involved. There might be a very small or a marginal extra cost which could well be
      250
      accounted for by men in the form of a very small cross-subsidy. The hon. Lady is quite wrong to think that there will be a substantial extra cost. If she had had the privilege of being a member of the Committee she would understand that that is the case.
      I assure the hon. Member for Lancaster that the Opposition will give her the chance to vote on Amendment No. 53. I am glad to know that there is considerable sympathy. I hope that that will be registered in the voting for this set of amendments and, in particular, for Amendment No. 53.
      There are in the Bill—I am not just making a political point—several forms of discrimination against women. I shall list them briefly. The first form is that which Amendment No. 53 seeks to remedy. It is the case at present, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, that only 18 per cent. of full-time manual women workers are members of occupational pension schemes compared with 46 per cent. of men. If we consider other schemes the proportion for women is 47 per cent. and 74 per cent. for men. No one can suggest that that enormous difference is the result of women's free choice. I do not understand how the Government can fail, in all equity, to support Amendment No. 53.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Boscawen: Surely the point is that occupational pension schemes are voluntary schemes and if the private employer does not want to go ahead with them he can close them down. That would not be to the advantage of pensioners or women.
      Mr. Meacher: That is a remarkable admission of the possibilities for discrimination that are inherent in the scheme. It is an admission that the Government are far more concerned about promoting the advancement and spread of occupational pension schemes than they are about giving a fair deal to women. It is precisely that situation which we are seeking to remove from the Bill.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the disparity in the figures between men and women regarding the membership of occupational pension schemes is caused by the fact that

      251
      women are, on the whole, earning very much less than men, and that as we rise towards equal pay the disparity will begin to disappear?
      Mr. Meacher: It might be the case that as we move towards greater equality of pay the number might increase, but that is not the point which is at issue, which is that women should have the same right even if they are at a lower earning level at present. There is patent discrimination if they do not have the right.
      We were told in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State that the right already existed because if women were not members of occupational pension schemes then they were members of the reserve pension scheme. That is an extraordinary statement for a Minister to make.
      Secondly, there are roughly 15 million people employed in the private sector and nearly a third of that number are women. Looking at the number excluded from occupation pension schemes, one million out of 1·6 million are women— about two-thirds. In other words, compared with men, women suffer an exclusion rate about twice as great.
      Thirdly, the British Institute of Management's survey shows that some women are not able to join occupational pension schemes until they are aged 30. The reasons for that are well understood but the reasons do not commend themselves to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There should be the same age of entry for women as for men.
      Fourthly, roughly 1·8 million women out of 3·7 million are excluded because their employment is such that they are ineligible for inclusion in occupational pension schemes. Women are excluded as women only in a very small number of cases. They are excluded in about only 5 percent. of other schemes and about one third of manual schemes. In other words it would be necessary to make relatively few changes to meet the amendment. Women are chiefly excluded because their age of entry is made higher— in some cases it is 30—because their period of service is too short and, above all, because their employment is ineligible. That is surely unfair to women.
      Perhaps the most important form of discrimination is the level of pension
      252
      which women receive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead put down a pertinent question to the Secretary of State on 1st March this year. He asked what would be the pension rights accruing to men and women if the Bill, by 1973, had been in operation for 40 years. That would give the best indication, in today's money values, of what it is worth. One can quote figures for 20 years, 30 years or 40 years which look abnormally large. That is because of the 3 percent. compound uprating.
      Taking today's figures—the figure which I have selected is, I think, the fairest—a woman on average earnings, if the Bill had been in operation for 40 years, would gain an extra pension on top of the basic pension of only £1·56. That is the pathetically small and derisory second pension about which the Government have made so much in their boastings about the value of a two-tier pension. An extra £1·56 is not enough to take someone on the basic pension out of poverty. The difference between the basic pension and the supplementary benefit line, plus rent, is substantially more than £1·56. Therefore, a woman on average earnings, not low paid, when the scheme had been in operation for 40 years, would be left with a pension that was still beneath the supplementary benefit line. If that is not discrimination and does not show what a shoddy Bill this is, I do not know what does.
      If one takes the basic pension unrated in line with national average earnings, not merely in line with price protection, and adds that to the Government's figures given in HANSARD of 2nd March of minimum personal pensions under Clause 51(7), a woman would need to earn a wage of £40 a week and to contribute all her working life to get a pension above the supplementary benefit poverty line. How many women today earn above £2,000 a year when they have little more than 60 percent. of men's average wages, which are £36 a week? In other words, very few women will, by their own right, be able to get a pension under the Bill above the supplementary benefit line.
      There are three reasons given by the Government for rejecting the new Clause and the amendments. I have already made clear how great is the discrimination and how poor is the deal for women under the Bill.

      253
      First, there is the longevity argument— that women get lower pensions because they live longer. Why should not manual workers and those who suffer from chronic ill-health and therefore live shorter lives get a bigger pension? They do not. This is a form of discrimination which women alone suffer.
      The second argument is that they have lower pay. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, if the Government are sincere about the lowness of pay, why have they not brought in this year the 90 percent. gearing under the Equal Pay Act? They have not, and to that extent this remains a serious problem.
      The only major issue is the question of the earlier retirement age. New Clause 1 overcomes this problem in a way which is compatible with virtually no cross subsidy. Of course, it is possible to solve the problem in other ways, and others of the amendments suggest these possibilities.
      The Government's argument is that women get actuarial equivalence. How many women, informed that they were to get actuarial equivalence under the Bill, would regard it as a particularly thrilling offer? The Government mean that the 0·7 percent. and the 1 percent. accrued rates were arrived at because they actuarily result from equal contributions by men and women. In other words, it is a contributions test, not a benefits test. But that is no justification, because what matters is the result, not the means by which a particular result is achieved.
      The Government argue that if employers had the extra cost of providing an equal pension for women thrust upon them, they would merely exclude women from occupational pension schemes. One would hope that if they attempted to do that there would be non-recognition of the particular scheme.
      Alternatively, the cost can be met through extra charges for men or for women. There are a number of permutations of the ways by which this can be done. I insist that the argument deployed by the Under-Secretary in Committee— namely, that the contribution rate for women would increase from 80p to £1·20 —is untrue, not only for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead but for the reason that, even if the new clause were not accepted and a form of cross subsidy were used, all the
      254
      extra contributions need not and would not be loaded on to women.
      I return to the central point that it is difficult, but not impossible, to get equality for women within the structure of the Bill. I submit that the only way to get equality for women is through a good, comprehensive, Crossman-type State scheme which includes men and women on an equal basis. There is little point the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) laughing at that suggestion. Perhaps she can suggest how it is possible within the Bill to get equality. I hope she may feel that the proper way to do it is by supporting the new clause. That would greatly improve the Bill. However, the only proper way is to accept the kind of national superannuation scheme which we put forward and certainly provides the best deal for women, and when we return to it in a modified form after the next election they will certainly have it.
      Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston-upon Thames): I have considerable sympathy with the new clause and amendments moved by the Opposition, though I wish that they had been moved in a slightly less partisan way and acknowledged some of the real practical difficulties involved.
      I suppose it would be pointless to complain that so much Press coverage of the Bill has concentrated on this aspect, thus obscuring some of the most important, far-reaching and welcome aspects of the Bill. That is not surprising, because social security is about women and their financial circumstances.
      Two-thirds of pensioners and 74 percent. of old-age pensioners on supplementary benefit are women. Again, among pensioners who survive into their eighties and nineties, far higher proportions are women.
      The Bill does a lot to help that situation. Under the Bill, both men and women will have the right to an earnings-related pension. There is a big improvement in the cover for widows certainly well ahead of current practice in occupational pension schemes.
      The Government Actuary's report indicates that only about 10 percent. of occupational pension schemes give an unconditional right to a widow's pension and only 76 percent. of occupational pension schemes cover women for death after retirement unless the contributors

      255
      have been persuaded to forgo part of their pension to buy a widow's pension. Few occupational pension schemes have the preservation of death benefit which is required under the Bill. So, in these ways the Bill is a substantial advance for women.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to actuarial equivalence, a third advance for women under the structure of the Bill. People draw out what they have paid in, and, after taking account of differences such as earlier retirement and greater longevity, men and women are treated alike.
      Actuarial equivalence and equality are not the same. The question one must ask is whether some of these actuarial differences between the sexes should disappear in the magic of averages. In this day and age one must ask oneself whether it is right to distinguish for treatment in pensions between men and women on the grounds of greater longevity. Does that make more sense than distinguishing in longevity between manual workers and executives in pension schemes, or between manual workers in high risk occupations and manual workers in manufacturing industry generally? That sort of actuarial distinction will I suspect be increasingly difficult to maintain habitually. Today women are increasingly demanding equal opportunities at work and equal conditions of employment.
      5.45 p.m.
      This is a structure Bill, setting the structure from 1975 onwards. We know the present trends. We can be sure that these trends will be moving more swiftly and more strongly in 1975 and onwards. We should ask ourselves whether the structure of the Bill will be in accordance with social trends after 1975.
      The question of the greater life expectancy of women is not the only factor complicating the search for equality of treatment. There is also the problem of the difference in retirement age, as the amendment recognises. Women retire earlier than men. This was a feature that the Minister welcomed in Committee, but I am not as enthusiastic as all that. I have always regarded the 65/60 difference in the national insurance scheme as being a rather regrettable feature. It was one of the aspects of the Crossman scheme
      256
      that I disliked, that it perpetuated the 65 60 difference. The tragedy is that that difference was introduced as an afterthought in the 1940 Beveridge scheme. The difference was not intended originally, but at the last moment it was thought that it might be a good way of attracting married women to work in industry.
      The question we have to ask ourselves is what is the best way of getting rid of this 65/60 difference in retirement ages. One way of approaching the problem and reconciling it with the objective of equality would be to give women the full pension at the age of 60, as we do in the national insurance scheme. But that would be preferential treatment for women and would not be a wise course to pursue.
      The second way would be to have some sort of flexible retirement age between 60 and 65. There are attractions in this approach, but also some difficulties. There is the social question whether one wants to encourage earlier retirement. Is not the case that one ought to encourage people to work rather longer? There is the question how the structure of the Bill, as it has been proposed that we should change it, would fit in with the national insurance scheme.
      Another difficulty is the possibility of some people retiring early on an inadequate pension before the age of 65. I should be interested to hear the Secretary of State's comments on the difference between retiring at 60 compared with retiring at 65. I have the impression that in a money purchase scheme, where one's contributions are building up over the whole of one's working life, that the extra five years contributions, compared with the totality of one's working life, do not make all that much difference. Of course in occupation schemes, where in many schemes there is a massive cross subsidy between people of different ages, this subsidy might dwarf this particular problem.
      The third solution to this problem is the solution that the Government have chosen, with one of their amendments. That is that women should have an option to retire at a later date and that then they would be able to have a pension more or less equivalent to that of men retiring at 65. I hope that the

      257
      Secretary of State will tell us that the pension will be exactly the same.
      My calculations and the help that I have had from actuaries indicate that the longevity factor is more or less, as near as makes no difference, offset by the widow's pension provision that has to be provided through a man's contributions. Therefore, by equalising the retirement ages, it should be possible to give the same pensions.
      The right hon. Member for Birken-head (Mr. Dell) said that this will still mean that women's contributions are worth less. He talked about the accrual rate. But that is not the point. The point is that women and men, under the amendment, will get the same pension. They will be treated equally in that respect. Of course it will be worth less in the sense that women's contributions do not have to provide a widower's pension, and yet are not getting a compensatory addition to the pension. This is something that we have to accept. This is what averages are all about. One category of risks and liabilities is offset against another.
      Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman has proposed a very relevant question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In effect, the hon. Gentleman has asked him whether, under Amendment No. 91, a woman's pension at the retirement age of 65 would be the same as a man's pension at 65. If the answer the hon. Gentleman gets from the Secretary of State is "No, it will not be the same, because the sort of increments shown in Schedule 18 will still apply, even under Amendment No. 91 ", does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment could be the route to grave injustices to women because they will not get a return on their money equivalent to the return that men are getting on their money?
      Mr. Lamont: I am fairly confident of the fact that the two will be at least the same as makes no difference. As there will be little difference, I am asking the Secretary of State to forget the difference and to say that they will be the same.
      The only difficulty of Amendment No. 91 is whether the age of 65 is not too high. In many occupations the trend is towards retirement at 60. This is true even more of women's employment. The
      258
      amendment will be welcomed however as a first step towards bringing about complete equality of treatment, but it is not the whole answer to the problem.
      This problem goes wider. I do not wish to touch on it too much. But, even if one achieved equality of treatment in occupational schemes and the reserve pension scheme, one would still be left with the very real problem that many married women will still retire on pensions which are inadequate because of the fragmented nature of their working life, and therefore their contributions. This problem will not be solved by the sort of amendments which we are discussing. Much further thought will have to be given to it.
      This problem also involves the whole area of the treatment of women in occupational schemes and the sort of discrimination against them. Sometimes the entry age is manipulated in a way which acts against women. Sometimes the occupational pensions are restricted to particular grades of employment and do not include some women.
      It is tempting to agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that there ought to be an absolute right for anyone, regardless of sex, to join an occupational pension scheme. There are various ways in which one can provide this. The Finance Act 1970 provided that approved occupational pension schemes can be legitimately restricted to a particular category of employees. I do not want to say anything further about that, except to indicate that there are a number of different ways in which membership of occupational schemes for all employees could be made obligatory.
      But the major difficulty with the amendment is that the whole object of this strategy is too obtain the widest possible development of occupational pension schemes. Hon. Members of the Opposition may not agree with that objective, but that is the objective of the strategy. There is no doubt that many employers who have large numbers of female employees—many of whom will be in part-time employment and many of whom will work for a short period and then retire—who at present are prepared to set up occupational pension schemes for men alone would not, if the amendment were carried, be prepared to set them up at all.

      259
      The situation is particularly precarious in the case of the smaller employer. The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the British Institute of Management's survey of occupational pension schemes. That indicated quite clearly that the greatest discrimination against women was among the smaller employers and it is these people who are going to be hesitating and balancing the costs and management time involved in actually developing occupational schemes.
      Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the arguments he is now using against this simple act of natural justice are exactly the arguments used against the introduction of equal pay— that it would hit the smaller employer and the firms with a large number of women employees? We were told that the consequence would be a rise in unemployment among women. Thank God women have closed their ears to that piece of masculine siren talk. They say, "We are prepared to take the risk. Do not worry about us. We just want equality". And that is what they are saying about pension schemes. What the hon. Gentleman is doing is making the remarks famous throughout the ages whenever women ask for simple national justice and equality.
      Mr. Lamont: There are clear and obvious differences between moving towards equal pay, necessitating wage increases for a group of employees, and the conscious decision to opt for one type of pension scheme, an occupational pension scheme, rather than taking the easy option of going into the State reserve scheme, which removes administrative problems and saves employers devoting a large amount of time to problems they have not had to deal with before. The analogy is totally false.
      I believe that this Bill marks a significant step forward for the pension rights of women. I do not believe that it is a structure that will last for all time. We shall have to make adjustments in time, but I think it is a very good platform from which further progress can be made. I am sure this Bill will be widely welcomed by women for that reason.
      6.0 p.m.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: After this long debate
      260
      want to make only a short contribution. I have a great deal of sympathy with the campaign of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to secure absolute equality of treatment for women in the Social Security Bill but I feel that the new clause which is the subject of our debate does not go quite wide enough to make it possible in a single amendment to introduce absolute equality.
      The sort of problem that comes to mind immediately is that it does not appear to deal with the question of all the fringe benefits which may well be tacked on to a pension scheme. The most obvious of course is widows' benefit. It does not seem to me that the right hon. Member has taken account of that, although subsequent speakers have no doubt dealt with it.
      Mr. Dell: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The new clause deals with the reserve pension scheme. Can he indicate which fringe benefits he is now referring to?
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: The new clause deals, as I understand it, with annuities and not with residual benefits after the decease of the beneficiary. This is the particular point I want to mention.
      I come now to a much bigger point which I think the House should bear in mind. Where women do not go out to work but make their contribution to society in their own homes they do not receive any pay at all in the sense with which the reserve scheme is concerned. Married women who go out to work are getting especially favourable tax treatment at the moment over a wide earnings band and this is something the right hon. Lady does not take into account in her campaign. I naturally accept, as do all of us on both sides of the House, the principle of equal pay for equal work. This means that we must agree with the idea of equal deferred pay for equal work, but the problems begin where people opt for earlier retirement. Therefore I am sure it would be agreed on all sides of the House that equal deferred pay for equal work ought to assume an equal retirement age. I hope that Amendment No. 91, when we come to it, will take us into that, but we shall learn that at a later stage.

      261
      One has to ask whether one wants an absolutely consolidated monolithic benefit or whether it would be reasonable for schemes to separate men and women in respect of the treatment of survivors. I feel that society is not ready and perhaps is not moving in the direction of the idea that men and women should get identical, unisex treatment whether the surviving spouse is a man or a woman. In any event, this might not lead to equality because on the whole women live longer than men so a woman would be more likely to outlive her spouse. Although one could offer them widowers' benefit it would be an empty victory for the women.
      Therefore I feel that, interesting as this new clause is, it does not fully solve the problem. We ought to wait to see what the Government have in mind in Amendment No. 91.
      I should like to welcome the announcement made, I understand on 2nd May by the Minister of State for Defence, in which we read that for the first time bachelors killed in action will have a lump sum paid into their estate. This means that among men there is the possibility of absolutely equal treatment and equal deferred pay for equal work.
      I think it is wrong to confine ourselves to women's claims in this respect. It seems to me that if a widower has lived for many years with a member of his family or with a woman to whom he is not married it is wrong that there should not be entitlement to the same residual benefit for her. Therefore I would like the Secretary of State to consider whether it is not possible, in revising the treatment to be given to men, to ensure that those who die without leaving a widow should have added to their estate a lump sum equivalent in value to the normal value of a widow's benefit.
      Dame Joan Vickers: I want to make a remark with regard to my petition yesterday just to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it, because I brought it before the House after a great deal of consideration. Since presenting the petition yesterday I have had numerous calls and letters saying that women particularly want to have the first two points at any rate considered. I should be grateful to him if he would think about this very seriously in the future.
      262
      I cannot see why, now that we are in the Common Market, we cannot follow some of the other Common Market countries. France is far more advanced than we are. They have an equal retirement age of 60. I feel that we should not be tied definitely to this Bill but should be able to reconsider and perhaps amend it in the light of what others are doing so that we can come into line with some of the EEC countries.
      In regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said about Service pensions, it is rather interesting to note that in this House women have to contribute towards a possible widow's pension even if they are not married. That seems to me very unfair. Therefore I cannot see why in other schemes women should not in future be able to contribute towards a widow's pension.
      I was not in the Standing Committee but I have listened with great interest to the points I had had in mind being put forward. My main object is to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the large number of people and organisations who are deeply concerned that he should get them equal pensions for equal contributions and are willing to have the same retiring age as between the sexes. This has definitely been thought out, because we have had a conference on it at Church House to which I had invited the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Unfortunately, she could not come, but her hon. Friend took her place. It was attended by over 400 women. I sent a resolution to the Prime Minister on this very subject and I hope that he will take it into consideration.
      Sir K. Joseph: I should like to pay tribute to the speeches made in this debate, which has forcused, on the one hand, on the main issue of the treatment of women under this Bill and by this Government, and, on the other, on three separate aspects of cover together under this group of amendments. I shall spend most of my time dealing with the three particular ingredients of this group of amendments, but enough has been said on the general treatment of women by the Government to enable me to say something first on that.
      I want to put two perfectly consistent points of view to the House. On the

      263
      one hand, judged against a perfect world, the position of women in this country has not been made ideal overnight by this Government. On the other hand, judged against the position of women before this Government came to office, we have a very creditable record. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) was absolutely right to point out, in answer to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her hon. Friends some of the things of which we can be modestly proud.
      After all, we have introduced an annual review of benefits, whereas the previous Government did not have an annual review. We have provided a pension for the over-80s, which the previous Government refused them. We have added a small addition to the pensions of the over-80s, most of whom are women, which was never introduced by the previous Government. We have made a special provision for younger widows whom the previous Government ignored. We have brought into payment an attendance allowance many of whose beneficiaries are women, and we have made a special age allowance for war widows at 65 which has been widely welcomed by the war pensioners.
      As for this Bill, with any shortcomings which inevitably, in the real world, will be present in legislation, it does provide a second pension for all wage earners who are earning more than a quarter of the average national income, when there was no such provision before, and it provides comprehensive cover for widows, whereas before there was no such comprehensive cover.
      Those are the credentials which enable the Government to claim, in response to the highly selective speeches of Labour Members, that we have made substantial progress in securing better treatment for women, both in social service policy generally and under this Bill.
      Mr. Meacher: Since the right hon. Gentleman has praised the fact that women will now have a second pension, would he tell us, since we could not get this information in Committee from his hon. Friend, how many women will be brought up to the supplementary benefit poverty line as a result? Is his estimate 100,000 or 5 million?
      Sir K. Joseph: I hope that, through the successive policies of this Government, which include annual improvements in social security benefits and the tax credit scheme, as well as an increase in selective benefits, and the reserve scheme and occupational pensions, relatively soon, dramatically fewer women will be retiring in poverty. After all, the tax credit scheme, which has not yet been adopted as Government policy, would in itself—[Interruption.] I do not want to stray too far on this subject, but the hon. Gentleman asked me a question which, as he well knows, cannot be answered by reference to this Bill alone.
      I turn to the three main ingredients of this group of amendments. The first was put, as persuasively as ever, by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), supported by his hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) and Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), and to some extent by many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) who introduced a petition on part of the same theme yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellet-Bowman).
      It is common ground that the main difference between the accrual rates of pensions for women and those for men flow from the three factors that we all recognise—the earlier retirement of women, the longer life of women and the fact that the man's contribution has to bear the cost of widowhood cover. The right hon. Gentleman introduced new Clause 1, with Amendment No. 131, as the method of eliminating the effect of the first and most important of these differentials, the earlier retirement.
      Considering the progress of the discussions in Committee, we all now see it as a thoroughly sensible step forward that some provision should be made to eliminate, at a woman's own wish, the disadvantage that comes to her through the calculation of her pension on the assumption that she retires at 60 in the reserve scheme. That has now become common ground. It emerged from the debates and the views of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman has put forward his method of dealing with it.

      265
      The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 61 and 91, which—the former for the occupational pension recognition test and the latter for the reserve scheme —provide that a woman may defer her retirement from 60 up to a maximum of 65 and thus can, to any degree she wishes as between those ages, eliminate the disadvantage of the earlier retirement calculation.
      The result has been to achieve what both sides of the House wish—namely, that, if a woman decides to defer her retirement to 65 under the reserve scheme, her accrual rate becomes very nearly the same as a man's. I say "very nearly the same"—I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont)— because we shall make regulations, if the House approves the amendment, in due course, and there will be calculations, to be made of the exact effects of the various factors. But, broadly speaking, a woman who decided to defer her retirement to 65 would achieve the same accrual rate as a man.
      Misunderstanding of what the Government propose under Amendments Nos. 61 and 91 is not in the least surprising, because the Government have not had, until this Report stage, the opportunity to explain these amendments, which have only just been tabled. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, I think, quoted the Women's National Commission. I think that he said that it was its view that, even if Amendment No. 91 were passed, a woman's accrual rate would be 30 per cent. less good than a man's. If I have misunderstood the hon. Member or the commission, I apologise, but if that is their view, it is a misunderstanding. The accrual rate under Amendment No. 91 will be more or less the same as for a man.
      Mr. O'Malley: Since I believe that probably large numbers of firms have compulsory retirement for women at the age of 60, is the right hon. Gentleman envisaging the possibility or the desirability of legislation which would allow them to continue working after 60? Second, would he bear in mind that, at a time of high unemployment, when the whole tone of the debate in the country is in favour of reducing the retirement age for women, many will see as a retro-
      266
      grade step any provision which had as its final effect an increase in the working age of women rather than a reduction?
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is seldom perverse, but that is what he is being now. First of all, mercifully, the unemployment rate is falling. But on the general issue, hon. Members on both sides are pressing the Government to allow women to defer retirement if they wish. The hon. Member has a substantial point on compulsory retirement ages, and he asks whether the Government contemplate legislation. The answer is "No", but if a number of women in any employment want to defer retirement, no doubt they will make their views known to the management directly or through their trade unions.
      Mr. Dell: Can I be clear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying? Is he saying. in effect, that, by regulation, he will revise Schedule 18 so that, for ages of retirement for women from 60 to 65 there will be different accrual rates per reckon able contribution factor for all the ages between 60 and 65, and that these will be nearly comparable—"nearly" being the longevity factor—to the figures given in the column for men retiring at the age of 65? If he is saying that, then I put it to him that the sensible thing is to do it both ways, to do it for men who retire earlier as well as for women. But if he is not saying that, I do not think he is meeting the point of new Clause 1. He has made me hopeful, but if he has not met that point then he should look at new Clause 1 again in the light of what he is saying.
      6.15 p.m.
      Sir K. Joseph: I am saying that, as regards the first, long part of the right hon. Gentleman's necessarily long sentence, but I have these reservations. He was particularly talking about the close approximation of the accrual rate of a woman if she deferred retirement at the age of 65 and that of a man who retired at 65. I assert that the woman's accrual rate will be greater from that at 60 to that at 65 progressively as she defers retirement, year by year, between 60 and 65. I did not say that as between 60 and 65 there will be any close approximation between a man's and a woman's accrual rate. I was not referring to earlier retirement by the man.

      267
      The right hon. Gentleman put in his new Clause 1 that there should be a single table in Schedule 18 but he did not write in amendments to other parts of the Bill to provide for earlier retirement by men. Therefore, since for the purpose of the amendment hon. Members on both sides have focused on later retirement by women, the Government have concentrated on that, and our answer lies in Amendments Nos. 61 and 91. I feel that hon. Members on both sides ought to welcome, by our joint efforts, a sensible step forward.
      I turn to the second ingredient in this group of amendments connected with Amendment No. 53 which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn put with her usual forcefulness and in which, to my slight dismay, she received support from my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith). I was comforted by the sturdy counter action by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and by the very shrewd intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)— because we are not here dealing with something like pay. It was notable enough —and I am not underestimating it—for a Government to legislate in favour of equal pay, but here, in occupational pension schemes, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wells and Kingston-upon-Thames have emphasised, we are dealing with an option in the employer's hands. Both sides, I am sure, want employers to provide good occupational pension schemes. Here we are providing that if they do not provide recognised occupational pension schemes, their workers, within the terms of the Bill, will have to be put into the reserve scheme. We cannot insist too strongly on any particular condition being imposed in the recognition test without taking the risk that we shall harm the very people we want to help, by diminishing the number of recognised occupational pension schemes. That is a fact of life.
      I believe that it was the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who quoted figures to show how the relatively very small proportion of working women in occupational pension schemes is a token of discrimination against women, but I must point out that it is no more a token of discrimination than
      268
      the relatively small proportion of manual workers who are in occupational pension schemes is a sign of discrimination against manual men. [Interruption.] On second thoughts, I could have put that proposition better. But if there is discrimination against women, it is not because they are women but because, as with manual workers, there has not been pressure in the employer's own mind or, to be fair, from the workers themselves through their trade unions, for occupational pension schemes to encompass the majority, as we would wish, if not all manual workers, including women.
      We have to face the fact that if we build in a condition that occupational pension schemes shall provide equally for women, we may do damage to the very people we are out to help by discouraging the employer who has a marginal state of mind about recognised occupational pension schemes from going ahead. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that so far as the Government have an opportunity to set an example and to encourage, of course we want women to be in recognised occupational pension schemes. We only ask the House to recognise that to legislate for it will probably be counter-productive.
      I turn last to Amendment No. 152, of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, on which she spoke valiantly in favour of a statutory obligation on the Government to provide that one-third of the members of the Occupational Pensions Board and Reserve Pension Board should be women. I will tease her about her apparent lack of confidence in women's own excellence securing their membership, but of course appointments to these bodies must be on merits. Surely, women do not want reserved places on every board or body. They will expect to earn them by their own merits. I hope, therefore, that the House will not follow that particular call.
      Finally, I hope that in the light of the answers I have given to the debate, which contained some notable speeches from both sides of the House, the amendments will not be pressed. If they are pressed, I hope that in the light of my answers, and of Amendments No. 61 and 91 which the Government have tabled, my hon and right hon. Friends will vote against them.
      Mr. O'Malley: The Secretary of State expresses himself as being satisfied with the changes affecting women which the Government are bringing forward on Report. I begin by saying that if he is satisfied we certainly are not—and we believe that many women outside the House will remain dissatisfied, too. The Secretary of State began by saying the Government had a creditable record in their dealings with women and in their legislation affecting women since they came into office in 1970. I have to tell him that as a result of the omissions of this Government and the vast changes in this Bill when compared with the 1969 Superannuation Bill, when this Bill has been passed women will still be in a position very much inferior to that in which they would have been had that 1969 Bill been completed before the General Election of 1970.
      I say that for two reasons. What that Bill did, and what the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are now saying is impossible to do at this stage, was to give, in terms of pension provision, equal treatment for women in every respect. That is the purpose of the amendments which we are now discussing. It is a purpose which has not been achieved by this Government in the last two-and-a-half years, and it is certainly not achieved as a result of the proposals which we are now considering.
      It also needs to be noticed that when the Secretary of State makes claims such as this—and I bear in mind particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) about widowhood provision— the 1969 proposals gave a widow 100 per cent. of her husband's pension entitlement, and it was the best pension scheme deal for women anywhere in the world. It also included crediting forward, which the Government's proposals do not. Therefore, the 50 per cent. proposals of this Government in terms of widowhood are not even as good as those put forward in legislation which completed its Committee stage before the 1970 General Election.
      Even with the revision of the accrual rates, which the right hon. Gentleman has discussed briefly and which we shall want to question him further about when we reach Amendments Nos. 61 and 91,
      270
      women in their millions far into the future will be retiring on pensions which are so small, as a result of the provisions in the Bill—both in the occupational pension sphere and through the reserve scheme—that they will still have to depend upon means-tested supplementary benefits.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that we are now giving women virtually equal accrual rates—but that applies if they are prepared to work to the age of 65. Many women will not be allowed by their firms to work until 65, and what a reflection it is on our social security legislation in 1973, when, in order to achieve some kind of paper parity, we are discussing some kind of arrangement which satisfies the Government and the Secretary of State, we have to devise a formula which provides that the only way of getting that equal accrual is for women to work until the age of 65 instead of the pensionable age of 60, as defined in all our post-war legislation.
      Therefore, on that part of the Secretary of State's remarks I conclude by saying that of course there has been some improvement by the Government, through Amendment No. 91. That came only as a result of strong pressure from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birken-head (Mr. Dell) and other members of the Committee. That change having been made, it should be compared once again not with the future policy proposals of the Opposition but with the proposals which almost completed their legislative process before the General Election in 1970 where a woman could retire at 60 and there was no need for her to work until 65. Under the national superannuation proposals a woman at 60 would have received complete equality of treatment with men, taking into account her pensionable age. As a party we had already gone much further than the Government are prepared to go this afternoon and it is for those reasons that we can say on general grounds that we are dissatisfied with their general policy propositions and that we certainly intend to press some of these amendments to a Division this evening.
      It also needs to be said in regard to Amendment No. 53, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) spoke, that the failure of the Government, both in Committee and

      271
      this afternoon, to provide safeguards against discrimination between men and women in employers' pension schemes is in clear breach of the statement made by the now Home Secretary when he was in Opposition. My right hon. Friend quoted the Home Secretary's remarks when she spoke in Committee in columns 883 and 884. The amendment gives women not equal rights to men in occupational pension schemes but merely equal rights to membership. I hope that there will be enough support on both sides of the House at least to give them that basic entitlement.
      Even the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim)—I am not attacking her for it—made a party political speech. She said she was broadly —[Interruption.] The difference between my speech and that of the hon. Lady is that I took the trouble to deal with the facts before making it and she did not. Even she said that she supported the principle behind Amendment No. 53. I hope that there can be a stretching out of hands between the back benches on both sides at least to give women this minimal entitlement and the right to belong to a scheme, and not to have discrimination against them merely because they are women.
      We are discussing the broad question of discrimination against women in pension provisions against the background of strong public support for such equality of treatment. If the House today rejects the appeals for an end to discrimination against women in this sphere it will be ignoring all the forces of social change which are a feature of life in this country. It will be standing in the path of inevitable historical forces and I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames recognises the existence of these historical forces when he says that he does not believe that this structure can last very long.
      6.30 p.m.
      He knows, as we all do in our hearts —on whatever side of the House we sit —that inevitably, in spite of the actuarial arguments, the arguments of clerks, mathematicians and economists, women will win this battle for equal treatment in pensions and in other provision. We are therefore discussing only one aspect of a major historical problem. In our
      272
      fight to secure equality of treatment for women in pension provision we have been supported by virtually every women's organisation in the country. The National Council of Women of Great Britain has said
      "We strongly deprecate that in Clause 74(2) the personal pension for a woman earner is 30% less than for a man."
      Women in their millions continue to retire at 60, as many will have to, and not only because of the policies of their employers but also because of their health —and I speak particularly of women who are doing manual jobs. That situation will continue unabated under the Bill in spite of Amendment No. 91.
      So we have the support of that organisation, and of Age Concern and Help the Aged. I received only the other day a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Law Campaign strongly supporting us in this attempt to secure equality of treatment for women. I understand that that campaign is to present at some time in the future a national petition for the anti-discrimination Bill which will be presented to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck). As the House knows, he is assiduous in advancing the interests of his constituents and the interests of women of this country.
      When we discuss the pension contribution for women we should remember that they represent about 38 per cent. of the labour force. It is no longer the position, as it was in the 1930s, that only a small fraction of the labour force was female. The income which these women receive is not merely used to satisfy the personal spending requirements of those women. They do not work for pin money. In many households their income is essential to meet bills, to pay the mortgage, to run the car and to maintain the family at a reasonable standard of living. At the moment, with a labour force of about 38 per cent. women, those women receive wages and salaries which, on average, are very much below that of men. When they retire the disparity of treatment continues. Of course, even when the Equal Pay Act becomes fully operative it seems likely— for reasons which lie beyond the bounds of our discussion this afternoon—that large numbers of women will still be receiving incomes substantially lower than those received by the male section of the population.

      273
      If the pensions payable under the reserve and the occupational schemes are to operate at the minimum level of criteria set into the Bill, they are low enough. We start with a system which has a pitifully small total level of provision. That applies to men, but for women it is a great deal worse.
      In Committee we examined in detail and quoted many figures to indicate how low the pension provision would be for women, far into the future. The Bill will provide low pensions, and even lower pensions for women.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) thought that this was a sound Bill, but its benefits for women are even worse than those in the Boyd-Carpenter scheme.
      One may judge to what extent the provisions in occupational schemes leave a woman in an inferior position. For example, using the formula the Government adopted with the final salary-type scheme, whereas after 40 years a man could draw 24 per cent. final salary pension, a woman, after 40 years, could draw only a 16·8 per cent. pension. In the reserve scheme the position could arise in which if a man and woman entered at a similar age—say 22—the man would get 19 per cent. and the woman would get 13 per cent. When one considers the position of the woman who is 40 when the scheme comes into operation—if it does —paying into the reserve scheme for 20 years would give her a pension of 6 per cent. A woman of 50 would get 3 per cent. The position was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), when he said that as a result of the level of pension provision for women many women have had to rely on National Assistance—or supplementary benefits, as is now the case. That situation will continue far into the future.
      I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. Those amendments sought to make similar provision for women and men in the case of women who wished to provide for dependants in the event of the death of those women. There is a higher accrual requirement for men making that kind of provision in certain types of schemes, and I thought that the Secretary of State could have met us on that point.
      274
      Despite Amendment No. 91, fundamentally nothing has changed. The Government have taken a great deal of trouble this afternoon, and the Secretary of State has obviously thought carefully how he should marshall and present his facts to make the situation look more tolerable than it is, but the situation remains intolerable. The Bill still does not provide that basic equality of treatment to women which we were providing in the 1969 legislation. The Government argument is poverty-stricken. For how much longer shall we be dominated by the arguments of clerks and actuaries on questions of morality and equity.
      All that the Government have been able to say, including the pathetic letter that the Under-Secretary wrote to The Times in reply to the one from my hon. Friends and myself, is that in Committee we had the usual needle time speech, in which the Under-Secretary gave us an account, similar to the one given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, and said that women live longer than men. Do not they need the same warmth, clothing, food and consideration as men? Is it their fault that they live longer than men? We do not say that because non-manual workers live longer than manual workers or because one section of the male population has a greater life expectancy than another section they should receive inferior treatment in pension provision. That is not a feature of the National Insurance scheme or of any decent occupational pension scheme.
      I do not think that we can continue reputably to use that argument in this House, and it is not a factor that should be taken into account in assessing the needs of women when there is so much evidence of mass poverty, especially amongst older women, which will continue unless additional measures are taken in this Bill.
      The second argument which has been adduced is that it would cost additional money to accept my right hon. Friend's proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, the figures which the Under-Secretary gave in Committee were not accurate and did not properly answer the queries which had been put to him.
      I see nothing intrinsically wrong in a system of cross-subsidy in a scheme,

      275
      especially in a major State scheme such as the reserve scheme. It is an essential feature of the basic scheme. I believe it is right that there should be a cross-subsidy between the generations and, contrary to the view of the Under-Secretary, which betrays the Tory philosophy behind it, that there is a great deal of community of interest between members of the reserve scheme. The community of interest is that they are members of a community, and there is a responsibility one to the other and one generation to the other, especially the young generation towards the older one. It is a terrible condemnation of the reserve proposals of this Government that they are not prepared to accept and to tell the country that there should be a bond of interest between one section of the community and the other—the older and the younger.
      I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said. In view of Amendment No. 91 especially, it is important that new Clause 1 or Amendment No. 131 should be accepted. If my right hon. Friend wishes to divide the House on the clause I shall be pleased to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we support him. I also support my right hon. Friend because, as he said, he is a reasonable man always seeking compromise, and I am always prepared to go along with him because I know that any compromises he offers will be so sensible that no Conservative Government will be prepared to accept them.
      On that basis, I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we support new Clause 1, assuming that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) wishes to press it to a Division. As for the other amendments, Nos. 155 and 156 seek to give real equality to women in both the occupational pension and the reserve schemes. The Government's refusal to accept them will reflect their failure to consider changing social conditions and attitudes.
      I believe that not only in the future but at present right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side will be condemned for their attitude to these amendments. As a result of that attitude, women will be forced into poverty for
      276
      many years to come. However, we hope that the pressures coming from the community will be such that before too long the Government's attitude, and all the machinery that they are setting up, will be overwhelmed and replaced with a system providing the kind of equality to women which is only fair for any Government to provide in 1973.
      Therefore, I suggest that in addition to supporting new Clause 1 we also support—and I hope gain support from the Government backbenchers for—Amendments Nos. 53 and 56, dealing with the basic issue that the Government have dodged and neglected for so long-equality of treatment for women.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Dell: It is my intention to press new Clause 1 to a Division, and I shall explain why.
      When the Secretary of State drafts his regulations giving these different rates of accrual for women retiring at different ages between 60 and 65, he will realise how absurd it is still to make a difference between men and women, and he will be forced to ask himself why he cannot just have "unisex" tables, since they would be so very little different. The whole operation is absurd. It would be better if men could also retire earlier if it corresponded with the retirement ages in their occupational schemes.
      The Secretary of State said that 1 did not move the necessary consequential amendments in the rest of the Bill. He cannot expect me to write his Bill for him. He could have accepted the principle of the new clause and then tabled the necessary amendments. That would have enabled us to get out of the nonsense which he has gone some way to eliminate. However, he will make the anomaly look even worse because of his unwillingness to accept the principle of the clause.
      What I was proposing and what he now intends to do will create an enormous incentive for women to work longer, because the whole tables will have to be rewritten and the additional reserve pension which will go to them as a result of deferring their age of retirement two or three years will be considerable. When the Government do that they will be asked why there is not a comparable rate of

      277
      accrual within the basic pension scheme, and pressure will begin on that front, too.
      Although the right hon. Gentleman has come some way, he still leaves an absurd anomaly. Because of that, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join
      me in dividing the House in favour of new Clause 1.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 208.

      Division No. 122.]

      AYES

      [6.48 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      O'Malley, Brian

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Orbach, Maurice

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Orme, Stanley

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Ashton, Joe

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Roylon)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Pardoe, John

      Baxter, William

      Hardy, Peter

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Beaney, Alan

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hattersley, Roy

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bishop, E. S.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Booth, Albert

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Prescott, John

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Bradley, Tom

      Hunter, Adam

      Radice, Giles

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

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

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

      Jenkins. Hugh (Putney)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Buchan, Norman

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow Sp-burn)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

      Camnbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Jones Rt.Hn.SIr Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cant, R. B.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Judd, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lune)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Kelley, Richard

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kinnock, Neil

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Conlan Bernard

      Lamond, James

      Sillars, James

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Lawson, George

      Silverman, Julius

      Crawshaw Richard

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cronin, John

      Leonard, Dick

      Small, William

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stallard, A. W.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Steel, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Strang, Gavin

      Davidson, Arthur

      Luons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      McBride, Neil

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

      Delargy, Hugh

      McElhone, Frank

      Tinn, James

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      McGuire, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      Doig, Peter

      Machin, George

      Tope, Graham

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Mackie, John

      Torney, Tom

      Driberg, Tom

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tuck, Raphael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Urwin, T.W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric G.

      Dunn James A.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wallace, George

      Eadie, Alex

      Marsden, F.

      Watklns, David

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Weitzman David

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ellis, Tom

      Meacher, Michael

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      English, Michael

      Mendelson, John

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ewing, Harry

      Mikardo, Ian

      Whitlock, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Molloy, William

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Woof, Robert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Moyle, Roland

      Foot, Michael

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Ford, Ben

      Oakes, Gordon

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Forrester, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Freeson, Reginald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gryils, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Glimmer, J. Selwyn

      Percival, Ian

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Gurden, Harold

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Haselhurst, Alan

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

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Hastings, Stephen

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Batsford, Brian

      Havers, Michael

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Bell, Ronald

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Raison, Timothy

      Benyon, W.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Holland, Philip

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Biffen, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Redmond, Robert

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Blaker, Peter

      Hornby, Richard

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Body, Richard

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hunt, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rost, Peter

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      James, David

      Royle, Anthony

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

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

      Jopling, Michael

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

      Buck, Anthony

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Simeons, Charles

      Burden, F.A.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Keilett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Skeet, T. H. H.

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington

      Carlisle, Mark

      Carr. Rt. Hn. Robert

      Kimball, Marcus

      Soref, Harold

      Cary, Sir Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Speed, Keith

      Chapman Sydney

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Spence, John

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Knox, David

      Sproat, lain

      Clark William (Surrey E)

      Lamont, Norman

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lane, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Cockeram Eric

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sutcliffe, John

      Cooks Robert

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Coombs, Derek

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

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

      Cooper, A. E.

      Longden, Sir Gilbert

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Loveridge, John

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Costain, A. P.

      Luce, R. N.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Critchle'y Julian

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Temple, John M.

      Crowder, F. P.

      MacArthur, lan

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      McLaren, Martin

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen Jack

      Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

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

      Dean, Paul

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Tilney, John

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Madel, David

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Dixon, Piers

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Drayson, G. B.

      Mather, Carol

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maude, Angus

      Waddington, David

      Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Mawby, Ray

      Walder, David (Clilheroe)

      Eillott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-tyne, N.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Miscampbell, Norman

      wall, Patrick

      Fell, Anthony

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

      ward, Dame Irene

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Molyneaux, James

      weatherill, Bernard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Wells, John (Maldstone)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Monro, Hector

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Foster, Sir John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Fowler, Norman

      More, Jasper

      Wilkinson, John

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

      Morrison, Charles

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Murton, Oscar

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Goodhew, Victor

      Neave, Airey

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gower, Raymond

      Nicholit, Sir Harmar

      Younger Hn. George

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Gray, Hamish

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Green, Alan

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Mr. Marcus Fox and

      Grieve, Percy

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Paul Hawkins

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Paisley, Rev lan

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      QUALIFICATIONS OF FEDERATED SUPERANNUATION SYSTEM FOR UNIVERSITIES
      Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 51 to 58 of this Act the Federated Superannuation System for Universities shall nevertheless qualify as a recognised occupational scheme for the purposes of this Act for a period of five years after the coming into operation of the Act.—[Mr. Marks.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kenneth Marks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I moved a similar clause in Committee, and at that time negotiations were taking place between the Department and the university teachers. I learned today from the Under-Secretary that there has been a satisfactory conclusion to those discussions and that the alternative proposals put forward by the teachers have been regarded as acceptable by the Minister.
      I make two points. In his letter, the Under-Secretary does not say whether the universities, which are the institutions which will have to make certain decisions on this matter, have been consulted, and whether they have given a reply.
      The other question is whether any amendment to the Bill is needed, other than by means of the regulations which will be made.
      7.0 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Paul Dean): As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said, this question was discussed in Committee. I said then that discussions were taking place with the Association of University Teachers to try to find an acceptable way of enabling the FSSU scheme to come within the term for recognition. There has not been any argument that that scheme is anything but a good scheme, but because of its structure it does not fit within the arrangements proposed in the Bill. The main reason for that is that the benefits may be paid wholly in lump sum form and there is no requirement for a personal pension or a widow's pension.
      I have seen the association myself and discussions have continued with officials. Following those discussions the AUT suggested that instead of amending the FSSU
      282
      scheme rules, participating institutions, which are largely individual universities, should give a combined undertaking to ensure that minimum payments are payable to those retiring and those dying in service between 1975 and 1980.
      We have been very willing to consider this alternative and have now told the AUT that there is power under the Bill as at present drafted to make regulations enabling the Occupational Pensions Board to accept such a method of achieving recognition. As with all the other schemes, the question whether recognition should be given is for the board.
      There can be no question of exempting the FSSU scheme completely from the provisions of the Bill even for a limited period. The proposals put to us by the AUT seem to point to a satisfactory solution, and it is reasonable to hope that a generally acceptable way of achieving recognition has been found. The AUT has indicated that it is satisfied with the outcome of its discussions with Ministers and officials. I understand that the proposals are likely to be acceptable to the universities, but that is of course a matter for them.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for raising this question again and for the cooperation we have had from the other people concerned. I am glad to tell the House that we appear to have reached a solution which I think will be satisfactory for recognition purposes and also to the FSSU scheme which is a good occupational pension scheme.
      Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the consideration he has given to this matter and for the action he has taken. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME
      When the Occupational Pensions Board has exercised its powers under section 50(1) of this Act to reject an application for recognition or to withdraw a recognition certificate in respect of an Occupational Pension Scheme, it shall not be permissible to make membership of that scheme a condition of employment.—[Mr. Dell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be convenient to take also new Clause 4:
      Conditions of membership of occupational pension scheme

      (1) On the exercise of their powers under Section 50(1) of this Act to reject an application for, or cancel a recognition certificate, the Occupational Pensions Board shall issue a determination stating whether the scheme shall be permitted to make membership a condition of employment.

      (2) On an application made to them in respect of an unrecognised occupational pension scheme by persons competent to make such an application in respect of it, the Occupational Pensions Board shall issue a determination as to whether or not the scheme shall be permitted to make scheme membership a condition of employment.

      (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) above, "persons competent" shall be as defined in Section 61(5) of this Act.

      Mr. Dell: I need not take long on this clause because the Government must this time accept its principle. The question is whether, as a condition of employment, a person should be compelled to be a member of an unrecognised occupational pension scheme. It would be absurd for a person to be thus compelled, because it would mean that he would have to contribute towards the basic pension, the reserve pension scheme, and also the unrecognised occupational pension scheme.
      The basic contribution of a young married man with children would be 5·25 per cent. of his salary, his reserve pension contribution would be 1·5 per cent. of his salary, and his contribution to the unrecognised scheme might be 2·5 per cent. of his salary, or perhaps more. This young man would therefore be paying out of his salary, which might be a low one, a minimum of 9·25 per cent., and perhaps more.
      In Committee I argued that it should not be a condition of employment that a person should be compelled to be a member of an unrecognised occupational pension scheme. I thought it must be an error of omission that the Government had failed to provide for this, but, no, the Under-Secretary of State said that he would not have this minor change made in the Bill. He said that
      "it should not be assumed that benefits available in an unrecognised scheme must necessarily duplicate or overlap those provided by the reserve pension scheme."—[OFFICIAL
      284
      REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th March 1973; c. 867.]
      I assume that he was referring to schemes which provided for a lump sum payment on retirement which would not get recognition under the Bill. I was not assuming that the benefits available under an unrecognised scheme necessarily duplicated those available under the reserve pension scheme. All I asked was that it should not be a condition of employment that a person should be a member of such a scheme, but the Government would not accept my amendment.
      As is my usual practice, I offer the Government a compromise position. If my clause is unacceptable because it represents an absolute prohibition, let us try new Clause 4, under which the Occupational Pensions Board would decide whether that should be a condition of employment. The board could decide either when it considers the scheme on an application for recognition or when an application on that point is made to it by competent persons. That would not be a grave additional burden on the board, because it will have to look at most of these schemes anyway.
      The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who unfortunately is not in his place, supported this idea strongly in Committee. If I have not influenced the Government perhaps the representations, public and private, that I hope he has made, will do so. It is a relatively small point, but employees are entitled to better protection than they are given in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept one of the new clauses, or at any rate the principle of one of them with a view to changing the Bill later.
      Mr. Dean: As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said, he is following his normal tactics. Having put forward a proposition which was not acceptable in Committee he is offering, on the Floor of the House, what he calls a compromise. The Government understand the point he has in mind. I hope I shall say something that he will feel is conciliatory and helpful on the principle that underlies new Clause 4.
      First, I will say a word on new Clause 3. Some hon. Members argued in Committee—the right hon. Gentleman did not

      285
      quite use this argument this afternoon— that employees should be protected against being forced to join what might be called rogue schemes and being compelled to pay additional contributions that they could not afford. Unrecognised schemes may not necessarily be rogue schemes. Some may provide lump sum benefits which are not satisfactory for recognition purposes although they may be perfectly secure and respectable schemes which fulfil a valuable function for employees. Anything I say in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not necessarily mean that I regard unrecognised schemes as bad schemes. They may be fulfilling a purpose which would not be fulfilled otherwise, and for that reason I do not condemn them.
      Another difficulty with new Clause 3 is that in a Bill of this kind we do not want to interfere in matters which largely concern conditions of employment which are best left to free negotiation and discussion between employers and employees.
      For these reasons the Government do not feel that new Clause 3 is satisfactory. It would impose a complete ban on compulsory membership where recognition has been refused or withdrawn although the scheme concerned is sound and such a condition had been agreed by employees' representatives. Moreover, it would be ineffective because it would not extend to all unrecognised schemes, and only a few changes would therefore be necessary in a scheme which had been refused recognition, for the employer to present it as an entirely new scheme in respect of which recognition had not been sought.
      New Clause 4 is a different matter, because it permits the circumstances of each scheme to be examined before a decision is reached on whether or not membership may be made a condition of employment. There would, however, be difficulty in imposing such an additional duty on the Occupational Pensions Board at this stage. I think the House will agree that the board, which at present is in existence only in shadow form and will not have full statutory powers until the Bill receives Royal Assent and appointments have been made, will have a massive amount of work to do between now and 1975 because of the large num-
      286
      ber of schemes which will require authoritative decisions from the board.
      Therefore, I hope the House will feel that it would be only right and proper that the board should be able to concentrate all its efforts on recognition provisions and reservation requirements. We would be reluctant to put this additional work on the board at this moment. However, while we do not feel able to accept the new clause for this reason, I am prepared to give an undertaking to keep the situation, and the particular point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, carefully under review. If cases occur where employees are compelled against their will to join schemes in which their contributions are at risk. I would be prepared to ask the board, when it has completed its initial task to which I have referred, to examine ways of preventing this. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that in the circumstances we have been able to go some way to meet the principle behind new Clause 4, which aims to extend the policing activities of the Occupational Pensions Board when the initial rush of its work has been completed.
      Mr. Dell: Surely there would be some need to have some power in the Bill to enable the board to do this effectively? There should be at least a regulation-making power to enable the Government to give the necessary powers to the board. On what authority would the board be able to do this as the Bill stands?
      Mr. Dean: Wide powers are given to the board already and there will be the possibility of the Government of the day seeking advice from it. I am advised that the undertaking I have just given to the right hon. Gentleman is adequately covered under the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. George Cunningham: The Undersecretary used some such words a moment ago as "if the contributors' contributions are at risk". What did he mean by that? There may be a common situation in which one wants to prohibit making membership of a scheme compulsory, not where the contributions are believed to be at risk but simply where the benefits almost duplicate those which will be acquired under the State reserve scheme, when the employee will have to be a member of that scheme.
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George

      287
      Cunningham) is going much wider than his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead went. If evidence is building up that people are compelled to join a scheme which is not satisfactory and where the contributions they make may be at risk, there would be a case for the Occupational Pensions Board to examine, to see whether the conditions of employment laid down were appropriate in those circumstances. I should not feel it would be right and proper to get the board involved in an area of terms and conditions of employment, which is a matter largely for discussion between employers and employees.
      7.15 p.m.
      Perhaps I may take the opportunity of referring to the Government's intention, outlined in paragraph 65 of the Explanatory Memorandum, of ensuring that the Truck Acts and similar legislation should not impede the operation of recognised occupational schemes. It has not yet been possible to settle on the precise amendments necessary for this. There are some legal complexities which require consideration, but it is our intention to examine them when the Bill reaches another place. It is probable that we shall exclude from the operation of the Truck Acts all bona fide pension schemes, not merely recognised schemes, because we might not otherwise be able to avoid a situation in which doubt is cast on the legality of the deduction from wages of contributions to perfectly respectable schemes. If that is the case, I would regard it as a satisfactory solution.
      We would be removing any operation of the Truck Acts from the pensions field —a field which they were not designed to cover. There would be no distinction in that field between certain manual workers and the generalitly of employees. All employees would be on the same footing and it would be up to them to negotiate with employers as to whether a scheme membership should be compulsory.
      Mr. Cunningham: I think the Minister will get into difficulty about this. It could happen that a recognition certificate would be withdrawn—perhaps that would be the most obvious case— because in some respect it fell short of recognition requirements. Of course one would hope that then the employer would
      288
      amend his scheme to re-acquire recognition, but there are some daft employers about just as there are daft employees. He would then be faced with the situation where because of a defect employees would be obliged to contribute to the reserve scheme as well as to a defective scheme. Then employees would say, "Why did you not fix this in the Bill? Will you introduce an amendment now?" The Government would say that it had no time to do so because of its heavy programme and we would all be condemned as noodles. We seem to be laying up for ourselves criticism in the future.
      Mr. Meacher: This is an important new clause to ensure that it shall not be a condition of employment that members of the reserve pension scheme shall be members of an unrecognised occupational pension scheme. I do not think the Under-Secretary has fuly taken into account the force of the argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is well known for his encouragement of options. Clearly, if this new clause were not accepted it would be denying the option to a member of an occupational scheme to join the reserve pension scheme when it might be considerably better for him to do so.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the chances were that in the majority of cases members would have a higher level of cover in occupational pension schemes than in the reserve schemes. I stress the words "in the majority of cases". There is at least a minority of cases—an unspecified number—in which the member would be worse off if compelled to be in the occupational scheme as opposed to the reserve scheme. We are debating whether an employee should have the choice of what is in his own interests. The question to be considered is whether, on the rate of inflation, the occupational scheme is better than the reserve scheme. One aim of the Bill, if this proposal is not accepted, will be to encourage employers to set up schemes and to avoid the 2½ per cent. minimum contribution.
      They will be able to do this, amazing as it might seem, because the minimum benefit criteria are so low. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, a young person with family commitments may well wish to postpone his liability to pay say, a 5 per cent. contri-

      289
      bution to an occupational scheme until he is better off. The Minister did not comment on that argument. I would have thought it a reasonable one because clearly a person cannot always commit himself to five years' service to get a preserved pension.
      I recall the relevant estimate which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee. I am grateful for it. It was not denied by the Minister at the time. It was that a young man in a job for as much as six or seven years would do as well with a 1½ per cent. contribution to the reserve pension scheme as if he were to make a 5 per cent. contribution to an occupational pension scheme and if he then went into the reserve pension scheme afterwards and obtained a preserved pension. We have to bear in mind the fact that the reserve pension scheme offers bonuses. That is a pretty staggering comparison and shows how unreasonable it would be to deny all choice to a member and force him into an occupational scheme which is not even recognised.
      Thirdly, it is agreed on both sides that in some occupational pension schemes the young subsidise the old. Although this may be to the advantage of older workers it is a rather different principle to insist that younger workers should be forced into a situation whereby they are bound to do this. That again would follow if new Clause 4 were not accepted.
      The fourth reason why the Minister has been altogether too quick in dismissing the clause is that preservation in an occupational pension scheme is worse for a number of young workers. If a single person in such a scheme leaves his employment before he marries when no widow's benefit arises from the preserved pension. However, if he had been in the reserve pension scheme all the time he would be able to pay benefit for his future wife.
      The last reason why I believe that this is an important clause and will recommend my hon. Friends to support it is, as the Minister will recognise, employers might be denying recognition for other than reasonable reasons. They might refuse to seek recognition because they do not want to give information to the Occupational Pensions Board or they might be investing their money as a form of self-investment in a way which clearly the board would think inappropriate.
      290
      The reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave for rejecting Clause 3 was that the member of the reserve pension scheme might be a member of an occupational scheme which provided a lump sum benefit on retirement which was not such as to gain recognition but which at the same time was nevertheless handy to him.
      I accept the point that it is not only rogue schemes which cannot gain recognition. The point remains that there are a number of rogue schemes, and employees clearly need protection in such cases. The Minister suggested, as a reason for rejecting new Clause 3—which I would not insist on putting to a vote— that it was best left to negotiation between employer and employee. While I agree that the powers of the clause are rather stronger than I would wish, nevertheless this is endangering the interests of employees, because clearly in a number of cases employees will not be able to detect some of the disadvantages under this exceedingly complex Bill. To assume that all employees are members of trade unions, all of whom are advised by pensions experts, is, I regret to say, unrealistic. The rejection of new Clause 3 is unhappy.
      The Minister's rejection of new Clause 4 was altogether much weaker and more unreasonable. He said it would be difficult to impose on the Occupational Pensions Board at this stage. He further said that he would keep the matter under review which is a first-class way of passing the buck. He said that if he found from experience that employees were compelled against their will to join an unsuitable scheme then he would ask the Occupational Pensions Board to examine the situation and to prevent it. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) put his finger on the point when he said it is no good allowing such a Bill to go through with a loophole of that kind merely with a commitment that if what is feared will happen happens the Government will look into it. It is clear that it will happen in some cases. That can be predicted. It is irresponsible not to take some reasonable amending action now.
      I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the force of the arguments that have been put forward about how

      291
      unreasonable it is to compel someone against their self-interest, and I think he will acknowledge that, to be a member of a scheme when it is not in their long-term interests. Is it not also the case that as this amendment is likely to be necessary at a later stage it would be far better to insert it now? On that basis, unless the hon. Gentleman can give me further satisfaction, I will have to recommend my hon. Friends to vote on new Clause 4.
      Mr. Dean: I will reply with the leave of the House. I thought that I had made a sympathetic and forthcoming response about the principle of new Clause 4. I do not want to delay proceedings by rehearsing the arguments. If I did not convey that clearly enough let me be a little more specific. I understand the point that has been made. There is an area in which additional safeguards may be required. If I have not given a sufficiently clear assurance let me go a bit further and say that I will undertake to introduce an amendment in another place which will permit regulations to require some form of intervention by the Occupational Pensions Board in this sphere.
      I must make it clear that 1 do not think it would be reasonable to ask the Board to do this until after April 1975 when the original rush of work is over. If it would satisfy the House I am prepared to go a little further and ensure, by the necessary amendment to provide a regulation-making power, that the power is specifically there and can be used if it is required after the completion of the initial rush of work.
      Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said? He said at the end of his latest speech that if it were necessary he would do this. I thought he started by saying he would do it anyway. If it is merely a case of introducing regulations to prevent such malpractices or undesirable practices, if that is found necessary, I cannot see that this is different from what he said initially. I gave my response to that. If he is saying that he will definitely do it I cannot see why he is unwilling to accept the clause now. In any case, I cannot see how far the hon. Gentleman has helped the House.
      Mr. Dean: If I may again have the leave of the House, clearly it would be wrong for the Government or this House to prejudge the way in which the Occupational Pensions Board will carry out its duties. I cannot therefore be as specific as new Clause 4. What I have done is to give an undertaking that we will introduce an amendment in another place permitting regulations to require some form of occupational pension intervention. I hope the House will feel that this is a forthcoming undertaking and as far as I can reasonably go in an area in which the Occupational Pensions Board must have a say about how it carries out these powers.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman has met the point of my intervention. He is now saying that a regulation-making power would be necessary, and that the Government will introduce an amendment in the House of Lords to ensure that the necessary powers are available. There is still some worry about the matter. The hon. Gentleman says that the Occupational Pensions Board will not, for some time, have the resources available to take on this additional task. That is a cause of worry because there may be cases in which the action 'should be taken very rapidly after the inauguration of the Bill. If the board cannot undertake this additional task the hon. Gentleman should provide some other way for it to be done.
      Members of the Opposition have on many occasions expressed concern about the resources of the board in relation to the task which is laid upon it in the Bill. What the Minister said today confirms my feeling that it will be greatly over-weighted. The Minister may find that some machinery other than the board will be needed. I mentioned the board in the clause, because I did not think it was for me to create the new machinery, in the light of the Minister's earlier assurances.
      Will the Minister consider whether the amendment which he proposes to introduce in the House of Lords should give the possibility of some other means of intervention if the board is overwhelmed by its existing statutory task? Can the Minister go a little further and say that the Government recognise the matter as

      293
      being sufficiently important to have a reserve up their sleeve in case the board is not able to deal with it? It would be wrong for Parliament to place people in that sort of peril when by a small change in the Bill it could be prevented. I am sure that the House will give the Minister leave to speak for the fourth time to say whether he will consider embodying in the amendment which he proposes to put forward in the House of Lords reserve machinery to tackle the task if, as I suspect, for some years after 1975 the board will not be able to deal with the task.
      Mr. Dean: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that I will consider, without commitment, what the hon. Gentleman said. The Occupational Pensions Board will have substantial powers in this area. The fact that any scheme has to be recognised and must fulfil the standards in the Bill, and must satisfy the board that it is doing so, or that the people concerned have to be in the reserve pension scheme, is a considerable power.
      In addition, there is the power of supervision through the tax relief mechanism. There will be these two areas of control over schemes, one of which has not previously existed. The power will be very considerable and adequate. Without commitment I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman said about the amendment to which I have referred and to the regulations which will follow.
      Mr. Dell: In view of the Minister's assurances, I will ask leave to withdraw new Clause 3, and I will not move new Clause 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      MINIMUM EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES.
      The Occupational Pensions Board shall not recognise any scheme unless it is satisfied that the employers' contributions to the scheme are at least equal to those that would be payable by the employer to the Reserve Pension Scheme; but the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate.—[Mr. Dell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I emphasise that we are now talking about occupational pension schemes. I propose that a 2½ per cent. minimum contribution should be written into the Bill as a safety-net provision. Under the reserve scheme this is the employer's contribution. It should be laid down in the Bill that this should be the minimum contribution to an occupational scheme. I do not believe that the Government have good reason to object. It is surely something that they believe will happen anyway. They believe that employers will contribute at least as much as employees to occupational pension schemes. That is their answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) on his tax amendment.
      The Government are to ban nominal contributions by employers, at any rate in respect of recognised occupational pension schemes. The Minister said in Committee that the Occupational Pensions Board would refuse recognition to any occupational pensions scheme in respect of which the employer made only a nominal contribution.
      For money purchase schemes, the Government have laid down that there should be a 50-50 division of the minimum 5 per cent. contribution. They have not simply stated that the total shall be 5 per cent. They have said that the total shall be a minimum of 5 per cent., and that the employer must pay at least 2½ per cent. They have never explained why, if within the money purchase scheme that minimum is laid down and there is the principle of a 50-50 contribution, the same should not apply as a minimum within other occupational pension schemes.
      The sort of scheme that will be offered by respectable insurance companies to employers will probably cost 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. to meet the minimum conditions, unless there is something special about the age structure of the employer's firm. For example, if there is a heavy weighting of young workers those figures might go down. They might also be changed if very favourable assessments are made, such as I do not believe properly could be made by a respectable insurance company, of bonuses or gains from preservation.

      295
      If it is true, as I suspect, that such an insurance company would offer employers schemes that would cost that range of percentages—say, 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—it is reasonable to lay down, if we take the idea of a 50-50 division, a minimum of 2½ per cent. as the employer's contribution. But—and this is the problem—I believe that unless special protection is written into the Bill some brokers will try to persuade some insurance companies to sell competitive schemes which undercut the reserve pension scheme.
      We should remember to whom the schemes will be sold. They will be sold to firms that have resisted 25 years of selling effort by the insurance industry to persuade them to introduce occupational pension schemes. Brokers will be trying to persuade employers who will be attracted by such special offers, wanting simply a means of undercutting the reserve pension scheme.
      There are various ways in which the contribution to the reserve pension scheme can be undercut and yet the minimum benefit levels met—for example, by favourable assumptions regarding the age structure and bonuses, by employers paying less than half, or by bonuses accruing to the scheme rather than to the beneficiaries. There is no protection in the Bill in respect of occupational pension schemes to see that bonuses shall accrue to the beneficiaries. That is one disadvantage in the occupational pension scheme provision as compared with the reserve pension scheme, under which we at any rate have the assurance that bonuses will accrue to the beneficiaries. There is no such assurance for occupational pension schemes, where they may accrue to the scheme, thereby reducing the contribution that employers have to make over the years to such schemes which are run by them or for them.
      I should like to refer now to an illustration, which is publicly available, of the sort of thing which may happen. I have here a document which was kindly sent to me by the Legal and General Assurance Society Limited—I make no criticism of that company—entitled "L & G Earnings-Related Pension Plan". The document, which presents employers with the Legal and General's offer for meeting
      296
      the requirements of the Bill, makes no mention whatever of what the employer's contribution to the scheme that it will run for him will be. The only thing it says under the heading "Costing" on page 13 is:
      "The cost to the employer is expressed as a percentage of his payroll. This enables him to budget in advance. The level of cost depends on the size of benefits, the rate of employees' contributions and their average age and whether the benefits have to be revalued."
      There is no indication there of what the employer's contribution will be. The company gives an example in which the employee's contribution is 2½ per cent., but does not even give an example of what the employer's contribution might be.
      I suspect that unless the Bill contains the sort of protection that my new clause is intended to create many employers will take the benefit from bonuses, and that as a result their contributions will be reduced, to the disadvantage of their employees. I believe that there is a need to protect the interests of employees within the occupational pension system.
      We had a discussion in Committee about whether there should be a benefit test or a contribution test. The Minister emphasised many times that the Government had thought very carefully about the problem and decided that the right test was a benefit and not a contribution test. My first comment is that the value of a benefit test depends on the minimum benefits laid down, and the minimum benefits written into the Bill are very poor. But even with good minimum benefits, higher than those provided in the Bill, it would still be necessary to provide this protection concerning the employer's contribution. There is a need for a contribution test as well, and the test that I suggest is a minimum of 2½ per cent.
      I should like to deal with the Government's arguments on this point in so far as I know and understand them. The first is that the protection will be given by trade unions in the course of negotiation. But however well-informed trade unions are to protect their members in the course of such negotiations—and I hope that they do become well-informed on these matters and operate to protect their members' interests—not all workers are represented by trade unions. Indeed,

      297
      the majority are not, and their interests as well as those of members of trade unions need to be protected.
      I entirely agree with the Government that trade unions will want to know what the employer's contribution is, and because of that, and because they will reasonably want to know and perhaps exercise their negotiating power to ensure that they do, that is another reason why the Government might as well concede my case, because I do not believe that trade unions with negotiating power will accept an employer's contribution of less than 2½ per cent.
      The Government's second argument, so far as I understand it, is that there is already protection within the Bill. The Minister said in Committee:
      "Where such representations"
      —for example, from employees to the Occupational Pensions Board—
      "show that the employer is blatantly seeking to put almost all the burden of contributions on to his employees without good reason, the Occupational Pensions Board will have power to withhold recognition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th March 1973; c. 833.]
      Has the House ever heard a more carefully qualified statement:
      " blatantly … almost all … without good reason "?
      I will say this for the Minister, that at any rate on this point he is saying that there is a contribution test of some kind in the Bill. He is saying that there is a contribution test in that there will be this protection against
      "blatantly seeking to put almost all the burden … on to his employees".
      But what is needed is a much firmer form of protection than is provided by the Minister by that statement, or by Clause 50(4)(b), which is its proposed statutory basis. We watched the Minister carefully in Committee when he was reading out those words. They were carefully formulated. We deduced their significance from the care with which they were formulated. They mean that there is precious little protection within the Bill for employees against very low employer contributions.
      7.45 p.m.
      The third argument put forward by the Government was supported by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B.
      298
      Rhys Williams). Within these occupational pension schemes an employer's liability is unpredictable as to timing and amount. That argument having been put before me, I recognise the fact that an employer's liability is unpredictable as to timing. I meet that argument within the new clause—
      "the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate."
      Therefore, I have met the point about timing.
      I do not accept the argument about amount because in respect of the sort of schemes which we are considering which are primarily minimum benefit schemes for manual workers, there should be minimum contributions.
      There is an important attraction in the new clause which could even help to prevent the defeat of the Government's pension strategy. At the moment young people will often see their interests in being in the reserve pension scheme because of the low contribution which they will have to make, and because of the comparable out-turn they will gain after many years of membership of the scheme. Further, it will not carry the social burden of the cross-subsidy to old people. Therefore there will be great pressure, and greater pressure than the Government have estimated, by many members of the community to be in the reserve pension scheme and not the occupational pension scheme. That might even be powerful enough to defeat the Government's whole strategy within the Bill and to render the Bill virtually null and void.
      If there were minimum employer contributions, that could slightly alter the balance in favour of occupational pension schemes, thus providing better benefits than those laid down as the minimum benefits within the Bill. Therefore, the new clause has an advantage to the Gov-ment, and it certainly provides a necessary form of protection to employees.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has done the useful thing of giving the House the opportunity to consider the sort of schemes that can be offered to employers which seem to require much smaller contributions than at present are laid down in the Bill for the reserve scheme. I am told that at least one of the most respected

      299
      life offices has evolved a scheme which, I assume, passes the recognition test for career earnings—certainly not for final salary or money purchase—which requires contributions from the two sides of only 3½ per cent.
      That is not just a fugitive or catchpenny offer, which is likely to be withdrawn as soon as it attracts attention. It has been based on a reasonable expectation of the long-term rate of interest. In the event of the Bills remaining as it stands, I suppose it would be possible for employers who were attracted by such a scheme to negotiate with their employees that they should make a contribution of 1½ per cent. while the employers would pay 2 per cent. In that way they would be able to produce a rock-bottom scheme which would comply with the requirements of the Bill.
      Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman go back a few sentences? He mentioned a life office which had produced a scheme with 3½ per cent. contributions. I was not clear, and neither were some of my hon. Friends, whether the hon. Gentleman was talking about a total contribution of 3½ per cent. or 3½ per cent. from either side. Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear?
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: The 3½ per cent. is the joint contribution which would then have to be split between the employer and the employees by negotiation. If the Government are successful in persuading the House to restore the tax bias, which was decisively rejected in Committee, it will be possible for employers to negotiate with their employees that they should make a contribution of 2 per cent. or possibly even more. If they are under a private scheme they will be able to get the advantage of the tax concession. In that way, to agree with the employers' proposal to join the private scheme would make it possible for them to suggest to employees that they should pay a 2 per cent. contribution to the private scheme. In that way they would get away with a smaller net loss of immediate spending power than if they were to join the reserve scheme. More than 2 per cent. could be required of employees on that basis. I take 2 per cent. because of the ease of calculation of the example. It would make it possible
      300
      for the employer to pay only 1½ per cent. to a scheme which would then be approv-able under the terms of the Bill.
      I am not qualified as an actuary but it is reasonably fair to expect that a scheme into which is paid rock-bottom contributions will provide only rock-bottom benefits in the end. The Government should not encourage or even allow offers of that kind. They will tempt employers into setting up occupational pension schemes of the kind that will bring the whole occupational pension movement into discredit.
      Mr. Dell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is now saying substantially undermines the principle in another part of the Bill which previously he has supported, namely, the principle of laying down the type of minimum benefit that the Bill incorporates, the significance of which depends entirely on the rate of inflation and, by implication, on the going rates of interest? If that is so, he is confirming the poverty level of the minimum benefits laid down in respect of occupational pension schemes within the Bill.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: The problem of inflation, which the right hon. Gentleman now introduces, is one which vexes every kind of pension scheme, whether it is a scheme sponsored by the State, a reserve scheme under State auspices but without any State subsidy, or a private occupational scheme. No one can pretend to be able to say how future inflation will be tackled. All they can do is to try to move into the future with assets large enough to carry them through honestly as best they are able in face of changes in the value of money.
      I believe that almost insoluble problems will arise if we accept the new clause as the right hon. Gentleman has proposed it. Of course, he has gone a long way to meeting the point that I made in Committee, that there cannot be, year in and year out, identical contributions from employers. There may be a change in the value of money, which would cause unpredictable changes in the funding of the scheme. For instance, there may be capital gains in the trust from time to time which would make it unnecessary for an employer constantly to put new money into the scheme. On the other hand, there may be capital losses.

      301
      It is difficult to draw any comparison over a period between reserve scheme contributions, which are of a money purchase character, and the sort of contributions which even the strictest and soundest actuarial assessment would require of an employer who was running a final salary scheme. So, even now, I am not entirely happy with what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
      I support the Government's idea that what matter in the end are the benefits which derive from the schemes rather than the way that employers tackle the question of funding. Therefore, I should like to consider this matter from the point of view of possibly including a further overriding benefit test which could be seen to be directly linked to the performance by the employer of some kind of money purchase routine, even though the character of the benefits which eventually emerge is not limited by the money purchase concept.
      The test should be that the scheme will give benefits as good as could have been obtained if a minimum contribution had been given at least equal to that required for the reserve scheme, plus a reasonable formula for protection for changes in money values. There could be a great deal of argument about what constitutes a reasonable formula, but I should like my hon. Friend—I am glad that my right hon. Friend is also present—to consider whether there is something attractive about a scheme which ensures that the beneficiary should not get less under any circumstances than would have been obtained if a money purchase contribution equal to the reserve scheme contribution had been invested in the gilt-edged market. The beneficiary then gets at least the increment which can be obtained in the gilt-edged market either by investing in shares which give over 10 per cent. interest rates or where there is an accrued capital gain to the investor. Though the gilt-edged market may have a bad name in terms of inflation, it exists, and the prices which are obtained by buyers and sellers of Government securities reflect the market's assessment of what genuinely constitutes the long-term rate of interest, plus the rate of interest necessary to compensate for changes in the value of money as seen by the market from day to day.
      302
      It would not be difficult for an employer to enter into a commitment to guarantee the beneficiaries that their money should grow on the basis that it had been invested in the gilt-edged market. If he should lose his nerve investing in property, equities, or in some other way, he can fall back on investing the money in the gilt-edged market, and he is free of risk, at the same time going along with the market in terms of changes in the value of money. This would be the soundest and simplest way of introducing an underlying dynamism into the occupational pension scheme movement.
      I implore my hon. Friend to study this proposal closely. It would give people confidence in occupational pension schemes which they cannot have while there is no certainty that they will be able to tackle inflation even as well as people who are investing in Government stock. I trust that my hon. Friend will give further consideration to that point. For the moment, I do not believe it would be right for the House to accept the precise wording of the new clause.
      Mr. Boscawen: While recognising the great knowledge of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and sympathising somewhat with the aims behind the new clause, I cannot see the practical difficulty in overcoming the situation where an employer in a final salary scheme wishes to vary the contributions of employees during their careers. Will he indicate further how this could be done?
      I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said about the need to tighten up on the benefit tests in these cases rather than fixing on minimum contributions in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Dean: I begin by reminding the House that the tests laid down in the Bill are minimum standards. However, the very fact that all schemes going for recognition must meet these standards will mean that the minimum will be a ppringboard from which schemes will wish to improve their arrangements rather than a pillow on which they can relax. Many schemes already do substantially more in some areas for which standards are being laid down and, in

      303
      some instances, in all areas than was the case before.
      We shall have over 60,000 schemes put, as it were, under a microscope. Indeed, never before will so many schemes have reviewed their arrangements to a deadline to come up to the standards for recognition, if they are not there already. This is an essential background to the standards and to the points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in introducing the new clause.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of schemes being offered which would, in effect, undercut the reserve pension scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) quoted an example of a contribution of 3½ per cent. being offered. I think my hon. Friend will agree that if that is the position it will be governed largely by the unusually high rates of interest which now obtain.
      The essential point is that we have deliberately gone for a benefit test. We felt that through a benefit test we would be more likely to get the objective we all wished—namely, a minimum level of benefit coming out of the scheme at the end. Whatever the contributions going in may be—clearly they will vary—to achieve recognition a scheme will have to come up to the standard of one of the benefit tests which are being laid down. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. South are asking the Government to change from a benefit to a contribution test.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: No.
      Mr. Dean: In effect, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that there must be a minimum contribution going into the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) made the relevant point that if one is to do that one will make it almost certain that schemes which do not lend themselves to a contribution test now—in other words, schemes formed on any basis other than the money purchase basis—will have to change their arrangements artificially, and against the interests of their members in many instances, to try to fit in with the proposals being put forward. My hon. Friend made this point with particular regard to the final salary scheme.
      304
      In the money purchase scheme there is no difficulty about requiring a minimum contribution from the employer. That is what we are doing in the alternative money purchase test. But there are many other cases where this does not fit. For example, the employer may be financing back-service credits for his employees and it would be virtually impossible to determine what proportion of his contributions are in respect of currently accruing benefits.
      The employer guarantees overall benefits in both the average and final salary schemes. This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The employer's contributions are not related to individual employees, so it would again be virtually impossible to apportion them on that basis. Indeed, as the cost of such schemes inevitably varies over the years with changes in interest rates and the age distribution of the scheme's membership, the commitments of the employer are bound to fluctuate as well. In times when the scheme was in surplus it would be futile to require a minimum employer's contribution because it would purchase no further benefits under the scheme. At other times, however, the employer may be required to make good fairly substantial deficits arising, for example, from large salary increases in final salary schemes.
      In effect the new clause is saying to the Government that there should be a substantial change in the recognition conditions and a change which would certainly not fit easily into most schemes. Above all, it would not fit easily into the final salary scheme, which is generally regarded, certainly for people whose earnings will rise throughout their working life, as one of the best and most progressive schemes.
      Having said that, let me remind the House of the very substantial safeguards which are written into the Bill already concerning employers' liability. In addition to requiring employers to have some legal liability to finance the minimum benefits, we have empowered the board, in Clauses 57 and 60, to require steps to be taken to increase the scheme's resources in order to secure minimum benefits. The responsibility for taking those steps—for example, for balancing the books—will fall on the employer. The board will have power, once recognition

      305
      has been withdrawn, to sue him for any money which it has ordered him to pay for this purpose.
      This provision recognises the employer's true rôle under a benefit test. Any employer seeking recognition under one of these tests will know that, even though his contributions are low at one time, he still has overall responsibility for ensuring that the minimum benefits are paid and can find himself being ordered to pay large sums of money over to the scheme.
      Moreover, as I said in Committee— the right hon. Member for Birkenhead also referred to this—if a case arises where an employer attempts to shift almost all the contributions on to his empoyees, they will be able to make representations to the Occupational Pensions Board, which has a discretionary power under Clause 50 to refuse or withdraw recognition in such cases.
      Therefore, there are these safeguards with regard to the employers liability. But to do as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is suggesting would substantially change the character of the recognition conditions and, above all, it would make it very difficult for some of the best schemes to fulfil the conditions without substantially changing their character probably against the interests and the pension prospects of the members of those schemes.
      Mr. O'Malley: One must recognise that when one is dealing with 60,000 schemes and a multiplicity of types of scheme, an Opposition Member or any back-bench Member moving an amendment or a new clause, as in this case, can always be told that the complexity of the structure which he is seeking to amend means that his amendment will be defective and would cause all kinds of difficulties.
      I recognise the validity of the arguments of the hon. Member for Kensing-, ton, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the Under-Secretary when they discussed the question of final salary schemes. But as I understand the last part of new Clause 5, which says:
      "but the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate",
      I should have thought that that would at least deal with the difficulties arising in final salary schemes.
      Mr. Dell: There is an additional point. I regard the final salary scheme as a red herring. There is the additional point that any decent final salary scheme requires an employer's contribution far above 2½ per cent. on average over the period of an employee's working life.
      Mr. O'Malley: Of course it does. I was coming to the point raised by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Kensington, South.
      The basic reason for the new clause is that salesmen working for insurance companies and life offices will be travelling all over the country with competitive rates to try to take over the business which would otherwise be the business of the reserve pension scheme. From their narrow point of view, what better way to do that than by being able to say that they will provide an occupational pension scheme which will satisfy the minimum criteria and which will cost the employee less than it would cost him if he were making payments into the reserve pension scheme? Indeed, the hon. Member for Kensington, South mentioned what he described as a respectable life office issuing proposals where, for a total of a 3½ per cent. contribution, a rock bottom scheme could be set up which would avoid the obligation to join the reserve pension scheme.
      This is the nub of the issue. It is intolerable. It is no good the Undersecretary saying that the Government have decided to go for a benefit test rather than for a contribution test. The attitude of the trade unions, which is absolutely right, is that during a given period an employer should not only be building up accrued rights for his employees but should also be making, in the form of deferred pay, clearly defined contributions towards the future pensions of those employees. Therefore, although in the Bill benefit tests are laid down, I see no reason why the Government should not impose a contribution test of the kind envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—if not by the new clause, certainly by regulations.
      As the Under-Secretary said, there are safeguards in the Bill. If an employer shifts liability for contributions on to the employees to an unreasonable extent, the employees can make representations

      307
      to the board. But, as has been said, firstly it is certainly not all work people who are organised into trade unions and have the benefit of the kind of professional expertise and assistance that will be required in that kind of circumstance.
      Therefore, as the Under-Secretary has not been able to accept the broad principle of the new clause, and as he has given no indication that he would attempt to alleviate the misgivings expressed on both sides of the House, which he could have done by saying that regulations would be issued to deal with the problems raised by my right hon. Friend, we on the Opposition benches should vote for new Clause 5. In so doing we shall be reflecting the attitude of the vast bulk of work people in Britain and the trade unions representing many of them, who not only want to know the benefits payable but would also want to be assured that their employers were making at least the minimum kind of contributions of 2½ per cent. which are set out in the reserve pension scheme.
      If we allow the Bill to go through unamended so that there is no minimum contribution obligation on employers setting up this minimum type of occupational pension scheme, there will not only be great dissatisfaction but also abuse of the system. The hon. Member for Kensington, South has already demonstrated by the example he has given that that abuse or attempts to introduce that kind of abuse have begun.
      For those reasons I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dell: The debate has shown precisely how fragile, from every point of view, is the Government's strategy for pensions. The Minister said that the minimum benefits laid down in the scheme are minima. They are that, I suppose, by definition. He says they are a springboard, not a pillow. Does he not realise that the springboard is descending under him, that it is sinking into the waters? The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) adduced the example of how, given the current rate of inflation, one respectable insurance company has decided that it could pay these benefits at 3½ per cent. total contribution. He demonstrated that there
      308
      is no springboard, but a lift going downwards.
      I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that this has always been the weakness of the benefit test which the Government have laid down. It is a benefit test the significance of which depends on nothing other than the rate of inflation. As the rate of inflation increases—and even at the present rate it is high enough to achieve this result—the significance of this benefit test over the years will decline. Evidently, in the view of one insurance company, it has already declined so much that this benefit test can be made on the basis of a 3½ per cent. contribution
      That is the fact the Government must face, and when the hon. Member for Kensington, Souh suggests that a better and different benefit test should therefore be written into the Bill he is absolutely right, because these tests have already disappeared from any reasonable sight. They are becoming worse and worse as inflation proceeds, and if inflation grows worse it can be done not for 3½ per cent., not for 3 per cent., but for less. That alone is justification for what the hon. Member for Kensington, South said—that if there are to be benefit tests, a far better benefit test than is laid down here is needed within this Bill.
      But even if we have these benefit tests, that does not meet the point because it still does not provide the necessary protection for employees against an employer deciding, as the Government admit an employer can quite properly decide under the Bill, to have a contribution which is less than half the total contribution made in respect of a particular contribution scheme. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) asked how this would be calculated. If one has 2½ per cent. over the period of a person's employment and if one satisfies the Occupational Pensions Board that this minimum requirement is being met at the appropriate times, if one is making a big payment at one time and compensating for other payments not made earlier, that is fine. I leave it to the Occupational Pensions Board to decide on the appropriateness of the timing of the contribution. If the Government or the hon. Gentleman have a better way of dealing with it, I shall be perfectly happy to accept anything that will safeguard employees in this respect.

      309
      This whole point about a final salary scheme is a total red herring. A good final salary scheme requires very large contributions from employers. We are talking here about 3½ per cent. I mentioned 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent.—more modest figures than the hon. Member for Kensington, South indicated. But a final salary scheme cannot be run on percentages of that kind. The sort of final salary scheme that is now becoming normal in our society requires a contribution of 10 per cent., 12 per cent., or even more. For that sort of scheme the 2½ per cent. I lay down in my new clause will be greatly exceeded. The whole concept of a minimum employers' contribution is irrelevant because the employer guarantees within the scheme certain minimum benefits which make necessary very large contributions. The minimum benefits are protected from the rate of inflation because they are related to final salaries. For these final
      salary schemes we do not need it. Where we need it is within the sort of scheme based on minimum benefits the significance of which depreciates year by year with the rate of inflation.
      The hon. Gentleman has just not begun to meet the case for a minimum employers' contribution. If he had said that he would do something about the minimum benefit, that would at any rate have consoled me a bit. But completely to ignore the problem which not only I but his hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South have posed as to what is happening to this Bill before the eyes of the Government day by day is totally unacceptable. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in dividing in support of the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 190.

      Division No. 123.]

      AYES

      [8.19 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Faulds, Andrew

      McElhone, Frank

      Archer, Peler (Rowley Regis)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McGuire, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Machin, George

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

      Mackie, John

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Baxter, William

      Foot, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Ford, Ben

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Bishop, E. S.

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marsden, F.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Booth, Albert

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Meacher, Michael

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mendelson, John

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Millan, Bruce

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, ltchen)

      Buchan, Norman

      Harper, Joseph

      Molloy, William

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythanshawe)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Moyle, Roland

      Cant, R. B.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      O'Halloran,Michael

      Clark, David (Coine Valley)

      Hunter Adam

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cohen, Staniey

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Conlan, Bernard

      Janner Greville

      Oswald, Thomas

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins Hugh(Putney)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      John Brynmor

      Pardoe, John

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

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

      Parker,John (Degenham)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Jones Barry (Flint E)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones.'Rt.Hn.Sir ElwynW.Ham.S.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Judd, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Probert, Arthur

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kelley, Richard

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Dunn, James A.

      Leonard, Dick

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rose, Paul B.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Ellis, Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

      English, Michael

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Ewing, Harry

      McBride, Neil

      Sillars, James

      Silverman, Julius

      Tomney, Frank

      while, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tope, Graham

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Small, William

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Varley, Eric G.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Steel, David

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Woof, Robert

      Stonehouse, Ht. Hn. John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkins, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Weitzman, David

      Mr. Donald Colman and

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mr. J. D. Concannon.

      Tinn, James

      NOES

      Adley Robert

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Powell, Rt. Hn... Enoch

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Prm, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Awdry, Daniel

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Raison, Timothy

      Batsford, Brian

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Holland, Philip

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Benyon, W.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Redmond, Robert

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Hordern, Peter

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Bilfen, John

      Hornby, Richard

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Biggs-Davlson. John

      Hornsby-Smlth.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hunt, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Body, Richard

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rost, Peter

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Jamas, David

      Royle, Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Simeons, Charles

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Kelletl-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Sinclair, Sir George

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Buck, Antony

      King Evelyn (Dorset S.)

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

      Butler, dam (Bosworth)

      Kinsey J. R.

      Soref- Harold

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

      Knox David

      Speed, Keith

      Carlisle, Mark

      Lament Norman

      Spence, John

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Lane, David

      Sproat, lain

      Chapman, Sydney

      Langford-Holt Sir John

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Churchill, W. S.

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

      Sluttaford, Dr. Tom

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Longden Sir Gilbert

      Sutclifte, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Loveridge, John

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Luce, R. N.

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

      Cooke, Robert

      MacArihur, Ian

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Cooper, A. E.

      McLaren, Martin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Cordle, John

      Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

      Temple, John M.

      Cormack, Patrick

      McNalr-Wilson, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Critchley, Julian

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Madel, David

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

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-GeivJack

      Maude, Angus

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Dean, Paul

      Mawby, Ray

      Tilney, John

      Deedes, Rt.Hn. W. F.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Dykes, Hugh

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

      Turton Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Edwards Nicholas Pembroke)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      vickers, Dame Joan

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

      Molyneaux, James

      Waddington, David

      Eyre, Reginald

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Walder, David (Clilheroe)

      Farr, John

      Monro, Hector

      Wall, Patrick

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)

      More, Jasper

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wealherill, Bernard

      Fortescue, Tim

      Morrison, Charles

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Fowler, Norman

      Mudd, David

      White,Roger (Gravesend)

      Fox, Marcus

      Murton, Oscar

      Wiggln, Jerry

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

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Neave, Airey

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Gower, Raymond

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Owen, idris (Stockport, N.)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gray, Hamish

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Green, Alan

      Parkinson, Cecil

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grylls, Michael

      Perclval, Ian

      Mr. Michael Jopling and

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Mr. Victor Goodhew

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      REPORTS BY GOVERNMENT ACTUARY ON PENSION POSITION OF OLDER PERSONS
      (1) It shall be the duty of the Government Actuary to report to the Secretary of State, at intervals no greater than two years, on:

      (a) the age composition of members of pension schemes,

      (b) the number of persons over the age of 45 covered by pension schemes of different kinds,

      (c) the pension entitlement which will be acquired under the scheme at the statutory age of retirement or the age of retirement specified by the scheme, by members of pension schemes who at the date of the report are over the age of 45, and in such groupings and on such assumptions as seem to him appropriate.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulation specify such other matters relating to the pension position of persons over the age of 45 as it seems to him should be covered in the Government Actuary's report.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 8;
      REVIEW OF RESERVE PENSION SCHEME
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall, at five yearly intervals (or more frequently if he thinks fit) review the conditions of, contribution requirements for, and benefits paid by the reserve pension scheme.
      The Secretary of State shall prepare a report on the scheme following each such review, and copies of the report shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
      The first such review shall be completed not later than 31st December 1978'.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Dell: The House may be relieved to notice that this is the last new clause in which I have taken a lead, although I saw fit to offer my support to new Clauses 7 and 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams).
      This new clause asks for reports to be made at intervals no greater than two years on the pensions position of older people. The reason for calling for special reports by the Government Actuary is that I believe that the position of older people is gravely endangered by the Bill. I am speaking now of people over the age of, say, 45. I shall explain why I
      314
      take that view in respect of both the reserve pension scheme and the occupational pension scheme.
      Speaking specifically of people of, for example, 45 years of age and upwards, let us consider their position within the reserve pension scheme. First, they will get pathetically small pensions compared, for example, with what supplementary benefit would provide for them. Indeed, even taking account of such disregards as may be available, they may find that their real net increase in income as a result of many years' contributions to the reserve pension scheme will be very small.
      In Committee, by means of an amendment to Schedule 18, I attempted to raise the reserve pension provision for older people, but this was defeated on a vote because—this was the argument employed against it—it needed a cross-subsidy from employers and younger workers, and the Government thought that such a cross-subsidy was inappropriate within a fallback scheme such as the reserve pension scheme. The argument was that, unlike occupational pension schemes, where this kind of cross-subsidy takes place, there is no community of interest within the reserve pension scheme and that it would therefore be quite inappropriate to have such a cross-subsidy.
      I have never followed the argument based on lack of a community of interest, because there is no greater community of interest within the basic pension scheme than there is within the reserve pension scheme. But within the basic scheme the Government are proposing, despite the lack of a community of interest, to have cross-subsidies from people who are slightly better off to people who are worse off. So the problem which exists under the reserve pension scheme as the Government are proposing it is that after many years of contribution older workers will get very poor benefits.
      Let us consider the position under the occupational pension provisions within the Bill. The minimum benefits here also give poor pensions for older workers, especially in the first 20 years of operation of the scheme. I am speaking of minimum benefits. This does not of course apply to final salary scheme, as I said in the last debate. Those benefits are well above the minimum benefit. But it applies to the minimum benefit laid down within

      315
      this scheme, particularly if it is a money purchase scheme; and even if it is an average salary scheme such as the normal type of minimum benefit, the 1 per cent. or 1½25 per cent. per annum type of scheme that is proposed if the minimum benefits of this scheme, as laid down in the Bill, are finally passed.
      The first point, therefore, is that the minimum benefits will be poor. They will be poor even if it is that kind of average salary scheme, and very poor if, as is not unlikely, employers use the opportunity of the money purchase alternative in the Bill to use money purchase schemes in respect of older workers. In that case it will be very much worse.
      In Committee the Government agreed to make regulations under Clause 50 prohibiting the exclusion of older workers in employment from an occupational pension scheme. As I argued for that provision to be made I can hardly do other than welcome it. It is good as far as it goes. The trouble with the Bill is that within it all silver linings have their cloud. In an average salary scheme, for example, the kind of scheme laid down here—the 1 per cent. or 1½25 per cent. scheme—it will be very expensive for an employer to provide that kind of minimum benefit for a person who is 55 years old. It could cost total contributions of 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. I discount such exceptional examples as the hon. Member for Kensington, South gives, but I also accept the point that, given the high rates of interest, the 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. could fall. It would still be expensive to provide the minimum benefits laid down in the Bill to a person of 55.
      The Government may say that they will not allow an employer to exclude such a person from an occupational pension scheme. There is, unfortunately, one way in which an employer can exclude such a person from a scheme and against which the Government cannot guard. The employer may decide that the man of 55 is too old to employ, and that it would cost the employer too much. So there is a danger, within the Bill, that it will become more difficult for older people to secure employment. In some cases employers are likely to refuse to employ them because they cost more. There is a serious danger that the Government's second pension scheme will make it more
      316
      difficult for older people to get employment in firms with occupational pension schemes. Such firms are estimated to have at least half, and probably more, of the employees eligible under the Bill.
      There is another danger for older people as a result of the occupational pension scheme provisions. Money purchase schemes, with their poor return to older workers, will be very attractive to employers where the age structure is higher than the average. On the other hand, average salary schemes will be used where the age structure is lower than average. For the beneficiaries, however, it should be the other way round. The older worker wants a guarantee at least of an average salary scheme, poor as the minimum benefits are, and, better still, of a final salary scheme, which is far outside the vision of the Bill. For younger people the advantage will lie in the money purchase scheme rather than the average salary scheme, even the money purchase scheme as laid down in the minimum levels of the Bill. For the beneficiaries, therefore, the Bill seeks to achieve exactly the opposite to what they require.
      The older person needs more and is likely to get less; the younger person will be incorporated probably in an average salary scheme, and he will pay the cost of it. I do not object to that. I have argued that there should be a subsidy from younger people to older people, but the older person is likely to suffer. The situation needs to be watched. I would have preferred the Government to accept, in Committee, the amendment that would have improved the minimum benefits to older people, changed the nature of the reserve scheme, and taken particular account of the difficulties for older people. Unfortunately, the Government resisted us all along the road, except on the point I mentioned earlier, which means that they will ensure that employers cannot exclude older people in employment from their occupational pension schemes. This has a corresponding disadvantage, in that they may then be excluded from employment altogether.
      The Secretary of State will see that the new clause mentions specifically three types of matter on which the Government Actuary is required to report. Subsection (l)(a) refers to
      "the age composition of members of pension schemes."

      317
      The object of that, among other things, is that it will show whether older people are finding it difficult to get employment. We should be able to compare the age composition of the members of pension schemes with the age composition of the employable population as a whole, and then see whether older people were finding it difficult to get jobs.
      Subsection (l)(b) refers to
      "the number of persons over the age of 45 covered by pensions schemes of different kinds."
      That would show whether—as I suspect may happen—older people are being forced into employments, covered either by the reserve pension scheme or by money purchase schemes. Both types provide particularly badly for older workers.
      Subsection (l)(c) refers to the estimate that I place upon the shoulders for the Government Actuary to make for the eventual pensions entitlement of such persons on reasonable assumptions. That will show us how badly older persons are doing anyhow.
      Those are pieces of information which should be available to the Secretary of State as he watches the progress of his legislation. They should also be available to the country at the same time. It is vital that all this information should be known, so that the Government of the day, of whatever colour, can take appropriate action. The appropriate action required would probably be some cross-subsidy to older people within the reserve pension scheme, plus better control of money purchase schemes within the occupational pensions sector, plus better minimum benefits, plus a minimum employer's contribution, such as the House has just rejected.
      With the advantage of hindsight, which the right hon. Gentleman said he had used in respect of earlier amendments, based on information of the report the Government Actuary will provide, he may later be able to tell the House that the Opposition were right on 8th May 1973 to suggest that there should be a minimum employers' contribution, and that he now accepts their advice and will make provision for the new legislation accordingly. I fear, however, that it will fall to a different Government to do that.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: In your wisdom, you were kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to
      318
      include my new Clause 8 with new Clause 6, recognising that the point I sought to make in new Clause 8 was of a similar character to those just made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). I should like to explain to my right hon. Friend and to the House why I believe new Clause 8 has a certain value in its own right. I mentioned earlier that I was concerned that responsible life offices were making quotations for occupational pension schemes which require very low contributions, and which would still be compatible with the terms of the Bill.
      We have to recognise that the reserve scheme itself is not a generous one. It would be true to call it a mean scheme, because this country has not got the savings habit. It may be that in Victorian times some classes had the savings habit, but many millions were too poor to save. Now, in the latter part of the twentieth century—the age of the common man— we have to encourage the entire population to embrace the savings habit which was the foundation of the wealth and success of the few in the last century. That has not yet happened, and the bulk of the employees who may find themselves in the reserve scheme or the occupational scheme will not be anxious for their contributions to be increased, even though it will be transparently obvious to them that their income on retirement would be correspondingly improved if they did. My right hon. Friend should not be discouraged if the reserve scheme cannot, by the nature of things—and by the nature of public opinion—be as generous as he and all Members on either side of the House would like. The National Insurance Scheme began miserably, too, and has grown into something which brings substantial benefits to millions in retirement, although we are not yet satisfied with that.
      8.45 p.m.
      At any rate, national insurance benefits in retirement are infinitely better than they were even between the wars and certainly better than the way national insurance began before the First World War. We expect it to be improving steadily, and it is subject now to an annual review. But we should make it clear that the reserve scheme is also to be a scheme which is improving constantly as people recognise more and more the wisdom of setting

      319
      aside money to provide them with a retirement income.
      The reserve scheme is not an agency for the redistribution of income, as is the national insurance scheme. Therefore it would not be appropriate to try to institute an annual review. It would be much too complex a matter and so much would depend on it in the way of revision of the terms for occupational schemes that it would be a disastrous idea. But it would be helpful to include from the start a time table for the improvement of the reserve scheme, first because it would encourage people to look for a rising rate of saving and investment through retirement plans of various kinds and, secondly, and perhaps more important in the immediate context, because it would help employers recognise that the reserve scheme is not or should not be a soft option.
      I know that my right hon. Friend is rightly afraid that employers who are not well disposed towards providing generous retirement benefits for their employees will wish to comply with the Act in such a way that it costs them the very minimum possible. I do not believe that employers will be able to get away with that, and it is up to the trade unions to make sure that they do not. But there is the risk that there will be short-sighted employers who see the scheme simply as a way of meeting the requirements of the Act grudgingly and costing them only very small contributions. We should make it clear that employers will be wrong to assume that the reserve scheme is a kind of bargain basement. It should be seen instead as an escalator. Employers who join it should realise that after the first five-yearly review their contributions are almost certain to be increased and that after the next five-yearly review they can be reasonably confident that they will be increased again.
      There has been an assumption—and I believe that my right hon. Friend has had this feeling—that the reserve scheme is not readily capable of improvement and that because such a large scheme is likely to have millions of members it will not be possible for Parliament to improve it from time to time. That is not so. On the face of it the reserve scheme is more likely to be capable of improvement
      320
      than the great run of occupational schemes, many of which have complex provisions not only in terms of compatibility with this Bill but also from the tax angle.
      There is also the question of the law affecting trusts, the law of perpetuities and the law of the amendment of trusts, which I do not understand but which is a vexatious subject for those who have become extreme specialists in the subject.
      I hope and believe that the reserve scheme will be improved with the passage of time and probably transformed out of all recognition. There must be a parliamentary campaign for bigger contributions to the scheme and for bigger benefits in the scheme. I put the contributions first because, unless they go up first, the bigger benefits cannot come afterwards.
      I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend that he accepts the ideas that I have been putting forward in connection with my new clause. It has not been selected for a separate Division and therefore it would be wrong for me to prolong my remarks. However, I hope that I may have contributed to starting a campaign for a better reserve scheme and that my campaign will be welcomed by my right hon. Friend.
      Sir K. Joseph: Both the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys-Williams) share a desire to see that these schemes develop to their best potential. There is no doubt that we all—including the Government— want both the recognised occupational pensions scheme movement and the reserve scheme to have full publicity. The only reason why I am asking hon. Members not to press their amendments is that I am not sure that their methods are exactly suitable.
      First, perhaps, I should deal with the underlying worry of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead about the vulnerable position of elderly members of recognised occupational pensions schemes. The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the relatively heavy cost of satisfying the minimum recognition benefits for members of the age of 50 and above, but he spoke as if there would be firms whose membership would be solely composed of above-average-age people. That

      321
      is, in theory, possible, but the presence in a staff of a proportion of people between 50 and 65 will normally—in most firms, not always—be balanced by a proportion of people between 20 and 30. It is, after all, the average cost for the employee that the employer will have to bear in mind in deciding whether to have a recognised occupational pensions scheme.
      Mr. Dell: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I recognise the fact that the Government have decided that they will make regulations covering this point so that older people in employment cannot be excluded from occupational pension schemes. My worry is not specific in respect of such persons. My worry is in respect of such persons who apply for employment, and in respect of whom the employer will realise that he will have to pay a very large percentage relative to what he is paying for other employees if he employs that man. That is the point.
      Sir K. Joseph: In theory, that might be a worry. But after all, we have enough occupational pensions schemes in this country. They are not so widespread or of as high a quality as we would wish, but we have enough for this danger to emerged. There are a large number of firms who have good quality occupational pension schemes where there has been no whisper that their recruitment policy has damaged the elderly candidate.
      Anyway, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government have met his objection by undertaking in the Bill to make regulations to require the Occupational Pensions Board to see that no recognised scheme excludes people on age grounds in any unreasonable way. To that extent, therefore, he has expressed a limited degree of satisfaction.
      He asked that the Government write into the Bill his new clause, which would impose upon the Government actuarially a number of obligations with the purpose of protecting the above-average-age members of recognised occupational pensions schemes. I must remind the House that by Government Amendment No. 79 there is already a requirement for an annual report by the Occupational Pensions Board. One would imagine that that would be a mine of information. It
      322
      will be laid before the House and published. Further, by Clause 72 there is to be an annual report by the Reserve Scheme Board, another mine of information that will be laid before the House and published.
      There will be regular reviews of the reserve scheme by the Government Actuary on what I expect to be a three-yearly basis under Clause 71(6). There will be frequent reviews, not necessarily on a regular basis, of the occupational scheme movement by the Government Actuary in future as there have been in the past. There will thus be a regular flood of information coming before the House and the public. While it would be dangerous and wrong not to have enough information, it might be unsettling to have too regular an examination of the actuarial results. Hon. Members will appreciate that we have to get a balance.
      Upon my assurance that there will certainly be reports from the Government Actuary on occupational pensions and that I and the Occupational Pensions Board will note the right hon. Gentleman's special interest in the elderly members of such schemes, I hope that he will not press his clause.
      I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, with whose hopes for the future I warmly associate myself in general. I ask him to recognise that there will be three-yearly reviews by the Government Actuary of the reserve scheme. His clause requires five-yearly reviews. To couple a cycle of five-yearly reviews with a cycle of three-yearly reviews would not achieve his purpose.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: It would have been better if I had said three-yearly reviews. I omitted to recollect that there was already a three-yearly timetable.
      Sir K. Joseph: I am glad that we are for once ahead of my hon. Friend on the Bill. Under Clause 71(6) there is provision for a three-yearly timetable. While I found my hon. Friend's speech interesting, I hope that in the light of Clause 71(6) he will not press his clause.
      I do not know whether I have persuaded my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman not to press their clauses, but there will certainly be no lack of information.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Both clauses relate to information about the reserve scheme and occupational schemes—the breakdown of contributions and so on.
      I say sincerely and seriously to the Minister that he has not taken any oportunity to say something about what I am sure he realises was an unfortunate misstatement of fact on the contributions to the reserve scheme in relation to other schemes when he spoke in the Second Reading debate on 28th November. He knows the point to which I am referring. Surely it would be appropriate for him now to correct the mis-statement which he made on that occasion, I have no doubt unwittingly and by accident. It should not be allowed to stand on the record without further comment from the Minister.
      Sir K. Joseph: I am not one to hug my mistakes to myself. If I have made them I acknowledge them. I am not aware of any wrong-doing. I may have used a slipshod expression and given a false impression which I should not like to leave uncorrected. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me during the rest of today and tomorrow to take a suitable opportunity to look at the point and, if I think it necessary and appropriate, to say something about it?
      Mr. Cunningham: I have put down an early day motion on the Order Paper criticising the right hon. Gentleman on this point, having first given notice to his office that I would do so. He may have as much time as he likes. I cannot force him to make a statement, but it is odd for him to suggest that he is unaware of the criticism I am making when that criticism has appeared for weeks on the Order Paper. I shall not pursue it now.
      Sir K. Joseph: My conscience was clear. I am afraid that I did not follow it up in great detail, but I will take the opportunity to do so now.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Meacher: New Clause 6 requires the Government Actuary to report at two-yearly intervals with particular reference to the age composition of members of pension schemes. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I acknowledge that there are annual reports from the Occupational Pensions
      324
      Board and the Reserve Pension Board and a three-yearly review from the Government Actuary. But no provision is made for special reference to older workers. He indicated that he would see that this information was made available. There is a grave need for information to be made available for older workers, for there is no doubt that as the Bill stands they are a group which clearly will do very badly along with women and low-paid workers.
      We need a great deal more information than we have at present since the Occupational Pensions Board has considerable discretionary powers under Clauses 50, 55 and 57. We need information about the outcome of reviews under Clause 65, and reports on specimen cases to show the operation of the preservation provisions, which are particularly important for older workers. Above all, we need to know the level of pensions in payment and bonuses in operation. We need to know the number of occupational pensions schemes recognised in relation to the minimum conditions for recognition and the level of employers' and employees' contributions.
      It is important to draw attention to the fact that flat-rate accrual schemes after the 1959 Boyd-Carpenter Act largely came about, I suspect, because insufficient attention was drawn to the way in which the provisions of that Act were being unsatisfactorily avoided. There is certainly a need for more information about the way in which older workers have their pension rights provided for. Secondly—this is why we are so concerned—employers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said so forcefully, certainly have an incentive to and may well exclude older workers. After all, an employer can reduce the total contribution required to provide a minimum benefit, for example by excluding certain categories of workers at his discretion— either through a higher turnover so that the money accrues to occupational schemes because the preservation provisions are so bad, or by excluding older workers.
      The reason why occupational scheme workers' benefits are better for 20 years than the benefits in the reserve scheme is seen if one looks at the answer which

      325
      the Government gave to a Question on 2nd March to the effect that the employer pays more for older workers and obviously has an incentive to escape the liability. If an employer were to exclude those over 55 years of age, the total contribution necessary to reduce minimum pension would be cut by 1 per cent. We need very much to know the employers' contribution levels and the investment policy of the scheme. This is something which should be written into the requirements for provision of information a great deal more precisely than at present.
      In Committee the Under-Secretary informed us that this was unlikely to happen because such a scheme would not get recognition. He said later, rather less strongly, that there is little doubt that the board could be used to prevent such a practice because of recourse to regulations under Clause 52. When we looked at those regulations we saw that it was said that no regulations restricting the categories or descriptions of earners who may be included in or excluded from a survey are envisaged at present. That is a very significant statement. At the time the Under-Secretary made clear, that the document was purely consultative and, because it was consultative, in the nature of the case it was not final.
      I would have thought it perfectly clear to any objective person looking at those regulations that the Department was at least prepared to put the interests of older workers very much at risk in saying that no such protection was envisaged at present. That was tantamount to saying that, unless pushed rather hard, that is how things will be left, which is rather worrying for older workers. It is relevant to point out that the Explanatory Memorandum dealing with the Crossman scheme explicitly forbade this kind of undesirable practice.
      I turn to the situation regarding older workers and the reserve pension scheme. Older workers, women and the low-paid will do particularly badly under the scheme. There is no subsidy, as there is in occupational pension schemes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birken-head has asked why the reserve pension scheme should be a money purchase scheme. The only indication that has been given by the Government is that the scheme has intermittent membership and lacks any common group identity. The
      326
      point is that although undoubtedly the membership will be partly intermittent, it is also true that many lower-paid workers, particularly women, will be in the reserve pension scheme all their lives.
      Following the introduction of this Bill the older workers will do badly. We have it on the word of the Undersecretary that the reserve pension scheme gives value for money—a phrase which we have repeatedly had thrown at us. What it means is that, because of the absence of cross-subsidy, older workers— those over 45—will get extremely tiny pensions. Anyone who doubts this should look at those interesting figures in HANSARD on 1st March. They are derisorily small pensions for older workers at the start of the scheme. The Under-Secretary went on to say:
      "anyone who has gone half way through his working life without having had the opportunity to build up pension rights will get an inadequate pension unless it is subsidised by someone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 3rd April 1973; c. 1425.]
      There we have it. It will not be subsidised by someone in the case of the older worker who was put in the reserve pension scheme when it came into operation. In the words of the Minister it will be an inadequate pension.
      I come to those who will have had a chance in the early part of their life to build up pension rights and who may at a later stage find themselves in the reserve pension scheme. If we take account of the basic pension, and that is to be uprated in line with national average earnings, which is considerably better than mere price protection, and if we take into account the level of benefit that workers will receive in the reserve pension scheme, we have a picture of the two-tier pension, the second pension and the basic pension about which the Government have spoken so much.
      We see then that a man earning slightly below average earnings, below £30 a week, will need 35 years of contributions to get above the supplementary benefit poverty line. If he is on £20 a week he will need 40 years to do so. That is a pretty clear indictment which shows how bad the reserve pension scheme is for older workers even if they have had a chance earlier in life to build up their entitlements within the scheme. From

      327
      the table in Schedule 18 one can see that many older workers will be even worse off than under the Boyd-Carpenter Act, which became universally known as a pension swindle. That Act gave 2½p for every £7·50 block of contributions. Under the Bill, according to the table a man of 60 would receive l·52p per £7·50, which is considerably worse than the Boyd-Carpenter formula. A man would need to be as young as 45 to get an accrual rate even as good as the Boyd-Carpenter scheme.
      The reserve scheme offers a bonus. The bonus does not even guarantee price protection, so tt is not a particularly generous guarantee of a bonus. Therefore, although the figures would be improved they are unlikely to be improved significantly, and will probably not be better than the Boyd-Carpenter scheme. I can only conclude that for older workers, if the Boyd-Carpenter scheme was Swindle Mark I this scheme is Swindle Mark II.
      What we have proposed is partly contained in Amendment No. 131, which was dealt with earlier, which proposed that there should be from the age of 40 onwards the same rate of accrual for every £1 of reckonable contributions. By comparison, in the occupational scheme the older worker does better, as the minimum accrual rate is independent of his contributions. The extra benefit for older workers in the occupational scheme comes from employers and younger employees. If this is true in the occupational scheme, why should it not be true in the reserve scheme?
      It has been estimated that employers in occupational schemes have to pay about 1 per cent. more for persons over 45 than they have to pay for younger employees at minimum benefit level. Therefore, if there is a uniform age distribution in the reserve scheme what is needed is an extra 1 per cent. contribution over the whole scheme from all employees.
      When we proposed that in Committee it was rejected. The reason was that it would uprate and improve the reserve scheme, and that the extent to which it did that it would make it more difficult for those marginal employers among whom the Government are so determined that they shall spread and advance
      328
      occupational pension schemes. That is why the reserve scheme is held back. If it were improved it would be more difficult to achieve the central goal of the Bill—to extend the occupational scheme.
      One of the casualties of the ideological motive is older workers, who are at the heart of the amendment. I know that the Government are opposed to cross-subsidy in reserve schemes because of the intermittent membership. If so, why have they, in introducing a flat-rate basic pension in return for a fully earnings-related contribution, by that achieved a situation in which the higher-paid are automatically bound to subsidise the lower-paid?
      I am fully in agreement with the principle. If the Government can do that for the basic pension, why can they not do it on the basis that there is the same lack of community of interest for those joined together in the basic pension as for those joined together in the reserve pension scheme? If it can be done for the one, it can be done for the other.
      This does not help those lower-paid, young or old, in all the changes and improvements proposed for older workers. It is impossible to do that within this structure. This can be done only by the kind of redistributive dynamism which was achieved under the Crossman scheme under the 60/25 formula. I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that there are grounds for real and deep alarm about the position of older workers if we retain, as we are bound to do now, the reserve pension scheme and the occupational pension scheme within the present structure.
      9.15 p.m.
      The reason we intend to press the new clause is that it is not enough to say that a great deal of information is coming forward. We have had a fair amount of information from the Government Actuary before, but there has been little emphasis on older workers. Unless we receive a definite assurance that information about older workers will be made available as fully as the clause provides for, I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the clause to a Division, because we feel that the situation is so bad for older workers under the scheme.
      Mr. Dell: To me, the most surprising element in the Secretary of State's reply was his statement that he was not aware of any employment difficulties for older workers arising out of the existence of occupational pension schemes. I should have thought that the best-known thing about such schemes was that they cause difficulties for older workers in securing employment, because of the cost to employers of the pensions that they eventually have to provide for those older workers. If the Secretary of State is ignorant of that, I can draw to his attention many cases of such difficulty that have come to me in my advice bureau, and cases that I know outside my constituency work.
      I have reason to fear that the existence of this type of minimum benefit within the occupational pensions scheme will cause difficulties in securing employment for older people. The more conscious private employers have become of employment costs, the more the membership of the occupational pensions sector has
      declined. Those figures are shown in the recent report of the Government Actuary.
      The Secretary of State draws my attention to Government Amendment No. 79, requiring an annual report from the Occupational Pensions Board. He says that that should suffice, and that we do not need the clause. I hesitate to remind him that that amendment, again, follows an amendment that I moved in Committee. I shall welcome it, although I hope to move an amendment to it.
      The clause is, in part at any rate, a device. It draws attention to the particular and difficult position in which older people will find themselves. Simply to register that point, if for no other reason, I hope that the House will support the clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 194.

      Division No. 124.]

      AYES

      [9.18 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ellis, Tom

      Leonard, Dick

      Archer, peter (Rowley Regis)

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ashton, Joe

      Ewing, Harry

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Loughlin, Charles

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Baxter, William

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Beaney, Alan

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McBride, Neil

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McElhone, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Foot, Michael

      McGuire, Michael

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ford, Ben

      Machin, George

      Booth Albert

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, J. Kevin

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

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marks, Kenneth

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

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marsden, F

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Buchan, Norman

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mendeison, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Horam, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Houghton Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Huckfield Leslie

      Molloy, William

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morgan Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Coleman, Donald

      Muahea Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hunter Adam

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Conlan Bernard

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Ogden, Eric

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      John, Brynmor

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Dalyell, Tarn

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

      Oswald, Thomas

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pardoe, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, W.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Judd, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Doig, Peter

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kinnock, Neil

      Prescott, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lamond, James

      Probert, Arthur

      Eadie, Alex

      Lawson, George

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Walker, Harold (Doncasler)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Steel, David

      Watkins, David

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Weitzman, David

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

      Strang, Gavin

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rose Paul B.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

      Whitlock, William

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

      Tinn, James

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Tomney, Frank

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Sillars, James

      Tope, Graham

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Torney, Tom

      Woot, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tuck, Raphael

      Small, William

      Urwin, T. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Spearing, Nigel

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Price, David (Eastieigh)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Batsford, Brian

      Hawkins, Paul

      Raison, Timothy

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Benyon, W.

      Holland, Philip

      Redmond, Robert

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Biffen, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hornby, Richard

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Body, Richard

      Hunt John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rest, Peter

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Royle, Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      James David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jopling, Michael

      Simeons, Charles

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

      Joseph Rt, Hn. Sir Keith

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Buck, Antony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Butler Adam (Bosworth)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Soref, Harold

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kimbail, Marcus

      Speed, Keith

      Cary, Sir Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Spence, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Sproat, lain

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Knox, David

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Chichester-Clark,R.

      Lamont, Norman

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lane, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Cooleram Eric

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sutcliffe, John

      Cooke, Robert

      Lewis Kenneth (Rutland)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Cooper, A. E.

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

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

      Cordle, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Longden, Sir Gilbert

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Crltchley, Julian

      Loveridge, John

      Tebbit, Norman

      Critchley, Julian

      Luce, R. N.

      Temple, John M.

      Crowder, F. P.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

      McLaren, Martin

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Dean, Paul

      Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

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

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Dykes, Hugh

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Tilney, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Madel, David

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

      Maude, Angus

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mawby, Ray

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Farr John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Waddington, David

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fookes Miss Janet

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Molyneaux, James

      Wall, Patrick

      Foster, Sir John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fowler, Norman

      Monro, Hector

      Warren, Denneth

      Fox, Marcus

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

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

      More, Jasper

      Wwlls, John (Maidstone)

      Fry, Peter

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Morrison, Charles

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mudd, David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Neave, Airey

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Gower, Raymond

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gray, Hamish

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Green, Alan

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grylls, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Mr. Kenneth Clarke and

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Percival, Ian

      Mr. Oscar Murton.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 7

      PROVISIONS AS TO BENEFITS IN CASES OF EARLY RETIREMENT
      For an occupational pension scheme to be recognised in relation to an earner's employment it must provide that if a person who is a member of that scheme terminates his employment before the normal age of retirement in that employment there may, at the option of that person, be paid out of the funds of that scheme either—

      (a) the sum of that person's contributions to the scheme plus the sum of the contributions which his employer would have paid to the reserve pension scheme in respect of his service, if he had been a member of that scheme during the appropriate period of his employment, or

      (b) the actuarial value of his entitlement on the date of the termination of his service,

      whichever is the greater, which payment shall be used for the purchase of a deferred annuity for the benefit of that person, the first payment of which shall fall due on the date on which he reaches the normal age of retirement in the employment he has terminated.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a subject on which I have frequently spoken both in Committee and in the House. Indeed, I made my maiden speech on this subject. Much of what I wish to say about the new clause may be found in HANSARD, in speeches that I have made in earlier years.
      I take the view, which I think is generally accepted on both sides of the House, that a pension is a form of deferred pay. It is wrong that a man who changes his job before the normal age of retirement in his occupational pension scheme should lose his pension rights, as it were, retrospectively because he is not continuing in the employment in which those rights have started to build up.
      It is obvious, and also generally accepted, I think, that transferability of pension rights is an ideal which we must seek to attain. Transferability has been provided in the public service. I therefore ask: why has it not been provided in this great structure Bill, reforming occupational pension schemes in the private sector?
      We do not find transferability in the Bill. The proposal in the Bill is not even as satisfactory as the present situa-
      334
      tion, because the majority of schemes provide for a man who leaves a contributory pension scheme early to take his contributions out, so that at all events he has the protection of the ability to take away his own asset.
      9.30 p.m.
      What the Government propose—a proposal that I criticised severely on Second Reading—is that the man should lose the right to remove his contributions. In other words, the firm, with which he may have quarrelled when he left, can retain his pension rights and is able to get the capital gains and the income free of tax until the normal age of retirement from that scheme, which may be 30 years or more later. Then the only liability on the employer is to pay out in money values which have remained the same as they were on the day when the man left the firm. That is so unsatisfactory that I believe my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agrees that an amendment is needed.
      There are various ways in which this idea could be improved. I am not asking that the Bill should simply restore the present situation, because I have come to accept the force of the most persuasive argument of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary that the object of a pension scheme—which is a tax-protected and privileged scheme—is to provide benefits for retirement and not to provide interim benefits for a man who changes his job. withdraws his pension contributions and then, perhaps, uses them unwisely and not necessarily towards the purchase of an eventual pension entitlement, a deferred annuity.
      We shall go some way, but only a very small way, towards transferability if we amend the Bill to allow a man to remove his contributions and use them for the purchase of a deferred annuity in one of the schemes which already exists or a similar scheme which might be set up in the future for this purpose—one often hears people speaking about the desirability of a clearing house for accrued pension rights—but a scheme which will continue to get the benefit of the tax provisions which have been introduced in order to encourage occupational pension schemes.
      By choosing a well-managed company the employee who withdraws part of his

      335
      asset—that is, his contributions—from the first employer's trust may be able to make a satisfactory investment which will be reasonably proof against changes in the value of money.
      The question then arises of the definition of the employer's contribution to the employee's pension rights during his years of service. How do we define the asset in terms which are sufficiently fair for people to accept that rough justice, at any rate, has been done? I recognise that there are scores of different types of scheme. It is very difficult to legislate in terms that will catch them all and provide reasonable justice for both sides. But the first-class advice that I have been given, and which I have sought to incorporate in the new clause, is near enough justice and would provide a satisfactory basis for an amendment of the Bill so as to take us at any rate as far as we need for the immediate present—to a half-way house between preservation and transferability.
      The definition of the employee's asset in the trust is particularly difficult for young workers, because there are schemes which require the employer to put little or nothing into this trust on behalf of the younger workers, as from the actuarial point of view their own contributions are enough, or more than enough, to cover the trust's liability in their early years. The reserve scheme will provide a dynamised preserved pension including an employer's contribution for young early job changers. It is only 2½ per cent. of relevant earnings, so it is not very much. But at any rate an employee with a firm that has joined the reserve scheme and who changes jobs in his twenties, his thirties or even later will be certain eventually of receiving the benefit of his employer's contributions.
      The spirit of the Bill requires that members of private schemes should do no worse than if they had been members of the reserve scheme. This really underlies all the provisions that are embodied in the Bill governing the recognition of occupational pension schemes set up by employers who do not choose to join the reserve scheme. In terms of preservation, occupational pension schemes should be no worse than the reserve scheme. It is easy to say that, because it is not very good, although—as I said
      336
      on an earlier amendment—I hope it will improve rapidly with the passage of time. So, in new Clause 7 I have suggested that the employee should get a contribution of at least 2½ per cent. over the relevant earnings for the appropriate period of his employment.
      I recognise that if it were accepted by the Government this contribution would end what I call the virtuoso-controlled funding systems that have been adopted in recent years by firms that are perhaps sailing as close to the wind as actuaries will permit in allowing the employees' asset to grow in the trust when they are putting nothing towards it. I recognise that many actuaries will say that this is perfectly sound practice in final salary schemes, but others feel it would be no bad thing for the occupational pension movement if this type of funding principle were made virtually impossible.
      If one early leaver is entitled to make a claim on the fund equal to 2½ per cent. of the reserve scheme contribution from the employer, it may be asked, what about all the others—early leavers who leave the following week, or those who decide to remain loyal to the firm and stay with it at a time of particular difficulty? One must not allow the people who leave to take more out than the value of the asset which remains behind for each of the others. This, of course, I accept. So, if the employers accepted the liability to pay out 2½ per cent. to those who leave, the fund would have to be large enough for at least 2½ per cent. as employers' contribution to be available to those who remained within the fund on top of the sum of their own contributions.
      I am willing to accept that the employees' own contributions, and indeed the employers' own contributions, should not bear interest, because one has to reflect that in a good occupational pension scheme there will have been life cover for the employee while he was in service. It is easy to forget that an employee has been getting the benefit of life cover throughout years of service during which he has not had the ill fortune to die. Nevertheless, it has cost the scheme something to give him that, and therefore it makes a rough and ready balance with the interest which might have accrued on the contributions year by

      337
      year. However, in a general scheme the minimum contribution of 2½ per cent. which it would be necessary to put in for all employees and not only those likely to leave would be less than the altogether higher general payment to the trust.
      So, for a good scheme what I suggest in new Clause 7 would not be onerous at all, and for a scheme run on rock-bottom lines I think it would be a sound safeguard which many actuaries would approve. Therefore, the first proviso in new Clause 7 is not very exacting.
      What about the other provision—that the employee should be able to claim not less than the actuarial value? This, too, seems to be simply a question of justice. The definition of the actuarial value presents difficulties which I am assured have been solved by the Department in earlier essays on this subject. If they have been solved in the public sector, it need not take us too long to find an adequate definition of the actuarial value for the private sector.
      It is part of the strategy of the Bill to give employees confidence in occupational schemes and to make them happy to belong to them. It is also part of the Government's policy to encourage people to make the most of their careers, which frequently means that a man, in pursuit of his own interest and that of his family, is right to change his job several times in his career. We must not continue to penalise, as we have done since the beginning of the occupational pension movement, the man who chooses to move about, in order to maximise his value to himself, his family, his firm and the community. It is necessary for the Government to act.
      I do not blame the occupational pension movement, because this has not come about of itself. I have on earlier occasions sought to draw the attention of the House to the sometimes extreme difficulties which are put in the way of firms which would like to do better by such employees but are prevented from doing so by the rules of the Inland Revenue. Nevertheless, those regulations can be changed by Government.
      What have the Government said their intentions are? In our manifesto for the 1970 election we said much the same as we said in previous elections and much the same as other parties have said in
      338
      their manifestos. The specific words were:
      "and we will ensure that everyone can take their pension rights with them when they change their job."
      I do not interpret that as meaning that they can take back their own contributions to pension funds and forfeit what the employer might have put in. A formula has to be found, which can be seen to be fair, to cover employers' contributions as well.
      The new clause would give the employee two options, of which he can take the most favourable to him. Is that loading the dice too much on the employee's side? If the sum of his own contributions and the employer's 2½ per cent. is more than the actuarial value, one might say that he was placing too heavy a burden on the employer. But, equally, we must recognise that actuarial value is not as generous as it might be.
      In a final salary scheme, the employee's eventual asset if he stays in the scheme throughout his career is related to his salary at 65, which is probably his highest earnings. But if he leaves at 35, it is a reasonable expectation that he will have been earning much less; if the trustees of the scheme are entitled to calculate his asset on the basis of his earnings when he was 35, apart from any question of changes in money values during the rest of his career, which is another issue, it is likely that this factor in the calculation of the actuarial value will be highly adverse to the employee. So it is once again a question of roundabouts and swings. On balance, the advice that I have been given and which has gone into the making of the clause has come from a very perceptive analysis of the sort of circumstances that are likely to arise.
      If my hon. Friend finds fault with the wording of a back-bench amendment, I hope that he will at any rate say that the Government are prepared to honour the forecast of their policy that they made in the manifesto and that something will be done which will give people the assurance of protection of their own contributions in some scheme which will give reasonable protection against changes in the value of money, and that the early leaver can make a reasonable claim on the trust of his first employer in respect of the employer's contributions as well.

      339
      I am confident that there is no question of insoluble problems. The difficulty that arises is whether this is the opportune moment to place an additional burden on employers. We must recognise that if the beneficiaries of occupational pension schemes are to gain from a provision like the new clause the money will have to come from somewhere—and it will, of course, have to come from employers.
      One has to think carefully whether this might be inflationary, or might upset all kinds of checks and balances in the economy. But whether it does or not, I believe that the will of the House and the country demands that something should be done now about transferability of pension rights.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Dell: I have thought it right to add my name to the new clause. I do so because I support the wording of the clause and the motives behind it.
      The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) laid down as a principle that people in occupational pension schemes should in no case do worse than they would have done had they been in the reserve pension scheme. I find that a totally acceptable principle, indeed, so acceptable that I advocated it as frequently as I could in Committee. But on no occasion could I persuade the Government or the Committee to agree with me. There are in fact many occasions within this Bill, surprising though it may be, bad as the reserve pension scheme is, in which the reserve pension scheme will actually prove to be better than the occupational pension scheme. One of these is where a person's pension within the occupational pension system is subject to frequent preservation.
      It will be true of many young people and even in certain cases of older people, if the rate of inflation increases. There are many circumstances in which people can actually do better within the pathetic reserve pension scheme than they would within the occupational pension system at minimum level. As the hon. Gentleman now states that principle to the House, I want to say at once that I agree that it is a principle relevant to this new clause.
      Among my other reasons for supporting the new clause is that I believe trans-
      340
      ferability should be encouraged, not discouraged. The effect of this Bill is to discourage transferability. It discourages it because it writes into the Bill preservation at such low cost to the scheme that employers will be disinclined to move towards transferability because they will prefer to rely instead on the financial gains to the scheme which accrue to them from people leaving the scheme.
      It has always been calculated that something like 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the cost of schemes is met by leaving members who get only the return of their own contributions. Preservation as laid down in this Bill will make very little difference to those figures. The Government claim that preservation is an advance. Of course it could be, but I doubt very much whether preservation as laid down within this Bill is in fact an advance. I believe that it could be a retreat and that it could be damaging to occupational pension schemes, even good ones, and even to good final salary schemes, because I believe that the acceptability of the occupational pension system has depended, in some part at any rate, on the fact that people could withdraw their contributions when they left an employment. When they went into an employment they were compelled to be a member of the occupational pension scheme run by the employer, but at any rate they knew that if they left they would have as a minimum the return of their own contribution, as I myself have experienced on more than one occasion when I have received a return of contribution on leaving an employment.
      I say to the Government that it is only right to withdraw this facility of return of contributions if there is a good substitute. If there is a good substitute one can argue that substitute to the person who would prefer to have a return of his contribution. He can be shown that he will do better by the substitute than he would by return of contribution. But in this Bill return of contributions can continue to be better than preservation, even if the return of the contribution does not include the employer's share. As reported in col. 1270 of the Committee proceedings, I gave a specific example of where I believed return of contribution would be better for the individual than preservation under the Bill. I asked a Question of the Minister,

      341
      quoting that Question, I believe at c. 1269 of the Committee proceedings, showing in a particular example how preservation under the Bill could be inferior to return of contribution. It is not acceptable that people should be deprived of an established right unless something at least equivalent is put in its place—and nothing equivalent is put into its place in the Bill.
      I am not saying that we should make this point about return of contributions an article of faith. I am prepared to see it withdrawn so that when they retire people shall not become dependent upon supplementary benefit, provided that there is a proper substitute. But there is no proper substitute in the Bill. Preservation can be a disincentive to the mobility of labour at a time when we want that mobility to be encouraged. People know how much they lose when they leave an employment. They will lose more under the Bill than they lose now and this is another unsatisfactory aspect.
      Another reason why I support the clause is the Government's complete failure, in spite of the extended discussions on this point in Committee, to bring forward anything better than was in the Bill to begin with. We had assurance after assurance from the Minister about the consideration he would give to the arguments which were adduced in Committee. He said, for example,
      "I take the right hon. Gentleman's point —it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) as well—that one of the effects of preservation to the minimum standards could be that some people would find their contributions locked in to their disadvantage, or they might be in the position where they would receive in their preservation a value less than the contributions they had paid. I recognise that this is an area which is not covered under existing arrangements."
      In other words the Government recognise the very points I have presented to the House. He said,
      "I shall listen to what is said during the debate and will give consideration to the possibility of doing something to meet the case where the employee finds, or could find, that the benefits preserved to him are less than the contributions he has paid into the scheme."
      Again the Under-Secretary, referring to one of his hon. Friends—I suspect the hon. Member for Kensington, South— said:
      342
      "The other aspect which concerned my hon. Friend was to ensure that if this route should turn out to be inappropriate, we could find some way in which at least the contributions of people who had contributed to any type of scheme were guaranteed in some form in the event of their leaving the schemes. I should be willing to consider that possibility."
      And again:
      "We shall consider the solutions in the light of the suggestions made by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and I repeat the undertaking that I gave earlier today, namely to return to the House on Report with the Government's views on the best approach to the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March 1973; c. 1276 and 1289–90.]
      The House may consider that these are firm categorical assurances which the Minister gave but what do we find on the Order Paper? Nothing. The Government have sat on this egg and they have hatched absolutely nothing. We are left with the deplorable preservation conditions which are unacceptable in themselves and are a disincentive to what is in most cases, though not in all, the far better solution of transferability. It is for this reason that I support the new clause and I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington, South, if he does not get satisfactory replies from the Minister, wilt force the issue to a vote.
      Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: Although I have not had the benefit of listening to the Committee discussions I should like to say some-think on the new clause. I know how dedicated is my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) to improving all form of social benefit and I fully support him in focusing attention on the importance of transferability. Failure to cope with this problem by those responsible for occupational schemes and by previous Governments, has been one of the great and outstanding weaknesses of pensions. It has persisted for a deplorably long time.
      The Government's proposals go considerably further than those put forward by the Opposition in the Bill they introduced in the closing days of the last Parliament. I welcome that advance. I should have liked to say that I felt that my hon. Friend had found the right solution, because he goes into these matters so thoroughly. I am afraid that I cannot say that about the new clause. The danger of moving too quickly in the area of transferability is that, strangely enough

      343
      perhaps, it will militate against the older man in favour of the younger man.
      The younger man has a much better pension prospect ahead of him whether he is working for a company that has, or is likely to, institute an occupational scheme, or whether he will remain in the money purchase reserve scheme. I suppose that the greatest criticism of having to use a money purchase scheme as the fairest method of operating a State reserve scheme is that it is so beneficial to the younger man and it does not enable one to introduce the element of redistribution of pension entitlement, which was one of the strengths of the early days of an occupational scheme.
      One cannot overlook the fact that all occupational schemes have a large element of pay-as-you-go in them. My feeling about the new clause that my hon. Friend has introduced is that it will hit the employer at both ends because the option that he is holding out will enable the younger man probably to take from the employer more than the employer felt would be created as his liability for that employee. It would certainly enable the older man to take in actuarial terms, or in cash terms, far more than the employer would have paid in for a late joiner to his company and would therefore, make the employer more reluctant to take an older man.
      I feel that one has to be careful about introducing complicated options exercis-able by the employee. This may sound a controversial statement from someone who I hope is on record as supporting free choice in society, but I have had the opportunity of seeing time and time again an individual exercise the wrong option in the face of all the disinterested expert advice that one could put before him. I should be happier if there were no complicated option demanded from the individual to exercise.
      I think the new clause could become a minimum that occupational schemes would provide. I think they should do far more, and pressures will undoubtedly make them do more shortly. I believe that it could act as a deterrent to the expansion and to the introduction of new occupational pension schemes. I do not think that the deterrent effect of inflation on the introduction and expansion of final salary pension schemes has yet been
      344
      fully felt. Firms which in good faith have introduced in recent years final salary pension schemes and have given, out of a sense of wanting to help long-service employees, generous back service entitlement, now find themselves, from the inflation of the last few years, with substantial liabilities resulting from the pace of inflation and the curve of earnings.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, will forgive me on this occasion for not being able to support him—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Murton.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Hall-Davis: I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South but I hope that that will not discourage him and other hon. Members from pressing the Government to find the right solution. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has such an outstanding technical command of the subject, on the progress that he has made. It was long overdue.
      Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) suggested that it would be a disincentive if employers were required to make more appropriate provision for transferability and preservation. Surely it is also true that we impose a very severe disincentive on the free movement of labour if employees find it a big disadvantage to move from one job to another in less than five years. It is notorious that we ought to have more mobility of labour and that losing one's pension rights, or a significant part of them, is a very important deterrent to that mobility.
      I did not hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) but, in case he did not stress the point, I ought to remind hon. Members that the issue is very important for any individual involved in transferring from one job to another and that the number of such people is very large at present. The latest statistics show that in occupational pension

      345
      schemes there was a 10 per cent. turnover in the period covered by the Government Actuary's last report and that, of that turnover, no less than 70 per cent. made the transfer with less than five years' service and, therefore, in terms of the Bill, would not have been guaranteed full preservation of the benefits that they had accrued in service, although some may have enjoyed that preservation.
      It is difficult to estimate what that is in terms of numbers in normal conditions as opposed to a period when membership of occupational schemes has been declining. My estimate in Committee was about 400,000 per year, and that will not be very far out. That means that a great many people will be discouraged from shifting jobs when they would otherwise wish to do so, due entirely to inadequate preservation of pension entitlement.
      Mr. Albert Booth: I wish to support the clause because I believe that, in the absence of it or of some similar provision, employers may continue to use pension schemes quite wrongly for the purpose of retaining labour which would otherwise move, for very good and valid reasons, from job to job.
      Anyone who has had the job of a trade union representative trying to negotiate improvements in pension schemes with employers who have bad records in respect of their provision for older employees will know that one of the greatest difficulties lies in securing anything like adequate transferability. In firms where employees depend on maintaining their jobs for the provision of reasonable pensions on retirement, they will hang on to their jobs, irrespective of the conditions, for the last few years of their employment. This cannot be a desirable situation to perpetuate in law. Also, we should recognise that what we call a free exercise of the option to leave one job for another is, in many cases, anything but a free choice for the person involved; that with the large number of technological changes taking place at the moment, and changes in the pattern of employment in certain areas, people are heavily influenced to move their jobs because of what happens not only in their own employment circumstances but
      346
      that of other immediate members of their families. For that reason, they decide to leave a job and find themselves, in the circumstances of many pension schemes, at a considerable disadvantage.
      I would like to challenge the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) regarding the way in which an individual exercises his option in moving from one job to another. If this new clause were passed, there would be no question of the individual's making the wrong choice. He would be required by the terms of the new clause to take the better of the two provisions open to him.
      For all those reasons, I support those who have spoken in favour of this new clause, and hope that the House will pass it this evening.
      Mr. Dean: It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) should be introducing a debate on this subject this evening because for many years he has advocated improved arrangements for transferability of pension rights. Indeed, it is fair that the House should concede that my hon. Friend, in his advocacy and from his immense knowledge of this subject, over the years has done a great deal to inspire the progress in this field which is represented by this Bill. On the other hand, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) sounded a note of caution as to how far one should go beyond what is already written into this Bill at the present time—and, given the inevitable limitation of the resources of employers, how much one should expect them to devote to the pension rights of the early leavers in contrast to the man or the woman nearer pension age.
      The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), in his intervention, was, if I may say so, less than his usual fair self because he condemned the Government before he had heard what the Government were proposing to do in this field. I hope he will feel more satisfied when I have had a chance to explain that.
      Preservation of pension rights is something which has been talked about in this country for years, and very little has been done about it. Although it is fair to say that a great many pension schemes

      347
      now provide for preservation or transfer-ability, it is in many cases on a voluntary basis and the individual exercises the choice when he leaves. In a great many cases the choice that the individual has made has been to withdraw his own contribution from the pension scheme and to lose all benefit of the contributions paid by his employer, or from the investment of the fund. As a result we have the hole in the bottom of the bucket, the person building up pension rights in a job and then losing those pension rights, through his own choice in many cases, when he leaves. Later in his life, when he comes near to retirement, he may regret it.
      Therefore, what we say in this Bill is that we have now reached a point at which pension rights should be regarded as deferred pay to which men or women are entitled in the same way as they are entitled to their monthly salary or their weekly wages. Therefore, when they leave their jobs there should be some provision for the preservation of those rights. That, in essence, is what this Bill provides for, and I hope the House will agree that this is a major advance on much current practice.
      There are various ways in which this will be done in practice. The Bill lays down minimum standards which must be observed—in this case the preservation of pension rights. Many of us would prefer to go further towards transferability, but the House will probably agree that, at least at this stage in the advance of pension schemes, to compel transfer-ability would mean compelling some individuals, depending on the scheme they are in now and the scheme they are moving to, to a bad bargain. In its simplest terms that is the main reason why we have not gone as far as to compel transferability.
      There is little doubt that every pension scheme—not only recognised schemes, but all schemes—will have to provide for the preservation of pension rights in one form or another. They will, therefore, have to consider how best to do it. Many will feel that transfer-ability of the full pension rights from the scheme that the person is leaving to the new scheme he is joining will be the most satisfactory way not only for the em-
      348
      ployee but for the employer. When people leave them many employers will be anxious to fulfill their obligations under the Bill and to get those men or women off their books rather than to keep them on their books and possibly to keep track of them for 20 or 30 years. In many cases, the decision will be made for transferability rather than for preservation.
      Here, the public service is setting a good example, as it should, in that in public service schemes under certain conditions transferability will be available before the compulsory date laid down in the Bill.
      Another way in which this obligation may be carried out is through the deferred annuity which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South. Here, too, in some cases this may be the most appropriate course both for the employee and the employer.
      In discussing the various choices, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said that he was doubtful whether transfer-ability would take place to any extent because of the comparatively cheap option he thought preservation would provide. When I come to tell the House what we propose, he will perhaps take a slightly different view. Whatever his view on that may be, I suggest to him that the very fact that employers will be anxious if they can to complete their obligations when a man or woman leaves them will be a powerful influence towards the transferability of pension rights where this can be appropriately done, as in many cases it can.
      The Government are sympathetic to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South that we should find a suitable way of ensuring at least a fair return on an employee's contributions when he leaves. That is the main argument that my hon. Friend put, and he has put it on many previous occasions. I freely concede that point to him and I shall in a few moments say how the Government propose to put it into practical operation.
      My hon. Friend went on to say that there should also be some element of the employer's contribution. Here, one introduces a different concept which could cut across, the basis on which most schemes and the benefits they provide are

      349
      structured. There may also be, as I think my hon. Friend recognised, some undesirable practical results.
      My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale drew attention to the common practice in occupational pension schemes to have a cross-subsidy between the generations within the scheme. My hon. Friend described it as redistribution of pension entitlement in occupational schemes. This is one of the desirable features of schemes.
      I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South would wish to put occuational schemes and employers in a position in which they might have to make a choice between doing more for the early leaver and less for the full-term member. I suggest that there is a great deal of substance in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale that there is a risk, if we put too many obligations on employers and schemes at this time, that it will be to the disadvantage of the full-term members and those nearing retirement age.
      10.15 p.m.
      One has also take into account that in the Bill not only are we for the first time putting an obligation on occupational schemes for preservation, but we are also putting on them new requirements as to the minimum level of pension to be provided in regard to widow cover and increases in the pension to take care of inflation. To meet the conditions laid down in the Bill the cost for many schemes will rise. The more we oblige them to incur additional costs to help the early leaver, the more difficult it will be for them to fulfil their obligations towards the full-term members and those nearing retirement age who should have the first command on the resources of the scheme.
      Mr. O'Malley: If it is desirable, as I agree with the Under-Seoretary that it is, that there should be a cross-subsidy between the generations in occupational pensions schemes, would he care to explain to the House why it is undesirable that those not fortunate enough to be in an occupational scheme and who are forced into the reserve scheme should enjoy that same kind of cross-subsidy?
      Mr. Dean: That is because the reserve pensions scheme is entirely different. The recognised occupational scheme or series of schemes is run by an employer for his employees. Therefore he can have a cross-subsidy within the arrangements. In the reserve pensions scheme there will be a large number of different employers contributing, many of them in competition with each other, and a large number of different employees contributing to the scheme. The only way to ensure value for money and an effective return for each individual in the reserve pensions scheme is by ensuring that there are not cross-subsidies and that the money purchase title arrangements are assured.
      Having put the points which were put so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale about obliging the employer in some way to make a contribution in this area, I go on to suggest the way in which the Government feel we can go further than is provided in the Bill at present. This, of course, was a matter which we discussed in Committee, and I undertook to return to it on Report with the Government's views on how best to approach the question of ensuring that members of contributory schemes were guaranteed in one way or another at least value for their contributions. One possibility I mentioned in Committee was a requirement for contributory schemes to give leaving members the option of a deferred annuity purchased with their contributions.
      Another approach would be to place a direct legal obligation on scheme trustees and managers to take steps to ensure that members received value for their contributions on leaving, without necessarily specifying whether they need increase the level of benefits preserved by the scheme in an appropriate manner, or arrange for insurance contracts to be bought. It seems reasonable that schemes might be excluded from such a requirement if they already provided value for the member's contributions in one way or another.
      Most money purchase schemes, for example, seem to fall into this category. There would be a strong prima facie case for excluding schemes which increased preserved benefits on an acceptable basis over the period between a member leaving and reaching pension age. I

      351
      should emphasise that this is a highly complex area in which we shall have to seek the views and advice of the Occupational Pensions Board. We shall need to make sure that any provision is sensible and workable. We must do all we can to ensure that employees are not worse off by having to accept a preserved pension worth less than a refund of their contributions. We are undertaking, under the powers in Schedule 14, to make suitable regulations which will cover this point.
      I hope that the House will feel that we have gone some way to meet the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South made. I hope he will feel that we have gone a good way along the road he wishes us to move by at least ensuring that the value of an individual's contributions will be available to him in one form or another.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend be so kind as to enlighten me? Does this mean that the Government's intention is to ensure that in no circumstances will the amount received by the man be less than the actuarial value of his assets in the fund?
      Mr. Dean: Yes. My hon. Friend is broadly right. We shall ensure that in no circumstances will an individual receive less than the value of his own contributions. I give this assurance to my hon. Friend and to the House. I hope that the House will feel that with this firm commitment, which will be embodied in regulations, we have not only made a major advance in the preservation of pension rights but we have here one of the most important and far-reaching features in the Bill.
      I am certain that, having laid down these minimum standards, we shall find in this area, as in others where the Bill lays down standards, that current practice will rapidly develop, and transfer-ability, where it is most appropriate, will grow following the good example now being set in the public service. I hope that the House will feel that this major advance, on which we are now proceeding somewhat further with the commitment I have given, is a satisfactory solution to the problem of preservation of pension rights which has been talked about for so long but on which so little action has been taken until now.
      Mr. O'Malley: I am sure that privately the Under-Secretary cannot expect the House to be satisfied with the present preservation arrangements as set out in the Bill. It is disappointing that after the major discussions in Committee no new proposals have come forward. All that the hon. Gentleman has been able to say, if I may paraphrase his remarks, is, first of all, that there are a number of new requirements being made as a result of the Bill. That is true, although those new requirements do not take us very far.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that there is a major advance on much current practice. The Bill brings us to the current practice, of which I should like to give an example—and a very unsatisfactory current practice it is. I have received a letter from a Mr. Richardson of King's Lynn, who expressed the wish that his case and his dispute with the National Westminster Bank should be used as an illustration in the debate. It is a very useful illustration. He writes:
      "I left the service of that bank, then the Westminster, 12 years ago and was told I had in cold storage a pension of £550 per annum to be drawn after I reached the age of 60. I do reach this age this year and have been in contact with that bank pointing out that inflation has in 12 years halved the purchasing power of the pension. In spite of record profits of £140 million last year, that bank has point-blank refused to do anything for me."
      That is not untypical of the behaviour of employers, major and minor, when they are preserving pensions. What the Minister is doing is to perpetuate that kind of situation. The basic weakness of the preservation arrangements made in the Bill is that there is no provision for pre-award dynamism, although the Minister admitted to a delegation from the National Federation of Professional Workers that such pre-award dynamism was very important and desirable. The Government have persistently, throughout all the discussions on the Bill, refused to introduce the concept into the preservation arrangements.
      The second thing the Government have failed to do, in spite of the debate in Committee, is to make firm proposals, which they should have been introducing and not leaving to the Occupational Pensions Board, about the future of clearing house arrangements. As a number of us
      354
      pointed out in Committee, there could well be people retiring half a century and more into the future who will have bits of non-dynamised preserved pensions scattered all over the country, with no adequate administrative arrangements to see that those payments are made or that the beneficiaries are traced, and certainly no arrangements for any investment of the deferred income of those beneficiaries to be used to provide an income to give some protection against the inflation about which the writer of the letter I have quoted has complained.
      The second comment I must make on the general question of preservation is that although hon. Members on both sides raised the matter of the early leaver the Government have done nothing to change the five-year qualification terms for a preserved pension. The National Union of Journalists lobbied Opposition Members, and I assume that it also lobbied Conservative Members, including Ministers, pointing out that its profession was not entirely untypical of many other professions in which if young men were to make a future for themselves they would work for perhaps 12 months, 18 months or two years for one employer and then move on to another. That must be the situation in many other professions, occupations and industries.
      Although we raised the matter with the Under-Secretary, nothing has been done to make the preservation arrangements more flexible to deal with the needs of such categories. The Government have done nothing to ease their passage into the reserve pension scheme. As the scheme is a money purchase scheme, the value of the pension eventually paid out depends not only on the amount of money paid into the scheme but on the age of the person concerned at the time specific sums are paid in and on the year in which such sums are paid in. It can be the case and it will be the case that quite large numbers of people who move after a couple of years, for example, in one job to another job in seeking promotion, with the ex-employer having no responsibility to provide a reserve pension and having to make no arrangements for transferability, will make payments into the State reserve pension scheme. As it is a money purchase scheme, such categories will have

      355
      a reduced pension because their contributions are being put in at a later date.
      10.30 p.m.
      It is inevitable, because the preservation requirements put forward by the Government are unsatisfactory, and in a mess which could have been resolved had the Government been prepared to consider the situation between Committee stage and Report stage, that we are obliged to consider any proposal or any new clause or amendment which would seek to give a greater degree of equitable treatment to the categories which I have mentioned or to improve the preservation arrangements and the facilities open to individuals to build up for themselves reasonable pension rights.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that I have some reservations about the formula which they have adopted. For example, if an employer is making a contribution of 5 per cent. to an occupational pension scheme-that should be regarded as deferred pay. The employer should not have an obligation to pay back to his ex-employee his contributions minus tax plus 25 per cent. rather than 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.—
      Sir B. Rhys Williams Sir B. Rhys Williams rose—
      Mr. O'Malley: That is part of the deferred pay of that ex-employee.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not fully read the new clause. It is intended that the employee, in the event of his exercising his option to take out the assets from the fund to purchase an annuity, should be given the actuarial value of his entitlement if that were the greater. That would cover the point which the hon. Gentleman is making.
      Mr. O'Malley: That may or may not cover the point. It could do so in the generality of circumstances. I have read the new clause and there is no guarantee that that would be the case. It is a sorry reflection on the structure being put forward by the Government that we must depend on individuals purchasing deferred annuities to provide decent pensions for themselves and for their families in retire-
      356
      ment. How much better were the comprehensive proposals put forward by the last Labour Government, which not only provided complete transferability for anyone who was paying into the State scheme but gave benefits of a magnitude and of a type which are unparalleled in the legislation which we are now considering
      I express reservations about the new clause because of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the preservation arrangements. My reservations are expressed only in that context. I recommend to my right hon. and hon Friends that if the two hon. Members who put down the new clause wish to put it to a Division on the basis that the present preservation arrangements are extremely unsatisfactory, they should vote for it merely to reflect their dissatisfaction with the arrangements.
      Mr. Marks: The Under-Secretary's reply confirmed my view that the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) was being naive when he quoted the Conservative Party's manifesto for 1970. To the hon. Gentleman, to myself, and to most people interested, the words,
      "And we will ensure that everyone can take their pension rights with them when they change their job",
      meant transferability, and that we have not got.
      The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said that there are more provisions for transferability of private pensions in this Bill than in the 1970 Bill. Of course there are. We had no need to worry about the private occupational pension schemes in the 1970 Bill, because there was a substantial National Superannuation Bill with full transferability, and many of the private and public service schemes were to reduce contributions and benefits, so that they were topping up the main scheme.
      The contributions to private schemes made by employees and employers are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. O'Malley) said, deferred wages. Not only the contributions made by employees, but those made by employers, are deferred wages, and they are taken into consideration when negotiations take place.

      357
      Transferability rights written into the Government's scheme are now written into public service schemes. If the private schemes are as good as we are led to believe, they ought to be written into them, too. I am sure that if the Government had said in the White Paper that transferability was necessary for acceptance by the board, the companies would have found some way of doing it.
      The whole purpose of the Bill is not to provide adequate pensions, but, as the Under-Secretary said, to maximise occupational pension schemes. We have not got transferability because of the opposition of private pensions interests. We have not even got what the hon. Member for Kensington, South is asking for.
      In January the National Association of Pensions Funds, despite pleas from some on its platform that the kind of thing for which the hon. Gentleman is asking was not possible, overwhelmingly voted in favour of such a scheme. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the new clause.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I hope to deal briefly, but fairly, with the points that have been made.
      First, I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way that they have dealt with the new clause and for some of the pleasant remarks they have made about my efforts, which I am sure I do not deserve.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) did not think that I intended any discourtesy when I said that he had not fully taken in the implications of the new clause. It would be premature to suggest that employees should be entitled in certain circumstances to take out more than their contributions, plus the minimum contributions that their employers might have made to the reserve scheme, and more even than the actuarial value of their own asset in the scheme. I should be chary about inviting the House to go so far as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, he was kind enough to welcome the new clause and to suggest that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides should support it. Therefore, I appreciate the general tenor of his remarks.
      358
      My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) made three or four serious points. He said that the Bill went further than the Crossman Bill. It goes further than that Bill when it began, but I recall that the long Committee stage, in which my hon. Friend played a notable part, ended with the Secretary of State accepting an amendment of mine, if my memory is right, which, unless I am much mistaken, meant that at the time that it died the Crossman Bill conferred transferability of pension rights. This little nugget of gold that went down with the coffin into the deep when the Bill was lost I have been unable to dredge up again, but I live in hope.
      My hon. Friend felt that there was a danger that a provision of the kind that I am suggesting would militate against the older man. I tried to show how it would be necessary for schemes to accommodate their funding methods to the implications in the new clause, but that it would not place a heavy burden on employers. I do not think that the young who leave, whom my hon. Friend felt would be getting an advantage, would be getting such a serious advantage in many schemes if they got only 2½ per cent. from their employers' contributions, bearing in mind that in many sound occupational pension schemes the employer will be putting in an average of 10 per cent. or even 15 per cent. on top of the employee's contribution of perhaps 5 per cent. A minimum overriding obligation for employers to pay out 2½ per cent. is not a very frightening commitment.
      Concerning the other horn of the option, if my hon. Friend is grumbling that the young employees who take out their actuarial rights would be robbing the scheme, he must be thinking of schemes which are not fully funded. My hon. Friend would not like to be known as the friend of the unfunded schemes. I hope that he will reconsider the points he was making.
      Concerning the question of requiring employees to make a complicated option, I quite appreciate the danger; but that was not my intention and it would not be the effect of the new clause. The option which the employee would exercise, as I understand it from the words on the

      359
      Notice Paper, is that of asking the trustees to purchase him a deferred annuity. The way in which they valued his asset would not be at the employee's option nor, indeed, at the trustees' option. They would have to buy for him a deferred annuity on whichever terms were the greater by the two methods of calculation.
      My hon. Friend also said that a clause of this kind would have a deterrent effect on occupational pension schemes. Nothing has happened since 1970, when we thought that transferability was right, to change the situation. If occupational pension schemes cannot introduce even this limited degree of protection—or will not do it—that is about the worst thing that we have heard concerning such schemes.
      I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks. I understand his reasons for caution. Certainly one wants to be cautious in making provisions which will affect many millions of people in regard to assets which are of great value. My hon. Friend the Minister is right in saying that preservation of pension rights is something which has been talked about for many years. But it has been talked about for many years too long. The time must come very soon when something is done about it.
      The Bill requires some preservation in that it prevents employees from taking out their own contributions in future. It would not be right to suggest that every employee who takes out his contributions is a reckless fool. It may well be that he is taking out his contributions in order to find the deposit for a new house, which probably would he his most precious asset when he eventually retires. He certainly would not have lost the value of his contributions for his retirement in that case.
      I pressed the Minister to say whether, by the provisions for protection which the Government intend to introduce into the Bill at a later stage, the actuarial value of the employee's asset would be protected, and his reply seems to be very much, "Yes, we have no bananas". Yes, it was the Government's intention; but, no, that would not be the actual effect of what the Government intended to do. In fact, all that the Government
      360
      intended to do was to give the trustees, who do not like keeping little fiddly bits of preserved pension on their books because of the cost, which is undeniable, a way of clearing them off and saying goodbye to the unsatisfactory early leaver.
      By his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister has not met my point. He made two other points, that the new clause might mean that the trustees would have to make a choice between doing more for the early leaver than for the older man, which might be to the disadvantage of the full-time member; and that it would be putting new requirements on employers. That is true. As I tried to explain in introducing the new clause, if one changes the law to the advantage of the beneficiaries, one is putting new burdens on someone. It would not be possible for employers altogether to shake off that burden. If they tried to do it, it could be that the older men would suffer. I believe that that would not be possible under the particular terms of the new clause, though it would be a matter possibly requiring further consideration. The extra burden that the new clause would place on employers is a relatively small one. We said that we would do it. Now is the time to do it.
      I have one or two further points to mention so that right hon. and hon. Members can perhaps see this proposal in focus. By the time a man has reached mid-career in the sort of occupational pension scheme which most people would regard as reasonably satisfactory, his asset in the scheme is likely to be worth considerably more than his house. To lose that when one changes one's job is a more serious matter than many people realise until they have lost their rights and it is too late. I know, too, from years of experience in personnel selection work that the fear of loss of pension rights seriously restricts job movement among senior men. If we do not do something about this, we are not acting in the national interest so far as industry is concerned.
      Most employers want something to be done about protection of pension rights, because a more fluid labour market is to the advantage of the active employer who wants to expand and recruit good men with useful experience. Employers have been hampered for years by the iniquitous

      361
      "mixed benefits" rule applied by the Inland Revenue, and I believe that they would seriously like the Government to grasp this nettle.
      The administrative cost of keeping little fiddly bits of preserved pension, as originally suggested in the Bill, is a serious potential burden for employers which they cannot want. Therefore, I believe that the House would be right to adopt something on the lines of the new clause. We would then be sending the Bill for
      consideration in another place with our own best idea of how transferability should be approached. I believe it would help the noble contributors to that debate to have something specific to chew on. I shall therefore ask the House to support me in pressing the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 168.

      Division No. 125.]

      AYES

      [10.47 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Gourlay, Harry

      Oakes, Gordon

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Ogden, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      O'Malley, Brian

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Baxter, William

      Hardy, Peter

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harpar, Joseph

      Palmer, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pardoe, John

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Booth, Albert

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Horam, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bradley, Tom

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Perry,Ernest G.

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Prescott, John

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Buchan, Norman

      Hunter, Adem

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

      Janner, Greville

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cant, R.B.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Judd, Frank

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Coleman, Donald

      Kinnock, Neil

      Silverman, Julius

      Concannon, J. D.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lamond, James

      Small, William

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lawson, George

      small, William

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Leonard, Dick

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Steel, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Loughlin, Charles

      Strang, Gavin

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Tinn, James

      Doig, Peter

      McBride, Neil

      Tope, Graham

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      McEihone, Frank

      Torney, Tom

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael

      Urwin, T. W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Machin, George

      Varley, Eric G.

      Dunn, James A.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Walnwright, Edwin

      Dunnett, Jack

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Walker, Harold Doncaster)

      Eadie, Alex

      McNamara, J Kevin

      Watkins, David

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Weitzman, David

      Ellis, Tom

      Marsden, F.

      Wellbeloved, James

      English, Michael

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Ewing, Harry

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mendelson, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Foot, Michael

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

      Woof, Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Molloy, William

      Forrester, John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Mr. Brandon Rhys-Williams

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Mr. Edmund Dell

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Biffen, John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Bainiel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Benyon, W.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Awdry, Daniel

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Raison, Timothy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Redmond, Robert

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

      James, David

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Buck, Antony

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Rost, Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Royle, Anthony

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Kimball, Marcus

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Churchill, W. S.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Knox, David

      Soref, Harold

      Cooke, Robert

      Lamont, Norman

      Speed, Keith

      Cordle, John

      Lane, David

      Sproat, lain

      Cormack, Patrick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Critchley, Julian

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Crowder, F. P

      Loveridge, John

      Sutcliffe, John

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

      MacArthur, Ian

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Dean, Paul

      McLaren, Martin

      Taylor, Edward M.(Ggow,Cathcart)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

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

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Temple, John M.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Madel, David

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Farr, John

      Maude, Angus

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Fortescue, Tim

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Foster, Sir John

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

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Fowler, Norman

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

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

      Monro, Hector

      Waddington, David

      Fry, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      More, Jasper

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wall, Patrick

      Gower, Raymond

      Morrison, Charles

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mudd, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gray, Hamish

      Murton, Oscar

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Green, Alan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Neave, Airey

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Grylls, Michael

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wilkinson, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Woodnult, Mark

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Percival, Ian

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Younger, Hn. George

      Havers, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hiley, Joseph

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Mr Marcus Fox and

      Hordern, Peter

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Mr. Paul Hawkins.

      Hornby, Richard

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 9

      INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE
      (1) A person shall be entitled to an invalid care allowance if he satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain and has been obliged to give UD his employment and continues to be unable to take up employment because he has to care for an elderly or infirm person with whom he resides at the time of giving up employment and has so resided for a minimum uninterrupted period of six months immediately preceding giving up employment; and the weekly rate of the invalid care allowance shall be at the curent basic rate payable as unemployment benefit so long as he satisfies the pre scribed conditions.
      (2) Schedule 7 Part III which relates to the powers of the Attendance Allowance Board with regard to determination of ques-
      364
      tions arising in connection with claims for the attendance allowance and to reviews of determination and appeals therefrom shall apply with regard to claims for the invalid care allowance.
      (3) During such period as the invalid care allowance is payable to a person he shall be credited with Class 1 contributions.—[Mrs. Joyce Butler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Although the clause is fairly long, it is straightforward and does not need very much explanation. Its aim is to base what is called an invalid care allowance largely on the lines of the attendance allowance for the severely disabled. It is aimed at providing some security for those who give up employment to care

      365
      for elderly or infirm relatives. Those who do so are usually women, though not always, and very often they are single women who are totally dependent on outside employment for their livelihood.
      I stress that my concern is not confined to women. There are some men who have to do this in order to care for elderly or infirm relatives. I shall concentrate my remarks almost entirely upon the position of women, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will cover the wider area.
      Too often, women are the forgotten people of the community. The estimate is that there are well over 300,000 single women who have elderly or infirm dependants at home. Many of these women can and do continue to work outside the home for a considerable time, although their position becomes increasingly strained as they try to do the double job of caring for their elderly or infirm dependents and doing their jobs outside the home. But the position becomes quite impossible when, as so often happens, the elderly relative gets progressively worse and the single woman is forced to give up employment to care properly for that elderly relative.
      The period of having to leave paid employment in order to do this may go for a long time. It may be as much as 20 or 30 years, and it is a great sacrifice on the part of the person concerned. At present, there is no kind of benefit which she can claim as of right to replace the earnings that she gives up. She may be able to claim means-tested benefit. In 1970 about 8,000 single women with old or sick relatives received supplementary benefit in this way. The numbers are not large, and we have to remember that everyone who benefits from the allowance provided in the clause automatically relieves the community of the expense of caring in some other way for the infirm or elderly relative.
      11.0 p.m.
      Many people who look after infirm or elderly relatives are the most deserving people in the community. That is why I am grateful, as a newcomer to the debates on the Bill, to have this opportunity of putting their case to the House. These people practise the compassion and care which we so often talk about. They are saving the community a vast amount
      366
      of money, and they are shabbily treated. One of them wrote to the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants in these terms:
      "For some long time I have said my piece about the unfairness to daughters who give up careers to care for parents especially when they have to pay the full rate for national health insurance stamps and are taxed on the money saved and now on their pensions. I gave up my career and did just this for 30 years, by which time I was too old to return to a full-time job, but I would do exactly the same again for the joy of knowing my parents were happy in their ageing years. I support your efforts in the hope that any daughter caring for her dependants in future will be free of money worries, if only for the amount she saves the country in hospitalisation and the joy of knowing the old are happy."
      Many people would echo those sentiments, but what are we doing about it in a practical way?
      Those who undertake this service should have a monetary payment as of right, and that is the object of subsection (1). Not only does the immediate financial problem of women in this situation need to be covered, but there is the fact that their retirement may be in jeopardy.
      I understand that assurances have been given to the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants that the cost of the class III insurance stamp will continue to be claimable as an additional discretionary supplementary benefit. The maintenance of these payments gives an entitlement only to the flat-rate State retirement pension. To many single women savings are particularly important. They often have a little nest egg and cannot claim supplementary benefit because their savings are too large to be disregarded for benefit. When that happens they cease to make insurance contributions because they cannot afford to do so. So their entitlement to the flat-rate State pension is at risk if they have not achieved enough contributions to qualify.
      I have here a letter from a single woman of 43 who had to give up work nearly 15 years ago to care for her mother. She was exempted from insurance contributions and was told that this would be all right so long as she started paying again 10 years before her pension was due. She has now learned otherwise and has been informed that she will lose a lot of benefit through not making

      367
      insurance contributions for all these years. She is living on social security of £6·50 a week and her mother's pension of £8.15. She writes:
      "I am afraid I do not feel I can afford a stamp each week out of this income."
      So this lady is one of the people who will lose out because she cannot keep up her insurance contributions. Another lady retired last December. She has only £5.45 pension plus whatever social security will allow her because she lost several years' contributions when she gave up work to care for her elderly father.
      These are typical of a whole host of cases of this kind where women have been suffering in this way. We also have to bear in mind that, by giving up work, the single woman's contributions to the occupational scheme, if there is such a scheme, where she worked, or to the reserve scheme, will cease, so that again her expectations of pension may be substantially reduced, if not entirely lost.
      Again, her entitlement to sickness and unemployment benefit—particularly important to the single woman—will cease if she stays at home for long periods and ceases to make class I contributions. So subsection (3) of the new clause provides for anyone receiving the proposed invalid care allowance to be credited with class I contributions in order to preserve her entitlement to the fullest possible benefits. Amendment No. 146 is consequential.
      The National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, which has been campaigning strongly on behalf of these women for a considerable time, has received shoals of letters and many personal calls from women who are worried sick about their present financial position and what is going to happen to them in the future.
      I think we are a nation of hypocrites in our attitude to the home care of the elderly. We continually bemoan the fact that younger people do not shoulder the burden of caring for elderly parents at home—and it can be a considerable burden—but when they do it we leave them to struggle with what are sometimes nearly intolerable conditions with a very sick person, without giving them the
      368
      security to which what they are doing entitles them.
      Then, on top of all that, when perhaps the parent has died and the single woman is left on her own and becomes elderly in turn, she suffers in the amount of pension she can draw, because again we have not provided adequately for her pension requirements.
      New Clause 9 is an attempt to meet that need—to give these women a very small amount of security while they are caring for the invalid, and some better security when they themselves retire. Because of this, and because they are such a small and such a deserving group, I hope that the House will support new Clause 9.
      Mr. Marcus Worsley: I wish to support what the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) said. The case she has outlined constitutes one of the major gaps in our social provision. In subsequent debates on Report we shall no doubt cover others. The hon. Lady did right to bring this case forward and to speak of the work done by the organisation she mentioned.
      Like the other gaps in our social provision, the difficulty is that people in this situation are so often forced on to supplementary benefit and therefore have to give up work. A single person— usually it is a single woman who is concerned—ought to be helped if possible to continue at least in part-time employment to help the finances of the family. It is just as important to help her to get out into the community to see a bit of life and keep her self-respect and her ability to earn her living when the relative she has been helping dies.
      Often she can work part time because the relative can go to a day centre. The one in my constituency does a first-class job, helping the younger relative to get out not only to do shopping but to do part-time work. In the present position it is extraordinarily difficult for the single woman to do a part-time job. It will not provide a full living and she is likely to be forced on to supplementary benefit. Then she is unable to work because of the rule about earnings.
      Some payment is needed to enable her to keep the household going with her elderly relative in it and which will not

      369
      be taken from her if she does part-time work. The change in the rules for contributions to the National Insurance Scheme help because, if the contribution is graduated then even on a low income a claim can be made, but that is not so on the flat rate. The new system is a very considerable help, but it does not go far enough. We must look for a method of paying to a woman in these circumstances an income such as the hon. Lady has suggested but which will not be taken away when the person concerned does part-time work.
      Mr. Alec Jones: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on this new clause and Amendment No. 146. The idea of an invalid care allowance has been advocated by many people for a long time. The idea is that it should be a similar type of benefit as unemployment benefit and roughly equivalent to it. That seems a reasonable way of dealing with these people who are doing society's work for society. Most of them are giving up their prospects to look after the elderly and infirm.
      In most cases they are single daughters of elderly parents, but they are not the only ones. In my constituency there are examples of other relatives, including men, who have been forced to give up work so that they can look after invalid and infirm members of their families. In one case, which is carrying charity to considerable lengths, a friend of an invalid has given up work to look after that person.
      These people do this for a variety of reasons and they perform a most valuable social service on our behalf. On purely economic grounds we should look favourably on this proposal, for these people save considerable sums of public money. If they were not doing this work the only solution would be for the elderly and infirm to go into hospitals or other institutions. In some cases the service these people perform is better than the type of service provided in the public sector because it is more personal and fits in better with the requirements of the elderly or infirm person.
      11.15 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green was right to emphasise that these
      370
      people make considerable sacrifices, not only now but for the future. It is not only a question of giving up current income, which can be a great burden, but in many cases they give up any future career prospects they might have. Under present regulations they give up almost completely any hope of an adequate retirement pension. It also means that, because they are not making contributions to our national insurance scheme, at some later date they lose their entitlement to unemployment or sickness benefit.
      Because of the service they have given to elderly people over 20 or more years these are the very people most likely to go down with sickness. We shall probably be told that there is great sympathy and understanding for these people. I am not disparaging the Minister. He will undoubtedly remind us that they can apply for supplementary benefit. This is missing the point. Such benefit is means-tested whereas these people deserve help as of right. Supplementary benefit is not granted in many cases. It can be disallowed for a variety of reasons.
      The attendance allowance has helped in some cases. I am sure that everyone is aware of many cases which deserve some sort of attendance allowance but which, because of present regulations, cannot get it. I know of one case where a daughter gave up work to look after her invalid mother. Supplementary benefit was refused because the father is considered to earn sufficient to maintain the 26-year-old daughter. This means that the daughter, who has given up not only her income but her career prospects, has to go to the father for every penny she requires for personal use. This treatment leads to deception.
      There is another way round. Instead of the daughter giving up work the father could do so. This is what tends to happen. The father gives up work to look after his wife and makes a claim for sickness or unemployment benefit which we pay out for himself and his wife. I do not believe that this type of deception is desirable. We should as of right provide adequate recompense for these people who willingly perform this service to the elderly and infirm on our behalf, thereby saving us a good deal of money.
      Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for tabling this new clause. I suggest to the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends that it is an important one which needs careful examination for a number of reasons. The clause is designed to fill a gap which has long existed in our social service system.
      For many years I have supported the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. It was started a long time ago by the Rev. Mary Webster. Many hon. Members on both sides have supported this organisation in the belief that sooner or later we would be able to deal with this situation. The moment has now arrived, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the other Ministers must not look at the new clause in any other way than with that fact in mind. We have been grateful to my right hon. Friend who has been helpful over the years because he has recognised the importance of this problem.
      There is no reason why we should talk about supplementary benefit or anything like it, because the point has been recognised by my party and by the Opposition and we have all waited for a long time in the belief that when the time came we should be able to deal with the matter properly. The time has now arrived, and it would be most upsetting if we could not now arrive at a means of helping the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants to fill this gap.
      The council has been growing for a long time. I remember listening to the Rev. Mary Webster. She spoke to the nursing profession, who know of this need and supported her ideas. There is also the Red Cross, and in my part of the world new organisations are being formed to support the National Council. We have worked and argued, and now the time has come for us to hear from the Ministers, in whom I have great faith.
      We all have experiences and knowledge in talking about this problem. The Secretary of State has always encouraged us, and I am a politician who believes that when something has had all-party support at a high level and the time comes, action is expected. The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea
      372
      (Mr. Worsley) are right. For a long time there has not been a Government Department which has been particularly interested in the problem. I have said many times that when young women and perhaps middle-aged women stay at home to look after relatives, local authorities, when they allocate houses, should ensure that persons looking after an elderly relative at least have a single room of their own. Housing authorities have not been interested. The pattern is set by the way houses are allocated by the local authority.
      Sometimes one can talk until one is blue in the face because authorities will not alter that pattern. The same applies with supplementary benefit. One can talk until one is blue in the face, but supplementary benefit people have their own ideas—and are entitled to them. They have never understood this problem. That was why the Rev. Mary Webster took this up and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) supported her case. The organisation has had Government support, because the Government knew perfectly well that the gap existed. It would sometimes be difficult for any Secretary of State to alter the attitude of duly-elected councillors or those concerned with supplementary benefit, but now the Government have the opportunity to set their seal on what they think is proper.
      I do not know the possible cost. I do not think that my right hon. Friend has ever asked, in spite of all the help he has given, for which we have always been very grateful. Plenty of Members of the other place have also supported the organisation. I do not think that there is a proper appreciation of what is necessary or the assessment of what the cost will be has ever been called for or presented. It may well be that the Department has all the facts. I hope that it has, and that it is prepared to act on them generously.
      Something must be done. If my right hon. Friend cannot give a satisfactory answer tonight, I beg him to say that he accepts the basic position stated by the hon. Lady. I am expecting a good answer. If we cannot have one that is cut and dried, I hope that my right hon. Friend will go into the matter in great detail so that it can be dealt with in another place.

      373
      There are some things that I do not agree with in the Bill, but I know that in this big world there are many difficulties to be faced, and I say to myself that I do not know enough about some matters. I have confidence in my Government, and therefore I vote for them on those questions. But I think that I know, and those that have spoken know, something about this matter. We know that the gap exists, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and if he wants to argue with the Treasury I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would disagree, because I am certain that his wife would support the national council.
      I wrote to the council to ask it to let me know whether there was anything it particularly wanted to have raised. In spite of the pressures that are exerted, quite rightly, on all sort of other aspects of the Bill, I had a simple letter back saying that the council's requirements were known and that it would be very grateful for anything we could do. It is very nice that the hon. Lady has produced the new clause.
      I do not need to encourage my right hon. Friend, because I know how much he minds about the matter. I hope that in answering the debate Ministers will realise that they are dealing with something on which we have all wanted action for a long time. Let us not miss opportunities. If they are missed, they often do not recur.
      I will not tell the House everything that has been done by my right hon. Friend to help us, but he has done a great deal. Therefore, it must be a great pleasure to him to know that the council has worked all these years. The country knows the work that is done. I hope for a satisfactory reply, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not let us down.
      11.30 a.m.
      Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I rise to add my support to the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). What we all welcome so much is that this is an effort to put forward a practical proposal for helping in what, for a long time, has been a real and distressing problem. It has always been difficult to formulate a proposal in reasonably satis-
      374
      factory terms, but I think that this is a sensible and practical proposal which stands up to examination.
      I am sure that among our constituents we all have examples of the kind of problem raised by my hon. Friend. I have in my constituency examples of the more common situation of the young woman who has taken on the responsibility of caring for her parents and over the years has gradually aged herself in helping to look after them. In one case the daughter has done as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) suggested. She has been able both to help her parents at a new centre that has been established and to help many others. It has all been voluntary work. She has undoubtedly derived a great deal of joy from that, but she has also sought to campaign for others and in a sense help rescue them from the difficulties that can so clearly arise.
      I have in mind another case of a rather different character, where the husband has given up work in order to take over the responsibility of caring for his wife. After his daughter married, he considerately and properly tried to ensure that her life was not impeded in any way. He has made a considerable sacrifice in giving up his work earlier than he would normally have done, and he has sacrificed other rights which he would have obtained. One sees, therefore, that there are also men who undertake this duty, as they undoubtedly and properly feel it to be.
      There are plenty of difficulties in trying to work out a scheme of this sort, and this modest proposal is to be commended. It seems to meet the problems which arise in a large number of cases, and I therefore join others in hoping that the Minister will accede to this request and agree to work out this scheme, or something very like it.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I support the new clause introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). In fact, I made almost the same point as reported at columns 312 and 313 of the Second Reading debate on behalf of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. There is a tremendous strain on those who look after elderly relatives, however much one loves them, even where adequate resources are available.

      375
      I remember vividly what happened when a day centre was opened in my constituency. The matron rang a daughter who had been looking after her mother for 14 years and asked, "What are you doing with your half-day off?", to which the daughter replied "I am just sitting here and doing absolutely nothing".
      If one adds to the strain of looking after a relative the strain of the lack of funds—not only at the time but the prospective lack of funds when the loved one has passed on—one realises that it is too much of a burden to ask any woman—or man, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said—to bear. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), I think that it is important that such women should be able to keep up outside contacts and an outside job. Many of them feel that it is a little frivolous to keep up outside friends and engagements but they would not hesitate, if they could do so, to keep up a part-time job and the contacts that would go with it. However, they can do that only if their part-time earnings are supplemented by an allowance of the kind which we are discussing.
      I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully and introduce amendments accordingly at a later stage.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). Purely by coincidence I put down a Question on the Order Paper today asking about this matter. Unfortunately it was not reached. In fact, I was referred to two Questions which had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) on 30th March. On that day the Secretary of State replied:
      " I have no proposals on these points."
      That seemed fairly definite. I hope that he will tell us tonight that since 30th March he has developed a few proposals. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
      "Under existing arrangements, the attendant may of course qualify for supplementary benefit, and in the case of a single woman this can cover the cost of her (non-employed) contribution for retirement pension purposes."
      376
      Of course, it is by no means certain that quite a lot of these people will qualify for supplementary benefit. That is the position for a variety of reasons. It is also by no means certain that if they qualify for supplementary benefit they will automatically have paid their supplementary benefit class III contributions. That happens on the majority of occasions but it is not automatic.
      All hon. Members can bring individual cases to mind. There have been several in my constituency—teachers in particular, although not exclusively—who have given up 20 years' of their lives, often the best years of their lives, to look after aged parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) said, such people save the country an awful lot of money. Many parents would otherwise have to be put in local authority homes or would have to occupy valuable geriatric beds in hospitals. Therefore, these people do valuable social work in keeping down costs.
      Many of the things which have been said so far apply to men. I know of two or three cases where men in their 50s have had to give up their employment to look after a sick wife. I know of the tragic case of a man who had reason to give up his job at the age of 51 to look after his sick wife. He felt that it was his duty to do so. There were no relatives, no children and no one else who could help. He did that for two years. During that time he lost a lot of his pension entitlement. At the end of the two years his wife unfortunately died. At the age of 52 he then had to try to find a job. That is difficult enough, but he found that he had lost a lot of benefits. He was forced to apply for supplementary benefit and has had to continue to receive such benefit.
      I have always held the view that supplementary benefit should be used only to deal with those who could not be dealt with in other ways. There are many people in this category. Many men and women give up their jobs—very often good jobs such as teachers—to look after their aged and infirm parents. The Minister replied on 30th March:
      "The number of people who have had to give up work to act as attendants is uncertain, and no reliable estimate can be made of the cost of the changes suggested."

      377
      Inquiries have recently been made to find out who are the disabled in our community. It should not be difficult to find out how many people have given up their jobs to look after aged relatives and what the cost would be. To put it in crude economic terms, I suspect that it would be cheaper to pay a regular allowance and to continue with the class I contributions during the period when such people are looking after aged parents or relatives than to allow those elderly people to go into homes or, not having continued with contributions and therefore not being entitled to full pensions, make it necessary for those who have been looking after aged relatives to apply for supplementary benefit.
      This process rolls on. Those who have been looking after aged relatives, when they reach 60 years of age and retire, will often find that their pensions are smaller than normal pensions, so they in turn will have to apply for supplementary benefit. It is a self-inducing process which goes on and on.
      I hope that we shall hear from the Minister more than what was said on 30th March:
      "I have no proposals on these points."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 423.]
      If he does not give a sympathetic reply, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green will press the new clause to a division.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: This debate has been distinguished by the fact that there has been no criticism of the new clause from either side of the House. Hon. Members opposite have been as fulsome as my hon. Friends in their support for the principle at stake here.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on the content as well as the manner of her submission in support of this important new clause. She always speaks with great authority on these matters, her authority being based on a keen personal commitment to people in special need, and she has put forward a powerful argument for the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), like his hon. Friends, recognises that there is a compelling argument in favour of this proposal. The hon.
      378
      Gentleman knows the importance of the principle argued by my hon. Friend to single women who are looking after elderly, usually disabled, parents and that we cannot begin to cost this proposition.
      The Under-Secretary of State may say that that is the weakness of the proposition and that we ought to know how much the new clause would cost to public funds.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It would save money.
      Mr. Morris: Indeed, there are many who would argue that acceptance of the new clause would save money. Many organisations, not least the women's organisations, would rejoice if the new clause were accepted and enacted. Many organisations representing disabled people would be glad if the Undersecretary accepted my hon. Friend's proposition.
      The new clause says
      "A person shall be entitled to an invalid care allowance if he … has been obliged to give up his employment … to care for an elderly or infirm person with whom he resides at the time of giving up employment."
      11.45 p.m.
      I direct the Under-Secretary's attention to a very important case that has been put to me recently. Two disabled people, Gerald and Kathleen Turner, live together. Both of them are spastics. Mrs. Turner puts their problem like this:
      "Gerald and I may share the same table, but we cannot share each other's shoes."
      Life is certainly a struggle for the Turners. They have to struggle against disability, bureaucracy and extreme poverty. Gerald Turner, aged 41, is severely disabled. Kathleen, his wife, aged 42, is a much less severely disabled spastic. They live on the thirteenth floor of a block of high-rise flats in London.
      Before she was married, Kathleen used to earn £19·20 a week as the supervisor in a dress firm's cutting rooms. She qualified for £3·75 earnings-related supplement. She says that because of trade union activity her husband used to receive a 35p allowance for shoe leather because of his disability. Last December Kathleen gave up work to look after the home and her husband. Now they live on £10·90 national insurance benefit, made

      379
      up to £14·65 with earnings-related supplement. The 35p for shoe leather stopped when Kathleen stopped work.
      Gerald has qualified for no income at all since he left the institution where he was living before he married Kathleen. Kathleen says,
      "This was a great blow because we thought he would get something. After all, it would cost £1,000 a year if he was in a home I do not think £5 a week would have been unreasonable."
      The income of this couple is £14 a week. They are living in central London. They are saving the community a great deal of money because one of them who used to live in an institution is now receiving home care.
      This case demonstrates the failure of central Government to carry out the kind of studies of cost-effectiveness that ought to be undertaken if we are to have meaningful discussions about the cost of accepting changes such a that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green. She has spoken of those who save the public money by allowing their elderly relatives the dignified care which can be provided by living at home.
      It was an hon. Member on the Government side of the House who nodded when my hon. Friend said that many are hypocrites in these debates. They ask for community care as against institutional care, but they fail to put their money where their sentiments lie. The Government will advance the possibilities of home care if they will look sympathetically at new clauses such as this.
      I acknowledge the powerful sincerity of those Conservative Members who have spoken for the new clause. There will be no objection from this side of the House if the Minister accepts the new clause. In fact, many hon. Members on both sides will feel an obligation to support it in the Lobby.
      Mrs. Joyce Butler: Perhaps that will not be necessary.
      Mr. Morris: I hope that my hon. Friend is right, in which case we shall congratulate the Minister. I hope that he will respond sympathetically to the arguments. There will be no opposition from this side if, in a spirit of generosity and, I would say, of sound business sense, he accepts the new clause.
      Mr. Dean: A debate on a subject like this is bound to strike a chord with every hon. Member, and I am sure that we are all very grateful to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for drawing attention to it. We all recognise the enormous care and devotion which many single people—usually women, but sometimes men—give to their elderly relatives. What is involved is not only devotion and care but the personal sacrifice which they willingly make—which can be financial, in their jobs, and, for want of a better word, can affect their "status" through being so tied down.
      This sacrifice does not obtain only while they are looking after their relatives, but continues throughout the rest of their lives. It can create problems for the men and women themselves when they reach retirement age.
      I am glad, too, that tribute has been paid to the work which has been done by the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants in drawing attention to this problem and putting practical proposals before us.
      We have made a slow start in this country in regard to those who are disabled themselves and those who look after them. In recent years, on a non-party political basis, we have been trying to make up for that slow start, but because of it many gaps remain to be filled. My hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) have referred to the problem of the single woman looking after aged dependants and to the absence of an allowance for her as one of the major gaps in our social security arrangements. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) has spoken of the valuable social services being provided by these people for their relatives, and all of us know from our constituency experience how enormously valuable these services are. When we talk about social services we so often think about services provided by the State, by the local authority or by voluntary organisations. But much of the social services, indeed, probably the largest part, are provided within families by members of those families and this is one good example of it.

      381
      My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) also drew attention to the importance of employment, possibly of part-time employment, for people who are caring for their relatives so that they can maintain contact with the outside world and all that goes with it. The message which has come so clearly from the debate is not whether we should be doing something, but how we should do it. The Government recognise that and share that feeling.
      The national council has helped us in trying to assess the size of the problem, but it is not easy to assess just how many people we are talking about. There are some 300,000 single women living with parents of pensionable age, and a rather larger number of single men in this position. In most of these cases, fortunately, the parents are in good health and are able to play their part in the household. The children are therefore able to take full-time employment.
      A better definition of the numbers involved is probably the Supplementary Benefits Commission's record to show that about 14,000 people are receiving supplementary allowance because they are caring for a relative. About 10,000 of these are single women. What is being done to help them? Here again it is difficult to be precise because we are dealing with a great variety of cases such as married men with sick or disabled wives, wives with sick husbands, single parents with children needing care, and others. The circumstances differ greatly, both of those who are in need of care and those who are actually caring.
      The supporting services provided by local authorities are an important aspect of this and they are being substantially improved with direct help from the Government. The new attendance allowance is bringing valuable help to many people who are receiving care and attention of the kind we are discussing. About 90,000 allowances are now in payment and the allowance is being extended to a further group of people who will probably number a quarter of a million or so.
      It can be seen that in many of these hard-pressed households there is now an additional allowance, helping with the household expenses, which was not available previously. Help is available in some cases from supplementary benefits.
      382
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) drew attention to that. Not only financial help can be made available here. In some cases, though not all, the single woman can have included in her allowance the cost of the non-employed national insurance contribution, which enables her to preserve entitlement to the retirement pension.
      The Bill also gives some additional help, though no more than a modest addition, to people in this category. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea referred to the somewhat easier contribution conditions for benefits in the basic scheme, especially for the retirement pension. The fact that those who are on a comparatively low level of earnings will pay less in earnings-related contributions than now is a help. The fact that the contribution conditions enable people to have a gap in their contribution records under the new arrangements without losing entitlement to the full rate of pension will be of considerable help to quite a number of women in the categories of which we are speaking. There is also the extension of occupational pension cover and the compulsory preservation of occupational pension rights.
      All these will help the woman who has to give up employment before the retirement age both to maintain her contribution record for a full pension in the basic scheme and also to be able to maintain the rights which she has built up for a second pension in her occupational scheme and which will be preserved for her. These are all ways in which there is modest additional help under the Bill.
      12 midnight.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea made a special plea for greater help for those who wish to continue in part-time work. He made the point that the supplementary benefit arrangements are not satisfactory because the amount which can be earned without loss of benefit does not fill the need. I assure my hon. Friend that this is one of many aspects that we are now considering. As we study the experience of some European countries we see there is little doubt that they have managed in a way in which so far we have not to combine a social security benefit which caters for part of the subsistence needs of a person with

      383
      part-time earnings which cater for the other part. They have managed to combine the two without running into the difficulties and disadvantages which exist in our present arrangements. This is an area which we are actively considering what has been done in Europe and ways in which we may be able to develop.
      Mr. John Wells: As I understand it, one of the biggest problems of the would-be part-time earner is getting part-time employment. The willing employer finds the overheads of providing such employment quite ridiculous. Cannot my hon. Friend look far more closely at continental patterns? Our present system is a complete bugbear to the willing employer and the willing employee. The jobs are there and the employees are there, but the two do not marry up because of the stamp and the overheads.
      Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. It reminds me that I should have said a little more about the help that the new scheme will provide. One of the difficulties which have discouraged employers from providing part-time employment under existing arrangements is that they have to pay full national insurance contributions, and they are reluctant to do so in the circumstances. Under the new arrangements the contribution that an employer will pay will be directly related to the earnings of the person concerned. Therefore the employer of someone on a low level of earnings will have to pay a comparatively modest level of contribution. My hon. Friend has made a valuable comment in pointing out that one discouragement in the present system will be to some extent removed or diminished under the proposals in the Bill.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the part-time earner will get the same benefits on retirement as those who pay the full contribution even though the employer has made a smaller contribution?
      Mr. Dean: That is broadly it. The contributions of the employer and the employee will be based on the earnings of the person concerned. Provided that he has fulfilled the contribution condi-
      384
      tions, when he retires or comes on to short-term benefit he will be entitled to the full rate of benefit irrespective of the amount paid.
      I do not want to pick holes in the new clause because I realise that the hon. Member for Wood Green primarily wished to debate the subject she raised. She will realise that the awkward question of precisely who should qualify for the allowance is left either to be prescribed in regulations or to be administered by the Attendance Allowance Board. It is these difficulties of definition that tend to hold up progress.
      On the possibility of the board being able to administer the new allowances and to adjudicate who is entitled to it, at the moment the board is working flat out—and will be for some months ahead —on getting into payment the attendance allowances which are now being made available to the working age group and will shortly be available to children and then to the elderly. We cannot expect the board to take on an additional load without holding up the extension of the attendance allowance.
      Apart from that, there is a great deal of difference between dealing with medical questions of need for attendance, which is primarily the board's job, and dealing with social or personal questions of the range of people which should be providing the attendance and the impact of it on those people. We should have to find another way of making the assessments, and that would not be easy.
      We recognise the powerful plea which has been made for progress towards what is described in the clause as an invalid care allowance. A great deal of progress has been made in the last three years in dealing with the problems of the disabled, but the Government have always said that there is a great deal more to be done. We are anxious to proceed as far as we can in as many directions as possible to meet priority needs. The focus at present is on the disabled, but we cannot divorce the disabled from those who care for them.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Minister referred to the contributions paid by part-timers. Surely people earning less than £8 a week—as would be most single women in part-time employment who

      385
      look after dependants—do not qualify for all the benefits under class I contributions?
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a lower limit, and there always has been, at which contributions become compulsory. On the other hand, if people wish to pay on a voluntary basis, if able to do so, it is possible for them to do so. Of course, many of the people working part time are above the level and therefore contribute.
      A great deal has been done in recent times, but we recognise that a great deal remains to be done. We intend to press on with our plans. We intend to continue to seek the experience of the European countries which, in some ways, are in advance of ourselves. In other words, our ears and our minds are open to all proposals, and we shall consider carefully the powerful arguments put tonight.
      Mr. Meacher: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's intention to promote the aim at least of the new clause, would not he agree that it is hardly conducive to that aim that women who have these responsibilities will be excluded from the tax credit scheme and that the existing personal tax allowance which they get will be eradicated if the tax credit proposals now being put forward are implemented? Is that assisting the aim in the rather glib way in which the hon. Gentleman is saying it?
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is prejudging a very important issue. One of the purposes of the Select Committee considering the tax credit proposals is to consider matters such as that. When it reports, the Government will consider its recommendations along with the thoughts and discussions going on at present. The hon. Gentleman is prejudging both the consideration of the Government and the consideration of the Select Committee by automatically assuming that there is to be no help through the tax credit proposals for the
      people we are concerned with in the new clause.
      I hope the House will feel, in view of what I have said, and, I hope, the sympathetic and open-minded way in which I have approached the new clause, that a real problem of definitions and seeing our way forward exists—a problem, which, as I think the hon. Lady freely admits, is not solved in the new clause. I hope the House will accept that the Government are genuine in what they say about their desire to progress in provision not only for those who are disabled but for those who care for them, and that our record over the last three years will carry force when we speak about the progress we firmly intend to make in future.
      Mrs. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has been so very sympathetic that it is difficult to resist his blandishments. I am impressed by two things. First, during the debate all those who took part supported the principle of the new clause and of an invalid care allowance, and did so knowing of the improvements in the Bill and in the other ways to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Therefore, I do not feel, although he has put his case in such a sympathetic and understanding way, that he has added to our knowledge of the subject or has changed the attitude of those of us who have supported the case for an invalid care allowance.
      The important point is not whether the new clause is drafted as it should be—it would have been better, no doubt, if it had been drafted perfectly—but the principle it enshrines. I would like to see the principle added to the Bill at this stage so that, at a later stage, the new clause could be refined and improved and made more workable. I would still like to support the new clause and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will join me in doing so.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 151.

      Division No. 126.]

      AYES

      [12.15 p.m.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Ashlon, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Coleman, Donald

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cant, R. B.

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Carmichael, Neil

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

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

      Carter-Jones. Lewis (Eccies)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whilehaven)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Judd, Frank

      Perry, Earnest G.

      Davies, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prescott, John

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirligshire, E.)

      Lawson, George

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Duffy, A.E.P.

      Leonard, Dick

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Ellis, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      English, Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bardford, E.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Small, William

      Ewing, Harry

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McBride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McElhoe, Frank

      Sprigs, Leslie

      Foot, Michael

      McGuire, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Ford, Ben

      Machin, George

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

      Forrester, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tinn, James

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mcnamara, J. Kevin

      Torney, Tom

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Varley, Eric G.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Meacher, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Watkins, David

      Hardly, Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Millam, Bruce

      Horam, John

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Molloy, William

      Whitehead, Philip

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, Wlexande (Hamilton)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Woof, Robert

      Hunter, Adam

      Oakes, Gordon

      Janner, Greville

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      John, Brynmor

      O'Malley, Brain

      Mr. James AS. Dunn and

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Mr. Joseph Harper

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Molyneaux, James

      Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Money, Ernie

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Gower, Raymond

      Monks, Mrs. Connis

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Monro, Hector

      Baker, W.H.K. (Banff)

      Gray, Hamish

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Green, Alan

      More, Jasper

      Bannett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Burry St. Edmunds)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Benyon, W.

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Charles

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Mudd, David

      Biffen, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Murton, Oscar

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Neave, Airey

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Havers, Michael

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hiley, Joseph

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Horden, Peter

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hornby, Richard

      Parkinson, Cecil

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

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Percival, lan

      Buck, Antony

      Hunt, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Carlisle, Mark

      James, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Campman, Sydney

      Chatway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Jopling, Michael

      Redmond, Robert

      Christopher-Clark, R.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Churchill, W.S.

      Cooke, Robert

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Cordle, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Barndon

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Ronerts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Critchley, Julian

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Crowder, F.P.

      Kinsey, J.R.

      Rost, Peter

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

      Royle, Anthony

      Lamont, Norman

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Dean, Paul

      Lane, David

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

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Landford-Holt, Sir John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Loveridge, John

      Soref, Harold

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacArthur, lan

      Speed, Keith

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McLaren, Martin

      Sproat, lain

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Mclaren, Martin

      Sproat, lain

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

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffery (Belper)

      Eyre, Riginal

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Fisher, Reginald

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Fletcjer-Cooke, Charles

      Madel, David

      Sutcliffe, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maude, Angus

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

      Foster, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Fowler, Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fox, Marcus

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

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

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      388

      389

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Waddington, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wilkinson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Kenneth Clarke and

      Wall, Patrick

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Mr. Paul Hawkins.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      OUTLINE OF BASIC SCHEME CONTRIBUTORY SYSTEM
      Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'Part of this'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this we can also discuss the following amendments:
      No. 2, in line 34, leave out 'Part of this'.
      No. 110, in Clause 96, page 126, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
      '(3) Where under Part I of this Act a person is to be treated by reference to any employment of his as an employed earner, then he is to be so treated for all purposes of this Act, and references throughout this Act to employed earner's employment shall be construed accordingly'.
      Mr. Dean: These are purely technical amendments to secure that the basic distinction between the employed earner and the self-employed earner is consistently applied for all purposes of the measure, in particular in Parts II and III.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 34 [Clause 1], leave out 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Dean.]
      Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert:
      '(without prejudice to his being also treated as an employed earner as respects that week by reference to any other employment of his)'.
      This is a point which arose during Committee stage. I have discussed the point and I am advised that an amendment is not required. Nevertheless, to put the matter beyond any doubt, this amendment adds words to the subsection to make it explicit that a person can be both employed and self-employed during the same period.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      CLASS 2 CONTRIBUTIONS
      Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'and its Schedules'.
      This is a technical amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'pension' to end of line 31.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it would be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 163, in page 37, line 42, after 'Act', insert:
      'increased by one-third of any category A retirement pension to which she would be entitled but for section 23(6) of this Act'.
      No. 161, in Schedule 4, page 142, line 14, leave out '(a) higher rate'.
      No. 162, in page 142, column 2, leave out lines 15 to 18.
      Mr. Meacher: This is an important amendment. It is concerned with the married woman's option given in the National Insurance Act 1948, for married women in employment to opt to depend entirely on their husband's insurance for the purpose of purchasing or obtaining sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and retirement pension. All that a married woman in that situation would pay is a small contribution towards industrial injuries benefit.
      We are concerned in abolishing the married woman's option by this amendment to take account of the sea change, no less, which has occurred in the position of women in society today, both in the way in which they see themselves and in the way in which they are increasingly regarded.
      This seeks to take account of the fact that women no longer regard themselves or wish to be regarded as dependent on their husbands. It is a concept which has doubtless done us well in the past but is increasingly rejected by women,

      391
      who increasingly assert, as all hon. Members know, their independence and desire for equality.
      I would stress that this is in no sense a hysterical demand from the Women's Lib campaign It has been put forward at the highest level and in that I refer to the National Women's Commission which is located in the Cabinet Secretariat and is a bipartisan and very high-powered body. It is its considered opinion, which it has communicated to all hon. Members on the Committee and probably to a number of others as well, that the retention of the married women's option today is distinctly regressive.
      These people take the view that in a society which has now implemented the Equal Pay Act or is in process of bringing it to fruition—although the Government did not take the option to get up to 90 per cent. of male earnings by the end of this year and we shall have to wait until the end of 1975—it is illogical that the married women's option is retained. Clearly, if one is to coincide with the final implementation of the Equal Pay Act, the logic is to remove the married woman's option.
      The change is substantial in society. If one takes the inter-war period, it is true that women were dependent on their husbands. In 1931, for example, fewer than 500,000 married women were at work. In 1971 between 4 million and 5 million were at work, and that figure was almost certainly lower than it would otherwise have been because of the very high level of unemployment. Perhaps the normal figure today is substantially more than 5 million married women at work, earning and making a contribution to the family income which is in no sense pin money but is increasingly essential.
      12.30 a.m.
      Half the women at work are married. More than a third of the married women with children are in paid employment. That is a dramatically different situation from that which prevailed in the inter-war period and the first or second decade after the war.
      Part of the reason for our belief that the married women's option should be abolished is that we must take account of the clear movement towards increas-
      392
      ing independence and equality for women, the desire not to be dependent on another individual—at least, not financially. There is also the need to take account of the changes in the divorce laws which have recently been passed through the House. In addition, there is a series of specific reasons.
      First, if the exemption were to continue, one result would be to put a greater burden on other contributors to produce a decent pension, as the ratio of workers and contributors on the one hand and dependants or pensioners on the other has been worsening. These are figures that the Government have accepted. The Under-Secretary frequently quoted them in Committee. In 1948 there were five or more workers per pensioner receiving a pension. The figure now is probably about 3⅔, and it is estimated to be little more than three by 1980. It would ease the situation considerably if the number of contributors were increased.
      Secondly, it can always be said that, as long as we retain a flat-rate contribution, women, who are the lowest paid in our society by and large, would find it particularly difficult to meet it. But when we are changing first from a flat-rate contribution system, and more recently from a hybrid, partly flat-rate, partly earnings-related contribution system, to a wholly earnings-related contribution system, that considerably eases the situation for women, even if they remain among the lower paid. Therefore, another argument for retaining the option has disappeared.
      Thirdly, compulsory national insurance for women would be fairer to employers, quite a number of whom now voluntarily pay sick benefit when the woman is not covered by national insurance. Clearly, it is unfair and unreasonable that some good employers should do that when others exercise the option not to do so.
      Fourthly, it is undesirable that women should depend on their husbands' contributions, which could be avoided. All hon. Members will have had experience in their clinics of the woman who is a casualty of the belief that her husband was paying the full rate of contributions, only to find at a difficult point in the marriage that that was not so. That is an undesirable form of dependence. It

      393
      is the retention of the dependency concept that is still very marked throughout the Bill. In so far as the divorce laws passed in 1970 begin to operate, it is undesirable that there should be that continued necessary dependence on husbands.
      At the stage we have reached in our social security system, perhaps the most critical area of social security that is not now covered is marriage breakdown. One of the great needs is a resettlement allowance to enable a woman whose marriage has broken down to retain her independence without the necessity of claiming means-tested benefits. The number of unsupported mothers in receipts of supplementary benefits is between 250,000 and 300,000, and the figure is increasing. These women find it difficult to get out of the situation into which they have fallen. If we are to move towards a resettlement allowance, it would be far easier and more equitable to do so if married women were paying their full independent rate of contribution into the system.
      When that suggestion was put to the Government in Committee there were various comments about it, and I propose to look briefly at some of the reasons for resisting the proposal.
      The Under-Secretary said that no fewer than three-quarters of the 4½ million to 5 million married women in employment exercise the married woman's option, from which the hon. Gentleman drew the conclusion that that is something which they wish to retain and it is therefore not proper, in view of the large proportion in favour of the scheme, to do away with it. My answer is that that is not surprising when one remembers that married women get a much lower rate of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and retirement pension. In those circumstances, a woman is not encouraged to stand on her own two feet.
      I appreciate that women over 50 might reasonably be expected to be excluded from this sudden or abrupt ending of the married woman's option, and we are prepared to be flexible over this issue if, as a transitional arrangement, the Government feel that the scheme ought to be retained for women over 50. That might appeal to us as reasonable and proper.
      394
      In Committee the Under-Secretary asked how, if the married woman's option were done away with, cover would be provided for those married women who for reasons of their own do not go out to work. If all women were compelled to contribute it would be much easier, by raising the contribution for all—not by very much—to begin to move towards a home responsibility payment. That strikes me as an attractive means of dealing with the problem, but it would not be easy to carry it out unless all married women were making their full contribution to the social security system.
      I believe that those are strong arguments for taking cognisance of the change that has occurred in society and for taking account of a whole series of reasons why it has become somewhat anachronistic to retain this dependency concept which may have served us well up to the last decade but is now increasingly seen to be more suitable for the past than for the future.
      I turn to Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 which are concerned with the fact that married women who elect to contribute at the full rate receive a short-term benefit—either unemployment or sickness—at the lower rate of only £4·75 at current values, and not £6·75, which is the full rate. It immediately prompts one to ask how it can be justified that when married women decide to pay their full rate of contribution they still receive a reduced rate of benefit.
      The Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that the rate of benefit was reduced and that a woman's allowance after marriage was not the same as a man's or a single woman's because the woman was not normally the breadwinner. If she were the breadwinner I appreciate that she would receive the full rate. That is precisely the point which we are making. Even if she is not the breadwinner, she nevertheless wishes to be independent and to retain her identity and financial autonomy. It is no answer to say that the woman's allowance after marriage is not the same as a man's or a single woman's. We are saying that it should be the same.
      We have so far had no real answer why women, if they exercise the option to pay full contributions, should not receive the full rate of unemployment and sickness benefit. The extra yield, if

      395
      the married woman's option were abolished, would be, according to the Under-Secretary of State, approximately £130 million. That includes £20 million of Exchequer supplement. Whilst we appreciate that that would not be sufficient to raise the pension by more than a small amount or to raise it all, it would, nevertheless, be enough to ensure that married women who paid full contributions would get the full rate of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and widows benefit. If the married woman's option were not abolished—
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman generally takes immense trouble to get his facts right, although sometimes we have to dispute them. However, he said that the married woman who opts to pay full contributions nevertheless receives lower unemployment and sickness benefits. That is correct. He also said—I think that it was a slip of the tongue—that married women receive lower retirement and, just now, lower widows' benefits. Those facts are not correct.
      Mr. Meacher: I apologise if I said that. If I did so it was a slip of the tongue. We are concerned with short-term benefits. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the record right.
      If the married woman's option were not abolished, we should be faced with several anomalies. Although these matters were raised briefly in Committee I do not think that they have been answered. First, women would lose for ever the contributions which they made before marriage or before they took up the option to contract out. That is one anomaly.
      Secondly, married women who qualify on their husband's insurance cannot get a pension until their husband retires, unless, of course, they are five or more years younger than their husband. I believe it is correct that on average wives are less than five years younger than their husbands. That is an anomaly which affects a significant number of wives. The problem arises only because the retirement age for women was put five years earlier than for men so that wives would be available to look after their husbands when their husbands had retired. In other words, the dependency
      396
      concept is retained which we now find so objectionable. I regret that a new clause was not accepted which would have enabled an equal date of retirement. The best way out of the problem is to do away with the married woman's option.
      Thirdly, wives cannot compel their husbands to pay contributions. That is a serious anomaly in the minority of cases where the woman expects to be covered and then finds that she is not.
      Lastly, if a married woman opts out she denies herself, as I have indicated, unemployment and sickness benefit. The crucial point is that her wage is certainly not one which can be readily lost. It is one that may well be crucial for the purpose of hire-purchase payments and mortgage payments. Of course, I entirely accept—I hope that I am not being too paternalistic—that a married woman is entitled to make that option at present. However, the consequences are often too little foreseen and it is left to others to pick up the results of the casualties.
      12.45 a.m.
      This is an important issue about which there is increasing feeling by women. This feeling is accentuated all the time and is growing stronger. It has taken root not just among women who can be dismissed as the hysterical fringe but in the citadels of status. One need not put it higher than that it is strongly felt by the National Women's Commission that the married women's option should be done away with.
      It is not possible to provide full independence, full equality, full opportunities, for women in our society until they are ready—I believe that they are ready—to seize the opportunity to achieve that independence, and that, above all, must be a financial independence.
      I strongly commend the amendment to the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will give it a favourable and constructive response, because we have not so far had a very convincing refutation of it.
      Mrs. Castle: It is a great pity that this important issue has to be discussed at such a late hour. It is never easy, with a predominantly maculine audience, to get a warm and sympathetic response to an

      397
      attempt to get those men to put themselves inside the minds and feelings of a woman's point of view, and certainly at nearly one o'clock in the morning the restiveness becomes even more apparent. Yet the amendment deals with the kernel of the argument about women's equality in pensions.
      The amendment embodies a simple issue: are we prepared to give women what they are now demanding—namely, equal rights in return for equal responsibility? That is the simple demand that women are now making of the Government.
      In the 30 years since the last war it is clear on every side that there has been a growing revolt among women. I ask the House for a moment to consider why. I suggest that one reason is that our social provision has not tallied or kept pace with the economic and psychological realities of the society in which we live today. In the past 30 years it has been an objective and irrefutable fact that women have been steadily moving towards equal responsibilities, but our social legislation has not been guaranteeing them equal rights.
      This Bill, which is not due to come into operation until 1975 when the Equal Pay Act will be in full operation with all its added effects in changing the psychology of society, is intended to transform our social security provisions and attitudes of mind for decades ahead, and the Government have not only the chance, but, I suggest, the duty to use it to equate our social thinking with the objective realities in society. The tragedy is that they have thrown that chance away.
      What the Government are proposing in the Bill is to perpetuate indefinitely the Beveridge principle of dependency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred. This was the assumption, spelled out very clearly by Beveridge in the immediate post-war period, that most women would marry and that, having done so, they would become overwhelmingly dependent upon their husbands as the breadwinners, and that it followed naturally, therefore, that they should come under the husband's social security umbrella and not have a separate one of their own.
      This principle has dominated our national insurance provisions until recent years. I accept that it was the principle
      398
      in the Labour Government's legislation on national insurance in 1948. All of us accepted the Beveridge principles despite the profound changes that had taken place in women's rôle in society as a result of the war. But there is always a time lag in these things. So that has been the principle which has dominated our national insurance provisions—the concept of family cover financed by the husband's contribution, so that even when the married woman went out to work she should have the option not to contribute separately to the national insurance scheme. It is this principle which the Government are perpetuating in the Bill.
      I ask the House, if it can make the imaginative effort in the inevitable stage of stateness and tiredness which we are all in at this hour of the night, to consider for a women how absurd it is that we should be proposing to start in 1975 a new era of social security provision based on that old and now obviously out-of-date principle.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am at a bit of a loss. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the kind of women about whom she is talking? Are they working-class women who either work in industry or stay at home, or are they middle-class women who burn their bras? In practice, how far does my right hon. Friend assume that this concept of independence spreads throughout working-class people? I do not believe a word of what she is saying.
      Mrs. Castle: I tremble to think what will happen to my hon. Friend when he next sets foot in any meeting of Labour women, either nationally or in his constituency. The people for whom I am speaking are the Women's Conference of the TUC, the women's organisations of the Labour Party and the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations. If my hon. Friend were only a little closer in touch with them he would find—it has surprised me as, apparently, it has surprised him—how very passionately they are now pleading for this concept of the independent coverage of a woman in her own right when she goes out to work. They gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Tax Credit System only the other day. These representatives of working women's

      399
      organisations in industry and in the home make the demand, very simply but emphatically, that women should be treated as separate individual entities and no longer purely as the dependants of a masculine brain.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, the reality of working-class life is that, increasingly, married women go out to work. My hon. Friend has given the figures again.
      When we raised this issue in Committee, the Under-Secretary, with the most moving paternalism, the good old Victorian attitude, said that the idea of dependency in the social security system simply recognised a fact of life, that the husband would be the main breadwinner, and that
      "… most married women, for a part of their lives, will be at home rearing children and, therefore, working at home."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 23rd January 1973; c. 221.]
      He was not telling me or my hon. Friends anything that we did not know. What we are saying to him is that it is he who is ignoring the new facts of life. Now it is the woman in society who, by the nature of things, most needs social security cover and yet who, on the principle of dependency, is left at the most vulnerable. Woman's rôle in the world has changed fundamentally since Beveridge.
      I must repeat for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. Not only are women today a third of our labour force, but half the women at work are married women, and over one-third of married women with children are in paid employment.
      What is more—this must be within the experience of every hon. Member— women's wages are not pin money. We are not talking about the flapper voter earning her cosmetics allowance, but about families in which the woman's wage is a vital contribution to domestic solvency. I am not talking only about the hire-purchase on the domestic equipment which can embellish life, but about the payment of the rent or the mortgage and
      400
      and the food, gas and electricity bills. I represent a constituency in which most people could not live decently if there were not a tradition of married women going out to work. It is a two-wage society throughout Lancashire, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will endorse.
      Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen) indicated assent.
      Mrs. Castle: In a working-class home, the chap who is a bus driver could not pay the rent if his wife were not a weaver. We are talking about a fundamental change in our society and about the realities of working class life.
      Yet what we are doing by this apparent concession to women, this apparent tenderness to women, by giving married women at work the right to opt out of their obligations under the national insurance scheme, is giving the State the right to palm off on them inferior benefits. As my hon. Friend said, this is not only socially but economically intolerable.
      When a married woman who goes out to work decides not to opt out, she is acting as a full citizen and deciding to earn her own pension. Many of them are proud in this respect. So many of them tell us in our surgeries, "I am insured in my own right." But when they have done that and paid through the nose for the privilege, they find that, when their work is interrupted by unemployment or sickness—when there is redundancy at the cotton mill and they are laid off, or when the fumes of the North-West give them their annual bout of bronchitis—they get unequal short-term benefits and their contribution to the domestic solvency is undermined. They deeply resent the fact that they get a poor return if they do not opt out. By that poor return they are discouraged from setting up their own separate contribution record. The Under-Secretary justifies the continuance of this inequality on the ground that of the many women, the vast majority of them married, who go out to work, three quarters of them prefer to contract out. Surely it is ridiculous to say that their reluctance to invest in a shady endowment policy is proof that it would be wrong to compel them to invest in a proper one.

      401
      1.0 a.m.
      In arguing strongly against the continuance of the married woman's pension I am in the difficulty of having to do so in the context of the Bill. It is perhaps unwise advice to give to the women because they get such a poor return. But, of course, we want to alter the Bill fundamentally and some of our amendments would carry with them the introduction of full equality to short-term benefits for women as a start.
      I would much prefer to be arguing this principle in the context of the Cross-man national superannuation scheme where women would have been given an equal deal in return for equal responsibilities. There would be no opting-out under the Labour Government's national superannuation scheme for the simple reason that we knew we were giving women the finest deal in any insurance system in the world. So we are in that circular argument, but I must dispose of one piece of hypocrisy by the Undersecretary in Committe. He nearly raised the civil rights issue. He seemed to suggest that we might have been undermining one of the basic freedoms of the individual in trying to take away the married woman's right to opt out. He became very solemn about our desire to abolish it. He said:
      "They propose to introduce an element of compulsion where at the moment there is free choice. To sustain that argument one needs overwhelming reasons for making the change." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 23rd January 1973, c. 220.]
      The Government have not hesitated to introduce compulsion into the State reserve scheme. There is no opting out for married women. They will be compelled to contribute. If they are in an occupational pension scheme what on earth is the difference in principle?
      Sir K. Joseph: I am following the right hon. Member's argument with great attention. As I understand it she wishes to remove from married women the dependent status. Does it follow that it is Opposition policy to remove the right to a dependant's benefit of the wife on her husband's pension? Is that part of the Labour Party's policy?
      Mrs. Castle: It is a simple principle. Where the married woman goes out to work she has two new factors in her life.
      402
      One is equal responsibility. She is a married woman at work and therefore she should be compelled to contribute on an equal basis with men. The other facet of her situation is that she has equal rights and therefore she gets an identical return to men. I propose that partly on the grounds of social justice. It is only right. She has gone out to work and is a wage earner. She should contribute according to her earnings. Everyone points out that with an earnings-related contribution it is easier and it is fair to compel women to pay contributions because those contributions will be graduated according to her earning capacity. But it is basically in the interests of women themselves because, unless and until they are made to shoulder their statutory responsibilities as contributors, they will always be robbed of their equal rights.
      Sir K. Joseph: But is the right hon. Lady proposing that the dependency pension which a wife gets on her husband's pension will be abolished? She has not answered that.
      Mrs. Castle: No, because in this situation I am dealing with the woman at work. Starting with that simple proposition, there are all sorts of ways in which we can move to provide for different situations in the home. There is the home responsibility payment, for example. Many other propositions are being put before us in the tax credit scheme. We are not in a position to talk about all the different facets of the social situations for which we have to provide in society. We are dealing with a national insurance Bill which says that a married woman who goes out to work shall have the right to opt out of paying contributions.
      Pan passu with that, we have an insurance scheme which, under the cover of freedom of choice for the married women worker, saddles her with inferior benefits, and it will always do so unless it makes her shoulder equal responsibility. The women's organisations are trying to get this across to Members of Parliament and to society as a whole. It is a simple point which they have grasped, and they cling to it with passion, as representatives of the National Joint Council of Working Women's Organisations argued the other day before the

      403
      Select Committee which is considering the tax credit scheme.
      The Government have introduced this element of compulsion in the State reserve scheme. Why, then, perpetuate the married woman's option to contract out of payments under the basic scheme? There is no logic in the Government's attitude, and there are overwhelming reasons for making a change because the principle of dependency as embodied in the married woman's option does not meet the needs of present day society.
      That was made even clearer by the passing of the Equal Pay Act. For years we had the argument against the extension of equal pay from the professional into the industrial grades. It was that the man is the main breadwinner, he has dependants, he has a wife and family, and he should earn more, even for the same work. It has taken us ever since the TUC first broached the principle of equal pay back in 1880— 90 years of argument—to get across to people that our wages system should not be a family cover system and, equally, that our pensions provision should not be made on that basis, either.
      The Equal Pay Act breaches the principle of dependency. It says that people should be studied as individuals, treated on their merits and given their individual rights. Once we have that clear, we can adapt the rest of our social security provision round it. We may have to make far-reaching changes. The corollary of equal pay is that there should be equal treatment in all respects in employment. We are dealing with some inequalities in the Anti-Discrimination Bill and we should be dealing with others in this Bill. Part of that equal treatment must be the equal shouldering of responsibility.
      In an effort to convince hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches what it is that women of all classes, all levels of society and all party political points of view are trying to say I will quote an extract from the document that was circulated to members of the Standing Committee by the Women's National Commission to which so much reference has been made, rightly, because it is the most representative women's organisation in the land. That is why the Govern-
      404
      ment set it up and are helping to finance it. The commission set up a working party to study the Social Security Bill from the point of view of women's needs and sent us the following report by the committee on Clause 2:
      "The committee regrets the White Paper's recommendation that employed married women should still be able to opt out of the basic pension scheme although we recognise that this view is not shared by all the commission's constituent organisations or by all members of the commission. We think this clause is regressive and consider that all working women should be treated equally. This will be of increasing importance with the implementation of the Equal Pay Act and we consider that ideally the new pension arrangements, which should cover all working women, should be phased in to coincide with the final implementation of the Equal Pay Act. Compulsory insurance of employed married women would be of financial benefit to the State basic scheme and would also be fairer to employers, many of whom now voluntarily pay a woman sickness benefit when she is not covered by insurance. In future, lack of such insurance could prove a disincentive to the employment of married women.
      We also consider it important that married women should not depend upon insurance cover provided by their husbands' contributions when this can be avoided. We anticipate that the importance of separate insurance cover will be seen to be vital as the effects of the new divorce laws become apparent. It is partly for this reason that some of the commission's constituent organisations have suggested that a date should be set after which no new opting out would be permitted except for women aged 50 years or over who entered employment thereafter."
      That last proposal is identical to that put forward by the National Joint Council of Working Women's Organisations and by the Labour Party's document on discrimination against women. The recommendation in that document is the same—that the existing option for women not to pay full national insurance contributions should cease at any rate for new entrants below the age of 50.
      It is that simple, far-reaching principle that we press in the amendment, together with the consequential adjustments that would flow, of giving equal short-term benefits to women who contribute. That is a narrow objective within the confines of the Bill. It is all we can do within the Government's strategy but it is none the less important.
      1.15 a.m.
      Sir K. Joseph: I hope to deal seriously with the arguments put forward by the

      405
      Opposition Front Bench and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
      I entirely accept that there have been huge economic and related social changes in the last few decades. It does not seem to me—nor, I believe, to many hon. Members on both sides of the House— that because there are large numbers of two-wage families we should necessarily infer that we should treat all married women in the same way. There is an infinite variety of changing conditions during the lives of the married women with whom we are dealing. There are different relationships in age between husband and wife; there are many married women who choose not to go out to paid work at all; there is a large majority of married women who choose to go out to paid work for part of their married lives, giving it up during child-rearing times, and perhaps at other times as well.
      The fact that there is such a wide range of different circumstances makes it very civilised that the decision about how to contribute to social security benefits should rest with the individual married woman herself. That is the present position. The right hon. Lady accused my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of being timid in considering the possibility of taking away married women's rights to opt whether to pay the full contributions or not. But surely it would be far worse if the Government were to take away from them the option that at the moment they enjoy.
      The numerical position is that of the 5 million married women in paid employment at any time, about three quarters opt to pay no contributions for retirement pension and one quarter opt to pay full contributions. For that, they get the full retirement pension if they have served out other contributory conditions, but they do not get full unemployment and sickness benefit.
      To take away the option from married women would be a very serious step for the Government to take, even when advised by such a formidable body as the Women's National Commission. I interrupted the right hon. Lady to ask what is the Opposition's policy about the pension that a wife can receive at the moment and will continue to receive under the Bill on her husband's contributions when she reaches the age of 60 if he has already
      406
      retired. The right hon. Lady should have addressed her mind to this question. When a married woman assesses the choice before her, she knows that, without a contribution, she is going to be entitled to receive a benefit when she reaches the age of 60 if her husband has retired. It becomes imprudent, to say the least, for her to volunteer to pay substantial contributions when she may not know whether she will be long enough at paid work in terms of years and sufficiently frequently during any year at paid work to amass the contributions which would earn her a pension for her hard-won contributions in excess of that which she would have got for no contributions on her husband's pension rights.
      Mr. O'MaUey: It is already the case that in the national insurance system that a married woman can achieve a full pension of £6·75 at current terms rather than the £4·15 she obtains from her husband if she has no contribution record. What we have proposed is that a woman who has only a partial record should benefit from that by receiving the pension which is payable in respect of her husband's contributions—currently at the rate of £4·15—and an addition for whatever period she works of one-third of the entitlement she has built up, which would mean that she could get for only a partial period of paid employment during her married life not the £4·15 contained in the Bill but a full pension in respect of her husband's contributions and a partial entitlement built up from her own contributions.
      Sir K. Joseph: I must congratulate the hon. Member on moving in one breathless sentence and extremely meticulously an amendment which was not moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but which is in his name. The hon. Member did it excellently, but he was inaccurate to this extent: that amendment would not give a married woman a full pension automatically. Nevertheless, the Opposition have to face that there are at the moment very large numbers of married women who choose not to go out to paid work, and as far as one can see ahead there will be such married women. How are they to be treated?
      If the dependency benefit—that odious word; I must withdraw that—if the benefit she is now entitled to receive on

      407
      her husband's contribution is abolished, what option is left for the married woman who chooses to stay at home and not go to work outside? I suggest that the right position is the one we have, that the married women should be left to decide for themselves in the light of their family situation and their vision of the future. To take away married women's options as the Opposition suggest, even with the qualification about not touching as a transitional phase the benefits of those over 50, would impose a very heavy extra cost on married women. Three quarters who now work who have opted not to pay contributions would have to pay the following extra contributions. A married women receiving £20 a week would have to pay an extra 85p a week. I do not know whether the Opposition have told married women about this level of contribution. A married woman receiving £32 a week would have to pay an extra 91p a week. I think that a sobering fact which the Opposition should bear in mind.
      The right hon. Lady teased the Government with the fact that while we want to have the option in the basic scheme we give no option in the reserve pensions scheme. But in the reserve scheme the woman's contributions are invested for her own receipt. It is a funded scheme.
      Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman may be talking about future benefits. Under the Crossman scheme a married woman would get future comparable benefits to make it worth her while. The right hon. Gentleman sees no difficulty in compelling a married woman to make that contribution which will be a burden to her now.
      Sir K. Joseph: It is a very different thing from compelling a married woman to pay substantially for that which she gets already when, because her earning career is not long enough or regular enough, she may not receive any more for contributions than what she is entitled to for nothing now.
      I turn to the last point in the Opposition case, on which I do not think the Government's ground is quite so strong.
      Mr. Meacher: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, earlier he indicated that, whether it is a majority or a minority, women when they collect
      408
      the second pension will still be below the supplementary benefit line. He admitted that. He said there was a dramatic reduction in the number of women taken off supplementary benefit. That implies a significant minority who would still be in that position. Is the right hon. Gentleman compelling those women who contribute towards a second pension as a result of which they will get nothing more because of supplementary benefit? Is that true?
      Sir K. Joseph: No. It is untrue, because the first pound of reserve pension will be disregarded for supplementary benefit. Who on earth can foretell what the relationship will be in a few years' time between the basic benefit and the supplementary benefit scale rates, particularly when we shall possibly have such changes as the tax credit scheme?
      I turn to the valid observations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the right hon. Member for Blackburn about short-term benefits. It is difficult to understand why, when a married woman who goes out to work chooses to pay the full contribution and comes to be unemployed or falls sick, she does not get the full benefit but receives instead the lower-rate benefit. Although this has been the case under successive Governments, I must say that I do not find it easy to justify. It is true that it reflects the mutuality between husband and wife by which the wife looks to the husband's income for support when she is in need. It is a mutuality which most hon. Members would applaud and would hope will continue.
      The situation is not always something which is obvious to reason. Even if the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady are right in pointing the finger at this lower level of benefit when full contributions are paid, I cannot think that action on that narrow, but important, front would command a high priority from any Government facing the wide range of problems which always face Governments in this country. The position is less than perfect. I am not trying to evade the point.
      I hope that, without doing injustice to the strongly-held arguments of the hon. Members, I have put to the House the arguments which perhaps they did not fully develop, naturally concentrating

      409
      on their view of the case. I hope that they will not feel it necessary to press the amendment. If they do, I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote firmly against it.
      Mr. O'Malley: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was almost a masterpiece of obfuscation. He made the issues appear much more difficult than they are. Of course it is true that there is a multiplicity of circumstances in married households but I thought it was the job of Ministers and politicians to examine such problems carefully and then propose to the House universal remedies for them.
      The right hon. Gentleman did none of these things. He said it was a complex problem. He accepted that there had been huge economic and social changes in the last decade, and then he promptly resolved to turn his back on such major changes.
      I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why married women should be required to pay contributions and why the married women's option should be ended. He asked whether we had told the women of this country what we proposed and what the implications were. We did this in 1969. We faced the issue and found a great deal of acceptance in spite of the mischief of Conservative Members. We faced the women with the blunt facts.
      The first fact is that to the extent that married women on reasonable incomes —let us bear in mind that we are talking about not the old flat-rate contribution but earnings-related contributions—do not make contributions into this "pay as you go" scheme which is a feature of the national insurance fund, so single women on low incomes and single women on higher incomes and lower-paid men who are the heads of households are required to bear proportionately bigger burdens in meeting the cost of retirement pensions at a time when the number of pensioners is increasing more rapidly than the number in the work force.
      1.30 a.m.
      The Secretary of State said that the decision should rest with the individual married woman, but one aspect of society which will continue under the terms of the Bill is that, particularly in old age, there will continue to be massive
      410
      poverty among these women, many living on their own when their husbands die, and anything we can do to build up the entitlement of such women is worth doing.
      In abolishing the married woman's option, one has to give the married woman additional benefits when she begins to pay contributions, and it is difficult to give adequate benefits because of the structure of the Bill, but we are proposing as much as possible within the structure.
      First, we would take up the Secretary of State on the point about short-term benefits. He pointed out that three quarters of married women opt to pay no contribution for unemployment, sickness or retirement, but the reason is obvious: under the present system they get virtually nothing if they pay. So we are proposing that, just as married women should bear responsibility for paying into the pay-as-you-go national insurance benefit from which the present generation of retirement pensioners receive their income, so, accepting those equal obligations, they should have equal benefits and opportunities.
      It is intolerable for the Secretary of State to say to married women who pay full contributions that they cannot take high priority with any Government. They are paying exactly the same contributions as men and single women in earnings-related contributions and are discriminated against. They are told: "You are married. It matters not that you have mortgage and hire purchase payments. You will get smaller benefits."
      They are likely, under the present system, and under the system proposed in the Bill, to get no additional income in retirement at all. So, as I said in an intervention, the married woman who makes a partial contribution, even if it is only for two or three years, should draw her entitlement on her husband's contribution to retirement pension, currently at £4·15—that is one third of what they have accrued in their own contribution—so that when the married woman contributes at work she gets the same benefit, however limited the number of contributions.
      The right hon. Gentleman closed by asking what option was open to women

      411
      who did not go to work. The answer is that they continue to depend upon the contributions made by their husbands in national insurance, occupational pension or reserve pension schemes.
      The married women who pay contributions should, we believe, in retirement, having made equal contributions and accepted equal obligations, get equal benefits. If this Government are not
      prepared to do that, the next Labour Government will do what the women of this country are demanding. I recommend that we should vote on the amendment as an indication of our acute dissatisfaction with the policies of this Government.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 119. Noes 148.

      Division No. 127.]

      AYES

      [1.34 a.m.]

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Molloy, William

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Brown, Hugh D (G'gow, Provan)

      Horam, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Janner, Greville

      Frescolt, John

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      John, Brynmor

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Johnson, James (K'stonon-Hull, W.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jones Barry (Flint E)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jones Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jones, T.Alec (Rhondda W.)

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

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Judd, Frank

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kaufman Gerald

      Sllkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptlord)

      Coleman, Donald

      Kinnock Neil

      Silverman, Julius

      Concannon, J. D.

      Lamond, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lawson George

      Small, William

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

      Leonard Dick

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Upton, Marcus

      strang, Gavin

      Davidson, Arthur

      Loughlin Charles

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Tinn, James

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lyons, Edward (Bradlord, E.)

      Torney, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Varley, Eric G.

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      McBride, Neil

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McElhone, Frank

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McGuire, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Machin, George

      Wellbeloved, James

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Ellis, Tom

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Whitehead, Phillip

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Ewlng, Harry

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Meacher, Michael

      Foot, Michael

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Ford, Ben

      Mendelson, John

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Foster, Sir John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fowler, Norman

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Fox, Marcus

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Chichester-Clark, R.

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

      Awdry, Daniel

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fry, Peter

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

      Cooke, Robert

      Goodhew victor

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Cordle John

      Gower, Raymond

      Benyon

      Cormick, Patrick.

      Gower, Raymond

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

      Grant, Antony (Harrow, C.)

      Biffen, John

      Dean, Paul

      Gray, Hamish

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Green Alan

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Digby, Simon Wingfleld

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Grylls, Michael

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Bowden, Andrew

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

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Buck, Antony

      Flelcher-Cooke, Charles

      Havers, Michael

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

      Fortescue, Tim

      Hawkins, Paul

      Hiley, Joseph

      Molyneaux, James

      Sproat, lain

      Hordern, Peter

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Hornby, Richard

      Monro, Hector

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sluttaford, Dr. Tom

      Hunt, John

      More, Jasper

      Sutcliffe, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Morrison, Charles

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Mudd, David

      Tebbit, Norman

      Joseph Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Neave, Airey

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Kaberry Sir Donald

      Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Kershaw Anthony

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      King,' Tom (Bridgwater)

      Percival, Ian

      Waddington, David

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Walder, David (Cllitheroe)

      Knox David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Lamo'nt, Norman

      Proudfoot Wilfred

      Wall, Patrick

      Lane David

      Pym. Rt. Hn. Francis

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Langtord-Holt, Sir John

      Raison, Timothy

      Weatherill, Bernard

      MacArthur, Ian

      Redmond, Robert

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      McLaren, Martin

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Macmlllan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

      Renfon, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Wilkinson, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Madel, David

      Host, Peter

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Maude, Angus

      Royle, Anthony

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mawby, Ray

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Younger, Hn. George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

      Soref, Harold

      Mr. Michael Jopling and

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Oscar Murton.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  TURKEY
  1.43 a.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: At no time during the last two years has this House debated the erosion of democratic standards and the abrogation of human rights in Turkey. Recent statements by various spokesmen on behalf of the Government make me fear that those in Turkey who are actively destroying all serious opposition to its repressive activities will think that they have the support of a country which has a long history of democracy. All those in Turkey, both inside Turkish prisons and outside, who, against great odds, are trying to oppose the régime will be dismayed that their position is being misunderstood or ignored.
  I feel it is up to Britain and all Western European democracies to call for the same high order of behaviour as
  414
  Her Majesty's Government maintained when allegations were made of torture taking place in Northern Ireland.
  A brief explanation is necessary of events during the last two years. On 12th March 1971 the military issued a strong memorandum demanding political, social and economic reforms and an end to the unrest of the previous few years. The existing Government fell and were replaced by a Government supposedly above party politics. A month later martial law was declared in 11 strategic provinces. The new Prime Minister declared that martial law was necessary to catch 200 anarchists. Since then the military has used its powers to ban the legitimately elected representatives of the Turkish Labour Party, to ban the teachers' and students' unions, to arrest or detain in prison perhaps as many as 10,000 people, to amend the once liberal constitution beyond all recognition, to impose complete censorship on the Press, radio and television and, by all the evidence available, to torture perhaps hundreds of political prisoners.
  Probably the best documentation of the erosion of human rights lies in the amendment to the constitution. By that means the Turkish régime has been able to constkutionalise and legally sanction the abrogation of civil rights and liberties. By these amendments the régime has deprived the universities and radio

  415
  and television of their autonomy. It has given the police and the military authorities the power to invade the privacy of all Turkish citizens, and it has deprived the judiciary of its independence.
  To prevent opposition to the amendments five Turkish professors of constitutional law have been arrested, three of them being those who helped to draw up the 1961 constitution. The seriousness of the situation was well illustrated last summer at a meeting of the Council of Europe at Paris. The Foreign Secretary of Turkey, Mr. Bayülken, was being questioned about the situation and the matters to which I have just referred. He claimed at the meeting, at which I was present, that any academics who had been apprehended were almost exclusively junior members of university staff. He seemed surprised when told that all of us in the West were well aware at that time of the arrest of, for example, Professor Soysul. What seemed rather alarming at that meeting was the cold cynicism which suggested that we need not worry because the only academics who had been arrested were junior members of university staff, and the lack of willingness on the part of the Turkish Foreign Secretary to admit, as we all knew in the West, that more senior members of staff had been taken into custody.
  Recently the régime has introduced amendments to the constitution and to many laws. It has ensured that the military would be able to retain most of its powers even if martial law were to be lifted. These serious allegations have all been made by many independent bodies. The World Council of Churches, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists have all issued reports arguing that the Turkish régime is in the process of destroying effective opposition and that torture has taken place.
  Apart from foreign newspapers in Britain, both the Sunday Times and Granada Television's "World in Action" have provided impressive accounts of the horrifying and systematic use of torture on political prisoners. I have seen reports from trustworthy sources that, despite the recent election of a new president and the formation of a new Government, torture is continuing.
  416
  I have no desire to make matters worse for those who are trying to resist the anti-democratic forces that are at work in Turkey. I have unlimited admiration for those who are trying to save democracy in Turkey. However, I have come to the conclusion that this House should no longer remain silent. The recent report of Professor Noll on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International makes the position only too clear. During his visit to Turkey two months ago Professor Noll saw for himself that political prisoners were being tortured and that there no longer exists any real independence for the courts of law. He also became convinced that the dangers associated with the continuation of martial law are far greater than any of the dangers which it was originally claimed martial law was introduced to combat.
  These statements and allegations must be investigated. If Turkish protests are to be muzzled, ours must not be muzzled. That surely is the high calling of an open democratic society of which we in this House are a part.
  I believe that we have a special responsibility towards Turkey, for Turkey is a fellow member of the Council of Europe, an associate member of the European Economic Community, our ally in NATO and in CENTO, and a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  In 1971 United Kingdom exports to Turkey stood at £38·6 million, and since then they have been rapidly expanding. In the first eight months of 1972 exports amounted to £37 million. Since the establishment in 1963 of the Consortium of Aid to Turkey, under the auspices of the OECD, Britain has contributed about £54 million in various forms of aid to Turkey.
  After the visit of Lord Limerick to Turkey last November, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that United Kingdom entry into the European Economic Community and parallel adaptation of the existing EEC association agreement with Turkey should, by the gradual removal of the preferences which EEC countries enjoy against us, improve our competitive position in the Market.

  417
  I am concerned that such economic links serve as an implicit sanction of the activities of the armed forces which are determining the limits within which civilian politics may operate in Turkey.
  I believe that we should take a hard look at what I have in the past described as the soft underbelly of the NATO alliance and that it is dangerous for an alliance forged to defend freedom and democracy to ignore its involvement with the naked or incipient forces of totalitarianism.
  It would be naïve to suppose that there are not at work within the Western community forces which are determined to undermine freedom and democracy as we understand them in this House. But I believe that it would be equally naive to misunderstand the methods and techniques used by groups of this kind. One of the objectives for which they play is overreaction, and overreaction plays into their hands. Because we on both sides in this House have understood this point we have been at pains, against great provocation in our own experience in Northern Ireland, to avoid such overreaction. But the point that we have to recognise about over-reaction where it occurs within the Western alliance is that it forces, compels, frequently moderate opposition to the existing order into the hands of the extremists. In other words, it provokes what it is supposed to be containing.
  There is an old adage in British political life: that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a great deal of truth in this observa-tion and one of the points which we in this House recognise is that allies within the NATO alliance who are totalitarian in their political structure are unreliable allies, because when the alliance collectively comes under pressure such allies are preoccupied to a large extent in containing their internal political situations to such a point that they cannot contribute as effectively as we would wish to external collective defence.
  I have said before that I am convinced that democratic institutions in Turkey are little more than a facade disguising the real source of power within that country.
  I am not content with the platitudinous and naïve line taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Foreign
  418
  Secretary believes, and has said, that we can help Turkey return to a democracy by offering support to what he describes as "our Turkish friends" who, under the pretence of trying to destroy the forces of anarchy, are in fact destroying the very foundations of Turkish democracy. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should recognise that in Turkey, as in Greece and Portugal, to ignore is to sanction the cold-blooded destruction of those very principles which it has always been argued NATO was created to defend.
  1.55 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): Whilst I am glad to have the opportunity at this early hour in the morning to address the House and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on our relations with Turkey, I confess that I am sad that I have heard so much criticism of our ally from the hon. Gentleman. There are Governments and régimes in the world which, might deserve the kind of attack which we have heard tonight, but I do not believe that the Government of Turkey is one of them.
  I should like to stress that Turkey, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an independent country. It is not for us to try to tell foreign countries how to run their internal affairs. Any appearance of interference provokes justifiable resentment. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for many years, would justifiably resent other countries trying to tell us how we should run our internal affairs.
  Our relations with Turkey, both economically and politically, are, and have for a long time been, close and friendly. We greatly value our co-operation with her in many fields, particularly in the context of NATO and CENTO and through her association with the European Economic Community. As her ally and as a member of the European Community, we have a particular interest to do everything possible to encourage political stability and economic development in Turkey.
  Hon. Members should be quite sure of their facts before attempting to condemn an ally such as Turkey. Many—some, anyway—of the accusations which have

  419
  been made against the Turkish authorities are very serious, and I accept that, but they should not be made lightly or on the basis of unsubstantiated reports.
  How can there be a suspension of democracy whilst the Turkish Parliament remains fully operational? In his remarks tonight, the hon. Gentleman implied that there was totalitarianism in Turkey. It is just not true. Every Government and Government programme since the Commanders Memorandum in March 1971 has been approved by the Turkish Parliament. The recent elections for the President of the Republic, when the Turkish Parliament chose a civilian rather than a military candidate, would suggest that power in Turkey is still in the hands of the elected representatives.
  A date has been set for the Turkish general elections in accordance with the Turkish constitution—14th October. I can think of many countries which hon. Members have not mentioned in Adjournment debates which have not had general elections for years and are unlikely to have a general election for many years in the future. As far as we know, there is no evidence to suggest that the elections will not be held then.
  Mr. Judd: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when we all recognise that the number of people able to participate in the elections and the number and character of people able to participate within the parliament is decided by the military authorities, with the history which I have outlined, to suggest that this is democratic is a perversion of the principle of democracy as we understand it in this House and this country?
  Mr. Royle: This is where the hon. Gentleman and I move very far apart. It is not possible for us in the Mother of Parliaments to expect that every other country will carry out its affairs or run its democratic arrangements precisely as we do. Societies are very different in those countries. One must remember that democracy can be effective in a country which does not exactly follow our system. The Turkish armed forces have traditionally played an active rôle in Turkey. It is they who have been pressing for economic and social reform.
  420
  As for martial law, it has been approved, again by an overwhelming majority, in the Turkish Parliament at two-monthly intervals since its inception in April 1971. Earlier this year, in view of the improved situation in parts of Turkey, four of the 11 provinces placed under martial law were restored to civilian control.
  In earlier speeches in the House I have stressed that Turkey is passing through a difficult phase. As I said in answer to a question only recently in the House, the Turkish authorities have had to deal with a serious terrorist problem. The terrorist victims have included two British and one Canadian technicians, murdered just over a year ago.
  As for political prisoners, I am aware that people have been arrested since the declaration of martial law, but it is a cardinal principle of international relations that countries do not interfere in one another's internal affairs. I understand that all the sentences passed against the university lecturers and professors the hon. Member mentioned are subject to appeal, and, without knowing the facts in each case, it would be foolish for me to criticise the sentences.
  Allegations have been made that torture is being used in Turkey. Again, it is always difficult to know whether this kind of allegation has any foundation. As I have said before, again in the House, we have no evidence of a consistent pattern of violation of human rights, but after all, it is the Turkish people who, through their democratic institutions, are best placed to investigate this kind of allegation.
  Mr. Judd: Many of them are not allowed to participate.
  Mr. Royle: The fact is that in Turkey today there is a democratic system in existence and working. I have said that this system is not precisely the same as ours—
  Mr. Judd: Come off it.
  Mr. Royle: As the hon. Member underlined in the important second part of his speech, Turkey makes a valuable contribution to the Western defence effort and plays a full part in the integrated military organisation of NATO.

  421
  Turkish membership of NATO is necessary for the stability of the whole southern flank. Any weakening on the southern flank of NATO would be particularly unfortunate in present circumstances. Soviet military presence in the Mediterranean has added a new dimension to the problems inherent in the area.
  Western Governments are already involved in preparatory talks in Helsinki with the Eastern European countries and the uncommitted countries of Europe on a possible conference on security and cooperation in Europe. I am very hopeful that this conference will take place and will be successful. There are also exploratory talks in Vienna on mutual balanced force reductions. These developments are important and welcome, but, while we continue to work for a lowering of tension and improved relations throughout Europe, Her Majesty's Government believe that the solidarity and cohesion of NATO remain of paramount importance to these areas as well as in their own right. Although it has happened in the past, we do not think that it is appropriate for the internal affairs of member countries to be discussed in the NATO forum.
  A great many changes have taken place in Turkey over the past 50 years under the guidance of successive Governments inspired by Ataturk's aim of transforming the former "sick man of Europe" into a dynamic Western society. The task has been great. Both political and economic policies have been realigned in order to bring Turkey into a constructive partnership with Western Europe. Turkey's considerable achievements in this respect demand our admiration. Turkey will
  422
  continue to require our help and support and that of other Western countries for some time. A negative attitude to her problems can only endanger that consolidation of the Western way of life which I know the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West wants as much as I do, and that is something we should help to promote and not hinder.
  Mr. Judd: The Minister keeps referring, as do his colleagues, to consolidation of NATO as a way of bringing a Western way of life. Surely the Western way of life and what NATO was created to defend stand contrary to the things which are being done now in Turkey in terms of limitation and deprivation of human rights. I do not see how we can protect the things in which we believe if we are to allow a slipping away from the highest standards to go unchallenged.
  Mr. Royle: I hope I can carry the hon. Member with me on this. I do not think these things are protected by damaging them by attacking them. Because Turkey and because other countries—and I do not refer necessarily to Turkey, because many countries in the world cannot reach the high standards which the hon. Member sets for what he sees to be democracy—cannot reach that high standard, surely that is no reason for attempting to undermine the standards which they have reached and are carrying out effectively.
  The alliance that we have with Turkey is immensely valuable to us in the West and at all times should be safeguarded and not undermined.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Two o'clock.

  Second Reading Committee
  Tuesday 8th May 1973
  [MR. ALAN FITCH in the Chair]
  The Committee consisted of the following Members:
  Mr. Alan Fitch (Chairman)

  Abse, Mr. Leo (Pontypool)

  Brown, Mr. Robert C. (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

  Carlisle, Mr. Mark (Minister of State, Home Office)

  Cordle, Mr. John (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

  Dunn. Mr. James A. (Liverpool, Kirk-dale)

  Ellis, Mr. Tom (Wrexham)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (Birmingham, Lady-wood)

  Fraser, Mr. John (Norwood)

  Goodhew, Mr. Victor (St. Albans)

  GUARDIANSHIP BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  Resolved,
  That if the proceedings on the Guardianship Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Thursday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  10.31 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Guardianship Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Bill gives the impression, when one looks through its clauses and several

  Haselhurst, Mr. Alan (Middleton and Prestwich)

  King, Mr. Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Lyons, Mr. Edward (Bradford, East)

  Monro, Mr. Hector (Undersecretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office)

  Stanbrook, Mr. Ivor (Orpington)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom (Norwich, South)

  Thomas, Mr. Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Vickers, Dame Joan (Plymouth, Devon-port)

  Walder, Mr. David (Clitheroe)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Weitzman, Mr. David (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

  Miss A. Milner-Barry, Committee Clerk.

  schedules, of being somewhat technical and complex, but its main purpose is simple and straightforward. It is to provide in law for equal rights for husband and wife in relation to the guardianship of their children. In doing so it carries a stage further the Government's implementation of the recommendations made by a Conservative Party research committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Anthony Cripps, whose report was published just before the last election. It carries out a pledge made in our election manifesto to remove discrimination against women in the laws of this country,

  425
  and it puts right what has been a genuine grievance of women's organisations for many years.
  To many it may come as a surprise to hear that in the 1970s the rights of a mother over her child are, at common law, non-existent when compared with those of the father; that the custody of any child at common law rests solely with the father; that he and he alone is technically responsible for decisions on the child's education and religious upbringing and in matters of consent; that a mother can obtain custody of her child only by an action in the courts, and that a court order can be made only following upon separation between husband and mother; and that in the absence of such a court order the custody of a child remains with the father even if the parents are separated and the child is physically living with the mother. That is, I hope, a reasonably accurate and certainly brief resume of the present law in relation to the mother's rights over her child.
  It may be helpful if I begin by reminding the Committee how this situation came about. At common law a father had the custody of his legitimate children and the rights and powers which flowed from custody, such as the right to choose the religious upbringing of that child. He also had the right to appoint a guardian for his children to act on his behalf on his death.
  That was the position in England and in Scotland until 1886, when Parliament for the first time intervened to improve the position of the mother. The Guardianship of Infants Act of that year, which applied to the whole of Great Britain, provided for the mother to be a guardian of the child on the father's death, and enabled her to apply to the court for the custody of her child, but when she did so the court was required by that Act to consider the conduct and wishes of the parents and the welfare of the child. Despite the reference in the Act to the child's welfare, in practice the courts tended not to deprive the father of the custody, although the child might be living with the mother, unless the mother could establish some misconduct on the part of the father which justified this.
  In 1922 and 1923, following the election of women to Parliament, a number of
  426
  Bills were introduced, the effect of which would have been to make the mother and the father joint guardians of their children. Those Bills were referred to Joint Committees of both Houses which failed to reach agreement upon them.
  In 1924 a Bill was introduced and given a Second Reading—despite the doubts of the then Labour Government —which would have given joint guardianship to both parents. After the Labour Government had entered into negotiations with the promotors of the Bill they introduced their own Bill which retained the principle that custody should remain with the father, but provided for the equality of the mother and father in court proceedings and also provided that the welfare of the child was to be the first and paramount consideration in such proceedings. It also enabled those proceedings to be brought in a magistrates' court and provided for the mother to be awarded maintenance as well as custody.
  Before that Bill could complete its passage the Government fell at the ensuing General Election, but the Bill was introduced in similar form by the then Conservative Government and became the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925. That Act left the custody in law to the father, but gave the mother equal rights to apply to the court to have the custody put into her name. Not surprisingly, that compromise did not satisfy the women's organisations at that time, and it was not long before their demands for equality were renewed. I find it somewhat surprising that it has taken nearly 50 years to achieve this reform.
  In 1965 my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has been a doughty fighter in this cause, introduced a Private Member's Bill which would have had the effect of granting joint guardianship to both parents. That Bill gained a Second Reading and passed through Standing Committee, but made no further progress. The only difference between my hon. Friend's attempt and the Government's proposals today is that the intention of her Bill was to grant to both parents joint custody, whereas the effect of this Bill is to provide for equal but separate rights over the children.
  Four years later the present Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the

  427
  Opposition, set up a Conservative Party research committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Anthony Cripps, of which I was privileged to be a member. That committee recommended that parents should be given equal rights of guardianship.
  As I said, in 1924 and at earlier stages objections had been seen to parents having joint rights. There would, indeed, be practical difficulties if by law day-to-day matters—for example, the need for a child to undergo an urgent operation— required the consent of both parents, one of whom might not readily be available. It is for that reason that that committee recommend the simpler solution of giving both parents equal rights, so that either parent could take the decision. That is the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill in England and Wales.
  To bring the history completely up to date, I remind the Committee that in the present parliamentary year my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who was eleventh in the Private Members' Ballot, gave notice that she intended to introduce a Bill which would have this effect. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for agreeing to withdraw her Bill to enable the Government's Bill, which was then in the process of entering the House of Lords, to go through in its place. After all the causes for which my hon. Friend has fought during her many years in the House of Commons, it must have been a wrench for her to agree, in her last parliamentary session, voluntarily to give up the chance of introducing a Private Member's Bill which might have become law. That generous gesture on her part shows that she is much more concerned with the principle of women having equality of rights with men over their children than she is with any personal glory which she might have gained from being the architect of that Bill.
  What Clause 1 does for England and Wales, Clause 10 does for Scotland. The effect of Clause 10 is to produce in Scotland a similar position to that in England. I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I do not go in detail through the provisions of Clause 10. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is a member of the
  428
  Committee. On a previous occasion, which the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) will probably remember, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North claimed to be an expert in Scottish law. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue the niceties of tutelage and pupilage under the Scottish law, my hon. Friend the Under-Sec-retary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, will ably assist, but as on that occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing a Bill which the Opposition's purpose was to delay as much as possible, he may not consider his knowledge of the Scottish law as great today as it apparently was on that occasion.
  The effect of Clause 1 is to give equal rights over the upbringing of their children to both the mother and the father; to give them equal rights over the control of any property that a child may have; to give them equal rights to make decisions about a child's upbringing—for example, equal rights to apply for a passport to allow the child to go abroad— and to make clear beyond doubt that decisions about a child's upbringing may in future be taken by a mother in the absence of her husband.
  The Clause also provides that where the parents are separated and the child is physically living with the mother the mother has a right to the custody of that child and a right to make decisions on that child's behalf without the necessity of applying for a court order, although it will still be necessary to apply for a court order should one parent wish to deprive the other parent of his or her equal rights.
  I have no doubt that parents, particularly when they are living together, almost invariably agree about the upbringing of their children. They bring into the world and bring up the child as a joint enterprise, and it is not surprising that normally they agree in decisions about the child. But the Bill provides for the case where the parents might disagree by giving both parents equal rights. That is the effect of Clause 1(3).
  At the moment, if the parents separate it is possible under the existing law for either to apply for custody, and for the parent having custody to be entitled to take decisions, but in the new situation

  429
  of equal rights created by the Bill we have to envisage the circumstances in which there is a disagreement between the parents who are living together and one of them wishes to put the matter before a court. I repeat that I do not suggest that that is likely to be a common situation, but it is clearly one for which the law must provide, hence subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 1.
  Section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act would apply to such proceedings as to all other proceedings concerning the custody and upbringing of the child, so that the first and paramount consideration in any question which the court is asked to decide will remain the consideration of the child's welfare. The court is prevented from making an order for custody and access in such an application, because that would not be appropriate if the parents were still living together. As I have said, if the parents are separated, and if one parent wishes to extinguish the rights of custody of another, a custody application can be made under the existing law.
  Equally, the purpose of Clause 1(7) is to preserve the situation which exists at the moment where the joint consent of both parents is required. This applies, for example, for consent to marriage or consent to adoption. The present law requires that for a child under a particular age the consent of both parents to the child's marriage must be obtained and, equally, before any adoption proceedings can take place the consent of both parents must be obtained. It is right that the law should remain as it is to deal with those two matters. It is not a decision that can be taken by one parent against the wishes of the other.
  With equal rights must, of course, go equal liabilities and responsibilities, and Parliament has not been slow in the past to accept equality between the sexes. The Statutes which place on parents the liability to maintain their children and to see that they are educated, and which require them not to ill-treat or neglect their children, already apply both to mother and father alike, but the existing guardianship law, while enabling the court to grant custody to either parent, and while retaining provisions whereby the father can be ordered to maintain the child if custody is given to the mother,
  430
  has no provision under which the mother can be ordered to provide maintenance for the child where the custody has been given to the husband.
  Therefore, to ensure that equal rights are matched by equal liabilities, the purpose of one of the consequential amendments made to Clause 2(1) is to enable the court which gives custody to the father to order the mother to pay maintenance to him. I believe that that is realistic. It recognises what may be the present-day situation, namely that through inheritance the mother may have money or, much more likely, through everyday work, her income may now be equivalent to or greater than that of the husband, and it is right that there should be provision for the court to grant maintenance to the child to be paid by the mother, just as at the moment there is power to order it to be paid by the father. The Bill therefore recognises, not before time perhaps, that the principle behind the law should be that the husband and wife have equal rights and responsibilities in relation to their children, and it is that fact which brings the law in this country into line with that in the Scandinavian countries and in many others.
  We all know that, in practice, the bringing up of children is a joint venture betwen husband and wife, and for this reason perhaps the practical effects of this Bill will not be great. There will not, I think, be any rush to the courts under Clause 1(3). Where a woman's husband has left her with the children and will not pay her maintenance, voluntarily or by agreement, it will still be necessary for her to bring proceedings in the courts. That procedure will also be necessary if there is a dispute about custody, or if the woman wishes to obtain an order giving her sole custody against the possibility of her husband's returning and seeking to exercise his equal part of parental rights. Equally, that situation will now apply to the husband.
  Under the existing law of separation, where the wife has the child, the husband is held to be acting within his legal rights if, in the absence of any court order, he takes that child away, but there is no equal right for a wife to come and take the child away from the husband. Under the rights of guardianship granted by the Bill, each parent will have a

  431
  right to custody of the child. Therefore, if they wish to provide against the possibility of one or other returning and seeking to remove the child they will have to apply to the court for such an order. If the wife has no reason to fear the husband's interference the Bill will enable her, without having to obtain an order from the court, to take decisions herself about the upbringing of her children.
  In practice the effect of this Bill may be small, but in principle I believe that it will be of great importance. I believe that it recognises, as we should recognise, that the mother has equal rights over the upbringing of their children with that of the father. It removes a clear discrimination which exists in the law against women, and in the eyes of many puts right what has long been looked upon as an injustice.
  Clauses 2 to 6—and Clauses 11 to 14 dealing with Scotland—extend the powers of the courts in guardianship proceedings under the Guardianship of Minors Act, and perhaps I may deal with them briefly. They enable the court, when adjourning a case for seven days or more, to make an interim order for custody and maintenance; they give to the court power, when making an order for custody, to order that the child shall be under the supervision of the local authority or a probation officer; and they enable the court, in exceptional circumstances, to commit the child to the care of the local authority.
  These are powers which the courts already have in matrimonial proceedings, and the effect of these clauses—as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) will appreciate—will be to give similar powers in proceedings under the Guardianship of Minors Act rather than under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. The reasons will be well known to the lawyers on the Committee.
  The great majority of applications to magistrates' courts under the Guardianship of Minors Act are brought in circumstances where the marriage has broken down, and in those circumstances the wife has the opportunity either to apply to the court under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act for maintenance
  432
  for herself—and in that ask for maintenance and custody of her children—or to apply, under the Guardianship of Minors Act, for custody and maintenance of the children.
  There are obvious reasons why she may prefer to do the latter. She may not be interested in maintenance for herself, or she may be aware that her husband's income is such that there is no real purpose in applying for such maintenance. It may be that in those proceedings she would have to show a matrimonial fault by the husband, and that she would be unable to do. It may be that she is the party who has chosen to leave. For various reasons she may wish to take proceedings to safeguard the children without asking for maintenance for herself. It is therefore right that in those proceedings the court should have a similar power to make the type of order in regard to the children it would have made had she taken proceedings on her own behalf as well.
  Clause 7 deals with the point which arose when the guardianship law was consolidated about two years ago. Section 8 of the Guardianship of Minors Act, which is the consolidating Act, says:
  "Every guardian under this Act shall have all such powers over the estate and person or over the estate (as the case may be) of a minor as any guardian appointed by will or otherwise has under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 or otherwise."
  The joint committee which considered the consolidation Bill pointed out that it was rather unfortunate that a 1971 Act should have to refer to the Tenures Abolition Act 1660—which at one time was probably on the lips of every lawyer, but which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has probably long forgotten—and the effect of Clause 7 is to carry out the proposals of the joint committee and modernise the law by setting out what was in fact the effect of these words. As I said, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor shared the view of the joint committee that the law should be modernised and the opportunity of the Bill has been taken to do so.
  It has been suggested that there are various other ways in which the Bill should be widened, and I want to mention two. It has been suggested, and it may be suggested during the debate today, that we should have taken the opportunity of the Bill to take in the recommendations

  433
  of the committee which reported on adoption. I shall do my best to answer any points that may be raised on that.
  This Bill has to do with the rights of a mother over her legitimate children, as against the rights of the father, and we are anxious to relate the Bill to issues which relate directly to the custody and maintenance of such children. The review of the adoption laws, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport knows, is de-partmentally no longer the responsibility of the Home Office but has been moved to the Department of Health and Social Security. Although I hate to rely on demarcation issues, there is a clear demarcation here. It is the view of that Department, as it was of the Home Office, that it is a report which needs to be considered and, if agreed upon, implemented as a whole, rather than attempt to pick out individual recommendations which might be worked into some other Bill.
  Also, it has been suggested by the justices clerks, among others, that the opportunity might have been taken to deal with various matters with regard to magistrates' courts' powers in proceedings for maintenance by a wife in her own right, and to deal generally with what they see as lacunae in the existing law on maintenance in matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts. As the Committee knows, matters relating to matrimonial proceedings are being considered by a working party of the Law Commission. That, I think, follows on from the passing of the Divorce Act and the distinction between matrimonial orders in the higher courts and in the lower courts. The Government think it right to await the recommendations of that working party, although they are perfectly happy to draw to its attention any matters which may be raised during this debate.
  To sum up, Mr. Fitch, the Bill has two objects. First, to remove from the law the outdated assumption that it is the husband who takes all the important decisions about the children and not the wife, and to replace it with the concept of equal rights and equal responsibilities. Secondly, to ensure that where, unhappily, the marriage has broken down and it becomes the duty of a court to take what steps it can to safeguard the
  434
  welfare of the children, the court should have the adequate and necessary powers.
  I commend the Bill to the Committee.
  11.1 a.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: The Opposition welcome the Bill as a further step in the battle over discrimination against women. As the Minister rightly said, the Bill is probably more important in principle than in practice, and those who wax eloquent about equality for women ought to devote their attention to ensuring that the other Bill now before this House—the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill—has a speedy passage, because there must be not merely equality of legal rights but also social and economic equality, and one can be meaningless without the other.
  The purpose of the Bill is to confer upon a legitimate mother the same rights in respect of the property and person of a child as are at present enjoyed by the father. It puts right an age-old inequality between husband and wife. Up to now, a wife has been treated like a domestic animal, rather than as a human being. She conceives the child, she bears the child, and she rears the child and yet, while the parties live together, she has no more rights of property or rights of control in that child at law than, let us say, a domestic animal has in respect of its offspring. It is about time that man's age-old proprietorial rights over women were abolished and women were given equal rights with their husbands. Therefore, as I said, we welcome the Bill and will ensure that it has a speedy passage.
  I shall not describe in detail the consequential effects of the Bill in so far as it relates to equality of the sexes, because that has already been done adequately by the Minister. I want to ask only one question about passports. The present position, where the parties are living together, is that the husband can apply for a passport for a child and he does not need the consent of the wife, but unless there is a court order to the contrary the wife often needs the consent of the husband. What is to be the practice of the Passport Office when the Bill becomes law? Will either spouse be able to consent to the child going out of the country and be able to apply for a passport for the child, or will both parties have to

  435
  consent to the child leaving the country before a passport is granted? It is important to know the answer, because I want to deal later with some of the difficulties which arise over the implementation of custody orders.
  I suppose that the Bill is unusual in these respects. First it implements one of the Government's election pledges. Secondly, it does not cost any money to implement. Thirdly, it implements the Opposition's policy because the Bill contains a recommendation made in paragraph 814 of the working party's report on discrimination against women. Thus there is a consensus on this issue of sharing equal rights in respect of children.
  The Bill does not deal only with according equal rights while the parties are living together, and the Government have not lost an opportunity to tidy up the law. Indeed, most of the Bill deals not with equality in respect of custody of the children but with the tidying-up process. Clauses 2 to 6 of the English part of the Bill, and Clauses 11 to 14 of the Scottish part of it, deal with the tidying-up process and allow the court, where an application is made under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, to make an order placing a child under supervision or, in exceptional circumstances, placing a child in the care of the local authority. Then there are consequential provisions arising from that decision, as well as provisions about interim orders, and a tidying-up of the words in the 1971 Act which legislated by reference to an Act of 1660.
  I do not quarrel with the opportunity to tidy up the law relating to guardianship, and it is right that that should be done, but I want to make just one criticism. In Clause 2(2)(a), there is a provision that a child can be placed under the supervision of a specified local authority or a probation officer. I wonder whether it is right, in proceedings which have no criminal taint at all and which relate solely to guardianship or to access to a child, that the court should have power to place a child under the supervision of a probation officer. First, that seems to be contrary to the general trend of making local authorities the main agents to take care of children. Secondly, there is a criminal taint to a child being under the supervision of a probation
  436
  officer. Thirdly, probation officers are already fully engaged on their main duties of befriending and assisting offenders. I should have thought that it was better to remove the reference to a probation officer and to allow the court to place a child only under the care of a local authority.
  Clauses 3 and 4 are consequential on the decision to tidy up the law of guardianship, and I make no criticism at all of them. But there are other matters which should be put into the Bill. We have an opportunity to implement some of the recommendations of the departmental committee on the adoption of children. I do not suggest for one moment that one could graft on to this Bill detailed provisions about adoption law—because I do not for a moment think that that would be practical—but there are many recommendations in the report which relate only to guardianship and to the custody of children, and I should have thought that this was the right opportunity to have a look at them.
  For instance, there are often tug-of-love cases in which a child is lovingly and devotedly cared for by foster parents, is sometimes neglected by its natural parents or forgotten by them for long periods, and then, when the child is 14, 15 or 16, the natural parents want to take it away from the foster parents. Most people feel that it is an injustice that the foster parents find it impossible to obtain any rights in respect of the child. That is an urgent matter which requires urgent legislation to deal with it.
  I realise that, to some extent, the courts have begun to solve the problem. In the case of "O", a minor, whose Nigerian natural parents lived in my constituency, this young child had been in the care of a middle-class white family living in Surrey for about 14 years. The Nigerian natural parents, who paid very little towards the maintenance of the child and did not appear to take a very great interest in it, wanted to take it back to Nigeria, but the court very properly decided that it should remain with the foster parents. The court did that by the device of making the child a ward of court, on condition that it remained with the foster parents. That is the kind of situation which has arisen, and we ought to take the opportunity now to deal with tug-of-love cases.

  437
  After all if, under Clause 2, a child can be placed in the care of a local authority when its parents are disputing custody of the child, I do not see why we cannot say that when a dispute arises between parents and foster parents the court should have an opportunity to make a guardianship order in favour of the foster parents, with adequate protection for the natural parents.
  The point is dealt with succinctly in the inter-departmental committee report, which says in paragraph 116:
  "There are many children who are not being brought up by their natural parents but are in the long-term care of foster parents or relatives. These people normally have no legal status in relation to the child, and the law provides no means by which they can obtain it without cutting his links with his natural family by adoption. They are faced with the choice of doing without the legal security,"—
  and these are the important words—
  "which may be damaging to the child".
  One ought to take the opportunity, therefore, to legislate on this matter, otherwise we shall find ourselves in difficulty in which the House has found itself time and again. In 1920, people were generally agreed that parents ought to have equal rights over the children, but because of the way in which this House conducts itself it has taken 53 years to translate that into legislation. Therefore, we should take this golden opportunity— it will not take very much longer—to do something about guardianship and about the rights of foster parents, because the opportunity may not arise again for another 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years.
  Time and time again that is the story of social legislation, but in the report there are recommendations on guardianship which could properly be incorporated in the Bill. There is Recommendation 21, that
  "The right to apply for custody under the Guardianship of Minors Act … should be extended … to relatives already caring for a child and foster parents".
  There is Recommendation 22, that
  "A guardianship order should not deprive the natural parents of the right to consent, or withhold consent, to adoption."
  There is Recommendation 31, that
  "The law should require 28 days' notice of removal of a child who has been in the care of a local authority for 12 months or more, and during this period of notice it should not
  438
  be possible to remove the child without the permission of the caring authority."
  There is already in the Bill a clause which states that a child can be placed in the care of a local authority, even when there is a dispute only about custody by the parents. Surely it is logical, if we think it right to make a court order placing a child in the care of a local authority, to take up this recommendation that, when a child has been in the care of the local authority for more than twelve months it cannot be removed without 28 days' notice. A paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child, and these recommendations surely add to that consideration.
  Finally, there is a Recommendation 32, that
  "Local authorities should have discretion to resolve to assume parental rights over any child who has been in their care for three years."
  I hope that in Committee stage the opportunity to legislate on these very urgent and often very heart-rending matters will not be neglected. I realise that the report must await further consideration, but these are urgent matters which could be dealt with by amendments to the Bill.
  One other matter is the flouting of orders for custody by the husband or wife when the child is taken out of the jurisdiction of the Scottish or English courts in order to defy the rights legally conferred by the court on the other parent. There is a clear duty on the Government to act to prevent a child being abducted out of the United Kingdom to thwart the order of the court. We must put an end to the hide-and-seek chases round the court houses of the world where it appears that, with impunity, a husband—or a wife—may pick and choose jurisdictions to achieve the result he desires.
  The Desramault case achieved the greatest degree of publicity, and there were protracted proceedings in the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland. One shudders to think of the cost of the proceedings for the parents in that case. One has to be extremely rich, or blessed with the beneficence of somebody else, to fight the proceedings in this country, proceedings and an appeal in France, and finally proceedings in Switzerland, possibly also going to appeal.

  439
  There was another case of a mother in Devon having custody and the child was abducted and taken to Algeria. I read that she was able to charter a plane to Algeria to fight the case there, but how many working-class parents can afford to go to Algeria, let alone charter an aircraft to go there? I have a case in my constituency of a child being taken to the United States and it has proved impossible to trace the child. If the child is traced the parent who has him or her can play hide-and-seek from state to state because there is no federal guardianship law in the United States.
  I raised this matter on the consideration of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, when I urged a study of this problem. The matter should be looked at again, because in these times of rapid communication, when the frontiers of Europe are being opened up more and more, it is a growing problem. I should like an undertaking from the Government that they will consult the United Nations, or at least their European partners or members of the Council of Europe in order to achieve reciprocal recognition and enforcement of orders for custody.
  The court which makes the order where the child is resident should be the court whose order is observed by other courts. If one can pick and choose the jurisdiction by travelling, the whole purpose of custody law can be defeated. If there can be directives from financial institutions dealing with substantial sums of money, I do not see why something similar cannot be achieved where there are human considerations.
  I am sorry that I have dealt mostly with matters which are not in the Bill, with some which should be in the Bill, and with others which relate to custody orders, but I welcome the Bill. I am sure that it will have a speedy passage, especially if the Government include the matters of custody which I mentioned.
  11.18 a.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: First, may I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on introducing this Bill. I gather that it was he who arranged for the Bill to be introduced into the other place. It appears to me, having read every word of the proceedings in the other place,
  440
  that some of the most outstanding lawyers took part in the debates there and made substantial changes which I am sure will be beneficial.
  I am also grateful to the Government because this is the second Bill which I have introduced as a private Member and which they have taken over. The other was the Attachment of Earnings Bill which the Government took over as the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill.
  I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who will always support these causes. My hon. Friend put her name to the Bill when it seemed doubtful whether the Government would take it over, and she was willing to join the battle to get it on the Statute Book.
  I should like to clear up a point raised in the other place about passports. When I failed to get my Bill through, I raised the matter in the House, and on 27th January 1966, Mr. George Thomson, who was then the Minister in charge, gave me an assurance that women would be able to obtain the necessary passports and the arrangement has proved to be satisfactory. During the debate on the Bill in the other place the noble Viscount, Viscount Colville of Culross, said:
  "The present situation is that a child may be included on his fathers or on his mother's passport, or on both of them simultaneously. Under the existing practice, a mother who wants to take abroad a child who is entered on his father's passport has only to apply to the Passport Office to have him entered on her own passport, always provided that no objection has been lodged by the legal guardian or by a party awarded custody or care."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March, 1973; Vol. 340, c. 669.]
  Since Mr. Thomson gave that permission to the Passport Office there has been no difficulty in a woman, even if she has been deserted, getting a passport, and the system has worked well up to now.
  There is also the question of probation officers. I understand that there is a difference between the practice in England and Wales and Scotland. No child can be referred to a probation officer in Scotland, and I suggest that we try to see that that—
  Mr. Carlisle: The reason is that there is no separate probation service in Scotland. It has been merged with the local authority social services.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I know that there are extenuating circumstances, but a child should never be referred to a probation officer unless he or she has been guilty of a misdemeanour.
  With regard to the recommendations of the Houghton Committee, I disagree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I sat on that committee, which met for nearly three years, and it would be a great mistake to have its recommendations dealt with piecemeal, particularly as there is a European Convention. A number of changes would be necessary in order to meet the recommendations of the Houghton Committee. The European Convention on the adoption of children would need to be modified. That would require consultation through the Council of Europe or through Ministers, and that would be more beneficial than dealing with the matter in a Bill like this.
  Clause 1, taken with Schedule 1, provides for the rights and authority of the father and the mother. I do not like the words "rights and authority". Could we not have "authority"? "Rights" seems to me to denote squabbling over rights, and what we want is for one parent or another to have authority. Do we need the two words?
  If parental powers are to be separate and equal, and if parents separate without agreeing who is to have custody of the children, that may increase the incidence of kidnapping. The Minister will no doubt agree that it should be an offence and an actionable civil wrong for any person to remove a child under the age of five from the custody of his father or mother without the consent of the parent or a court. The Paignton case has been referred to and a lot of kidnapping is going on at present.
  Since the enactment Section 2 of the Infants Custody Act 1873 it has been clear that a separation agreement between spouses may include provision for someone other than the father to have custody and care of a minor but, quoting Re Besant, 1879 and Besant v. Wood, 1879, the courts will not enforce such an agreement if they do not consider it for the benefit of the child. However, the attention of the other place was drawn to the ante-nuptial waiver which might be required by the members of a religious community from someone who is not a
  442
  member of that community. Can the Minister say something about that matter because it did not seem to me to have been settled in the other place? It might revive sectarian litigation about authority over young children, which in England and Wales has been quiescent, while we know the results of the practice in the past in Northern Ireland.
  In Clause 1(5) the last words are:
  "any other person having the custody of the minor ".
  Does that mean factual, rather than legal custody or care? Suppose that A divorces B, and B is given custody of the children and remarries. Should B die before appointing a guardian in her will, A will be the guardian even though he may not have seen the children for years, or even live in Britain. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clear that up.
  Clause 1(5) might mean that B's second husband, with whom the children have been living, can apply to be appointed a guardian and retain custody of the children, even against the natural parent with whom contact has been lost. As I understand it, an application can be made under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, but only if a minor has no parent or guardian.
  Clause 7, which I gather is consolidation, is excellent.
  The Minister has been clever in anticipating what I was going to say about magistrates' clerks. I received his letter only today. My secretary rang me in a panic, but I received it in time. Clause 6(2) requires the reporting officer to give evidence on oath. Thus, if there were a typing error, the probation officer concerned would have to appear in court. This provision seems unnecessary, because it says that the court has no discretion even to disregard a point which is made in error and which is not disputed by either party, or which has little or no relevance or importance.
  The magistrates' clerks consider that the requirement that the report should be read aloud in every case should not be repeated in the Bill and that Section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960 should be amended to allow reports to be read silently if that is thought to be more appropriate. This is a practical point, and

  443
  its acceptance would make no real difference to the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend might consider taking some action on it.
  Then there is the case of "split orders". It is important that this issue should be dealt with in this Bill, unless my hon. and learned Friend can produce a strong argument against that being done. It appears that an order can be made giving custody to one parent, and care and control to another. As I understand it, in such cases the magistrates' court has no power to order a parent given custody to pay maintenance to the other parent who looks after and maintains the child. Surely that simple point could be dealt with. I shall not press some of the points that I have made, but some are justifiable, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should consider dealing with these "split orders".
  This is not just a women's liberation Bill, but a Bill to liberate men, because it gives equal authority to both. I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood. I should have liked to have seen some of the Houghton Committee recommendations in the Bill, but, that might have meant that the Bill would not become law this session, which I hope it will.
  Clause 2, together with Schedule 2, confers on the courts the power to order a minor under 16 years to be under the supervision of a local authority—and this is where I join the hon. Gentleman— because it also refers to "the probation officer" in respect of England. In Scotland it is just the local authority. I hope that we can delete the words "probation officer". These officers are overworked, and too few in number.
  I welcome the Bill because it puts deserted women, in particular, on the same footing as the widow and the woman with an illegitimate child. Until now, women with no knowledge of where their husbands are, and who have not seen their husbands for years, have had to go to court and get custody of their children. In provincial towns this could lead to a great deal of publicity. Where the evidence can be given silently, it is marvellous for the children if that is done, because it is unfortunate if home life is exposed to their neighbours.
  Does my hon. and learned Friend think that with this Bill, and with the Domicile
  444
  and Matrimonial Proceedings Bill which has been given a Third Reading, there will be more cases like the Desramault case? In other words, in a similar case the mother would not have to go to court because she would already have joint custody of the child, whereas the husband who had never seen the child would have to go to court. If the mother could choose her own domicile in Great Britain there would be no necessity for the child to be taken from one country to another. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say that that will be the result of the two Bills which are now going through Parliament.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his trouble in explaining the Bill and I hope that the Committee will give it a Second Reading.
  11.34 a.m.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I support the Bill. Any Bill which increases the rights of women is a good Bill. It is a pity that in 1973 we should be occupied with Bills affecting the rights of women. By this time women should have full and equal rights with men.
  I do not complain about anything that is contained in the Bill, but rather about what is not in the Bill and should have been there. The Government must have known of my intention to seek to intro-troduce, under the Ten Minute Rule, a Private Member's Bill to safeguard the interests of children who might be removed from the jurisdiction of our own courts in custody cases such as the Desramault case. I have twice raised this case in Adjournment debates, and I am disappointed that the Government have not included in the Bill a clause on these lines.
  A major injustice was perpetrated on my constituent Linda Desramault by Gos-forth magistrates' court. The magistrates' decision was almost immediately roundly condemned by the Lord Chancellor, who subsequently roundly condemned it again in a speech he made to a meeting of magistrates.
  It might be argued that the Lord Chancellor has so roundly condemned the magistrates' decision that it is unlikely that a similar decision will ever again be taken. In the Desramault case there was

  445
  an incompetent solicitor, a fairly inexperienced clerk and two magistrates who were determined to reach an abysmally bad judgment. In working on the case for so long I have seen the agonies of Linda Desramault and, in recent weeks, what I feared for so long, the insecurity of the child which has arisen as a direct result of the Gosforth magistrates' decision and the to-ing and fro-ing which she has had to undergo in her three years of life.
  If the Government are not prepared to insert a clause at a later stage along the lines I shall suggest, I am determined to pursue this matter by means of a Private Member's Bill. It is nonsense that a Private Member should have to introduce a Bill to safeguard the interests of children and parents when the opportunity to do so is before us in this Bill.
  No child in future should ever be put to the risk to which poor Caroline Desramault has been put. It would be criminal for us to allow this opportunity to slip by. All that is needed is a simple clause stating that in child custody cases, where there is the possibility of the child being removed from the jurisdiction of the British courts a stay of execution of ten or fourteen days must apply. That would give the necessary time for the parent to prevent the child from being whisked away to a foreign country. That is all I ask. I know the strong arguments about the Lord Chancellor's condemnation of the Desramault decision, but if there is the tiniest possibility of another poor little individual being put at the same risk as Caroline Desramault we shall be failing in our duty if we do not take this opportunity to prevent that from ever happening again.
  11.38 a.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I am tempted to accept the implied invitation of the Minister of State to delve into the law of Scotland, but I shall resist that, especially in view of the absence of the Undersecretary of State.
  The Minister gave us a detailed and good account of the history and development of this situation. He tried to take credit for the Bill having derived from a Conservative Report "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" and from the Tory manifesto
  446
  but, like all useful legal measures, the Bill can claim parentage from both political parties, not only from "Fair Shares for the Fair Sex" but also from a document called "Discrimination against Women" issued by the Labour Party, which is largely to the same effect.
  The Bill, which makes for equality between husband and wife in the guardianship of children and enables disputes about children to be submitted to the courts without the necessity for the separation of the parents, is a useful measure, but its importance does not appear to be recognised by the Women's Lib movement, from which I have heard no ecstatic welcome for it.
  In introducing the Bill in another place, the Minister of State spoke almost apologetically of the indigestible appearance of the measure. To a layman—and possibly even to a lawyer—the Bill appears to be a mass of verbiage. I have often critici-cised the detailed, involved and almost incomprehensible language in which our Acts are couched, yet the draftsmen continue to use such incomprehensible language. I suppose that a lawyer should not complain, but it is a pity that our laws are not framed in simple language.
  I can point to dozens of examples in the Bill where the most involved language is used. Often there are included quite unnecessary words, presumably ex abundanii cautela.
  There were criticisms in another place of Clause 1 (2) by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The Subsection says:
  "An agreement for a man or woman to give up in whole or in part, in relation to any child of his or hers, the rights and authority referred to in subsection (1) above shall be unenforceable, except that an agreement made between husband and wife which is to operate only during their separation while married may, in relation to a child of theirs, provide for either of them to do so; but no such agreement between husband and wife shall be enforced by any court if the court is of opinion that it will not be for the benefit of the child to give effect to it."
  The noble Lord was successful in having deleted from the mass of verbiage the reference originally contained in the Bill to ante-nuptial agreements. The noble Lord was right in saying that the cardinal principle is the welfare of the child, and that subsection (2) is unnecessary and should be deleted. I hope that in Committee something might be done about that.

  447
  On Clause 2, I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) said. The clause gives power to the court to order a minor under the age of 16 to be placed under the supervision of a local authority or a probation officer. It is a criticism that a criminal matter is not involved here. I read with admiration the words quoted in another place from the speech made by the Minister of State to the Association of Children's Officers, when he spoke of the increasing burden being placed on probation officers. Because of the greater resources of the social services of local authorities the duty imposed by the clause should be confined to local authorities and should not be placed on probation officers.
  I should like to add a word or two to what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said about the provisions that are not contained in the Bill. There is a great deal of force in what the Minister said about the difficulty of inserting into the Bill, for example, provisions relating to illegitimate children. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Robert C. Brown) said about the stay of execution, and I hope that the insertion of such a provision may be considered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood made a powerful speech about the recommendations of the departmental committee. The importance of his point is that we criticised these matters many years ago. It has taken more than 50 years to introduce this comparatively small but useful measure. Why can we not now take this opportunity of examining these provisions carefully and of seeing whether some of the useful recommendations which have been made can be inserted in the Bill? I strongly support my hon. Friend's plea.
  I was glad to see that, in the interests of my long-suffering sex, equal rights on the part of married women are to be matched by equal liabilities. I very much support the Bill.
  11.46 a.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I congratulate the Minister on promoting the Bill. Last year I asked him in the House whether he would introduce legislation to this effect. He then promised to do so, assuring us that it would be in
  448
  this session. That promise has certainly been honoured.
  I also welcome the formula that the rights of women should be equal, but separate rather than joint, which could produce a great many complications.
  As has been said, it has for a long time been obvious that women are discriminated against in respect of their children. It has been a monstrous obser-vancy of our law for many years that women have had no rights whatsoever in respect of their children in the absence of a court order, whereas a husband, however little his interest in and however much his disinclination to be bothered with his child, has had full custodial rights in the absence of a court order.
  I also welcome the quid pro quo to the males of our society, in that in future they can seek to obtain maintenance for their children—
  Dame Joan Vickers: They can now.
  Mr. Lyons: —from the mothers of those children, although one appreciates that this will seldom be invoked. Because of the growth of sexual equality, because of the growing number of women occupying positions of responsibility and because of the growing number of professional women and women who have inherited wealth, this is a useful step.
  Dame Joan Vickers: They can do it now. This is nothing new. It can be done under previous Acts.
  Mr. Lyons: I shall take guidance from the Minister about that, but I have never known of a claim by a husband for maintenance for a child. A husband can claim maintenance for himself from his estranged wife, but I was not aware that he could claim maintenance for a child from her. If that is so, provision in the Bill seems otiose. I can hardly imagine that it is so. However, no doubt the Minister will deal with that. I think that the hon. Lady is in some confusion.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am not.
  Mr. Lyons: The question of a woman's right to obtain a passport for her child has been raised from time to time. We are told that the practice has recently been changed in that regard. As I recollect it, the passport application form.

  449
  contains no suggestion whatever that a woman has a right to have her child included on her passport. It may be that the Foreign Office—or the Home Office —now permits children to be put on to their mother's passport on her application, but that is a secret largely within Whitehall. I doubt whether there are 10 solicitors in Britain who are aware of this change of practice. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross said in Committee in the other place that that was not the practice at the time of a ministerial reply five years ago.
  Now there has been a change in the practice, but it is not enshrined in any legislation, and no one knows about it. The way to let people know about it is to put it in an Act or, alternatively, to put it on the passport application form. Busy solicitors cannot be expected to know everything. The noble Lord, Lord Colville is a brilliant lawyer but on Second Reading he was not aware that mothers have rights in respect of their children being included on their passports. He had to make inquiries of his civil servants. If he did not know, what possible hope is there that solicitors will know of this when they are advising clients? I do not believe that at present one woman in this country is aware of this change in practice.
  There has been correspondence in The Times recently about discrimination against women in relation to the inclusion of children on their passports, clearly in relation to the change of governmental attitude. Something should be done to publicise this change. As a first step, the passport application form should be changed. As I recollect it, that form contains a section dealing with the insertion of children on the father's passport, but there is no suggestion that a mother has similar rights.
  There has been reference this morning to children who are taken abroad by a parent without the consent of the parent remaining here. Many Members of Parliament have had cases where constituents have complained about the difficulties of rescuing children who are abroad. I understand that legal aid is not provided for proceedings undertaken abroad for this purpose. If that is so, that is something which might usefully be altered without great cost to the Government.
  450
  The housewife has no possibility of raising the funds for pursuing her action abroad, except with the assistance of newspapers in remarkable cases. It would be useful if legal aid could be extended within narrow terms to cover this situation. With a growing cosmopolitan society in Britain and the shrinking of the world, there will be many of these cases. The present machinery for ensuring that children are kept in the country unless both parents consent to their going abroad is inadequate.
  It is curiosity about the new Foreign Office procedure in relation to passports that, in addition to the father being able to take the child out of the country without his wife's permission, in future the mother is able to take the child out without the husband's permission—unless either parent has foreseen the situation and has obtained a court order or taken some other action of that sort to prevent that. In future there will be instances of women taking their children out of the jurisdiction without their husband's authority. There is, therefore, equality of injustice here. Previously only the father could do this, but now we are saying that the mother can take the child out of the country without the consent of the father. That is a curious kind of equality which we are promoting. There ought to be an examination now in relation to the right to take children out of the jurisdiction on the say-so of one parent.
  It could be argued that the Government have not met the objection about passports. All that the Government have said is not that both parents should consent, but that either can take the child abroad unless there has been a court order or some preliminary action of that sort. The trouble about a woman taking preliminary action is that she often does not know that she has the right to do so.
  I make those points in reservation, but I think that the Bill is a very useful step forward and I welcome it with great enthusiasm. It is not a Bill which will strike the headlines, but any lawyer knows how women suffer through an absence of rights in relation to their children. This makes a good change and the Government deserve congratulations.
  11.56 a.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to reply, first,

  451
  by thanking hon. Members for giving a general welcome to the Bill, which is important in principle even if its practical events are fairly small. This is a Second Reading Committee, but, listening to the various points being raised, I felt that it was clearly the Committee Stage. In general, most of the points raised were Committee matters. However, I shall do my best to answer them, although I do not undertake to be able to answer without advice the plethora of points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).
  Going quickly through the points in the order in which they were raised, I start with the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) in his lucid and interesting speech. The hon. Gentleman—and other hon. Members, too—asked what the position would be in relation to passports. He asked specifically whether it would mean that the husband would be able to apply without the wife, and the wife without the husband, or that they would both have to apply.
  I am told that at present the provision is very much as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, namely, that in practice the passport authorities accept applications by either party. But whatever the present position may be, and whatever the clear legal position may be—there is doubt about it —we understand from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that, when the Bill becomes law, that office will grant a standard passport on the consent of either party, unless objection is lodged, supported by evidence, that the objector has been awarded custody or care and control by a court, or that the child is a ward of court, or subject to a High Court order that the child shall not be taken out of jurisdiction. As at present, once passport facilities have been given in respect of a child, it will not be possible to revoke them.
  As I understand the present position, in practice the passport authorities grant a passport on the application of one parent, although it is not clear whether they are legally entitled to do so, certainly on the application of the mother. But it is clear that they will be entitled to do so when the Bill has gone through
  452
  Parliament, and they will in practice do so.
  The hon. Gentleman raised another point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port and by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). That was the reference in Clause 2(2) to the power to place a child under the supervision of a probation officer. It was argued by the hon. Gentleman and others that the reference to the probation officer should be removed because there was a taint of criminality in being put under the supervision of a probation officer which was not involved in a child being put under the supervision of a local authority. I have listened to what has been said, and I am prepared to consider this matter again, but I must make it clear that it was looked at and rejected when the Bill was going through the other place.
  We are conscious that there is pressure on the resources of the probation service. Equally, we are conscious—it is not a departmental responsibility of the Home Office—that there are pressures on the resources of the local authorities, that the new departments set ups as a result of the Seebohm Report are not all up to the establishment strength that they would wish to be and that there is a shortfall on local authority social workers. It is for that reason that the Government have made it clear—the hon. Gentleman referred to a speech that I made on the Children and Young Persons Act—that they would raise the age when they were satisfied that local authorities were capable of meeting the job. We have recently raised the age at which children must be put under the care of the local authority rather than probation officers and we would rather approach the position by gradually raising the age.
  My noble friend the Minister of State in another place pointed out that the effect of removing the words "probation officer" from the Bill would be to impose on the social service department an additional 4,000 children who as a result of matrimonial proceedings are being supervised by the probation service. Equally, by using the words "probation officer",. we are in line with what the matrimonial proceedings legislation set out. We are anxious to reduce the load on the probation service, but I am quite prepared, if

  453
  an amendment is put down, to look at it again. I cannot say more than that. I am prepared to invite officials in the Home Office, in consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security, to look again at this issue.
  The next point which the hon. Member for Norwood made was the very general one about bringing in those recommendations in the adoption report which relate to the guardianship of children. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the "tug-of-love" cases and of the various recommendations in that type of case concerning the foster parent, but I think that in the examples which he gave the hon. Gentleman himself raised the difficulties to which reference has been made. Of course it is true to say that the right of foster parents to apply for guardianship of a child whom they have had in their care for 10 or 15 years appears, on the face of it, to be a simple and straightforward right—and where the natural parents are agreeable to that the Bill raises no problem—but were that right to be written into the Bill in those cases where the natural parents disagreed, one would come to the fundamental issue of the adoption law as to what should be the rights of natural parents over children, as against those of long-term foster parents.
  The issue opens up a wide area of debate which is by no means lacking in controversy. That is why all the recommendations in the adoption report must be looked at as a whole, rather than that we should take individual points and say, "This deals with guardianship, we will slip it into the Guardianship Act". It is interesting to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport—and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is not present today—has not herself pressed this on the Government, although I am aware that the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood have been made by various outside bodies. I do not think that it would be right to deal with this issue at this time, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that under the 1971 Act, as amended by the Bill, the courts can grant custody to a foster parent or to any other person. It is only the parent who can apply for custody, although the court on that application can grant it to the foster parent.
  454
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, referred to the fact that in South Scotland a child cannot be put in the care of a probation officer. The reason is that in Scotland there is no separate probation service. It is merged in the local authority, which means that in these as well as in criminal cases the child is committed to the care of the local authority.
  Coming to the Desramault case, I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend and, indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Robert C. Brown), when I say that the Bill does not affect the Desramault case, and perhaps I may explain why. First, if the parties are separated and are in dispute over the custody of the child, if one party wishes to extinguish the rights of the other an application will still have to be made to the courts. Secondly, in any event the application in the Desramault case was made not under the Guardianship of Minors Act, but under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act. It was an application by the wife for maintenance for the child and, I think, for maintenance for herself.
  It is true that the Bill, had it been an Act, would have provided for Mrs. Desramault equal custody of that child so that she would not have had to apply to the court for custody as such, but if she had wished to apply for maintenance for the child from her husband she would still, unless it was being paid voluntarily —and it was not—have had to apply to the court for such maintenance. On the application going to the court the court has the power, and it will continue to have it, to grant custody to either parent. The Bill does not affect the rights of the court on any application, so even under this Bill there is no doubt that Mrs. Desramault would have had to make application to the court.
  The hon. Member for Norwood raised the matter of the reciprocal enforcement of custody orders. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have looked at this. The real difficulty is that many other jurisdictions do not, as we do in this country, have the fundamental concept that in deciding the custody of children the welfare of the child is paramount, and this raises difficulty for the enforcement of custody order in this country of orders

  455
  made in another country where the interests of the child are not paramount.
  Suppose a husband obtains an order for custody in a country where he is entitled to custody as such, and the wife comes to this country. It would be difficult to ask the courts of this country to enforce this order because it was clear to them that the wife, rather than the father, should have custody. There are difficulties about this, and we cannot avoid them by unilaterally legislating in this country.
  This matter was raised at the European Ministers of Justice meeting last year— I think by the Austrian delegate. On that occasion my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and also the representative from France, spoke strongly on this matter, and it was agreed that, through the Council of Europe, the issue should be looked at as it related to European countries, and various solutions were put forward. There are difficulties, but we would insist that the courts should be concerned with the welfare and interests of the child.
  As I am on the Desramault case, let me come to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne about an automatic stay of execution. As he knows, the court has the right and the power to make a stay of execution should it wish to do so. It sounds, on the face of it, attractive to say that the court must give a stay of execution if there is the possibility of a child being taken out of its jurisdiction, but if that is done it will apply even in cases where there is no dispute between the parents. It may be that the mother who wishes to go abroad applies for custody, and the husband is willing that she should have it, but she would be prevented from taking the child abroad.
  I shall not attempt to distribute blame, but will merely repeat the factual matter on which the hon. Gentleman commented. The solicitor acting for Mrs. Desramault did not make an application to the court, as she could have done, for a stay of execution to be made pending an appeal. I am not sure whether an automatic stay of execution is the right way to approach it. Secondly, if, under this Bill, the procedure would apply only to guardianship cases, it would not apply to the equal
  456
  or more prevalent application which is made under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act on behalf of the wife and children.
  The best set of laws cannot always prevent kidnapping or the removal of children from the jurisdiction of a court. Therefore, anxious and desirous as we are to avoid the tragedy of incidents such as the Desramault case, I am not sure that the matter could be done as simply as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport raised the question of the kidnapping of children. I must have notice of that question. It is an offence to kidnap a child, and I am not sure whether that offence would not apply against the party who had not the custody of the child.
  My hon. Friend also asked about antenuptial settlements, and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North asked about Clause 1(2). I said nothing about that subsection because I hoped that if I said nothing about it at this stage no one else would say anything either. I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, who suggested that the simple answer was to remove Clause 1(2), that if it were omitted it is doubtful whether separation agreements would be enforceable.
  Lord Simon thinks that in the new situation created by Clause 1(1) such agreements would be enforceable anyway without the necessity for Clause 1(2) but, that, with respect to the noble Lord, we consider is debatable and depends on the view that one takes on the basis of the common law rule which invalidates agreements for giving up the custody of children, and it would be wrong, therefore, to leave the legal decision of separation agreements uncertain. We may come back to that at a later stage, and I hope then to be able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a slightly longer explanation. As I understand it, Clause 1(2) states that agreements to give up custody rights over children shall be unenforceable except in certain circumstances, and the whole issue is whether or not ante-nuptial agreements are included. Perhaps I may make one other general point on the calling of probation officers under Clause 6(2), and on split orders.
  We do not dispute the merits of the argument which the justices' clerks have

  457
  put forward, but it would clearly not be sensible to amend the guardianship law without at the same time amending the equivalent section of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. To amend proceedings under that Act would be outside the scope of the Bill, and if we made the amendments for which my hon. Friend asked a probation officer would not need to be called in guardianship proceedings, but he would still have to be called in proceedings brought under the Matrimonial Proceeding (Magistrates' Courts) Act. As I said, the whole question of matrimonial proceedings is being looked at by the working party of the Law Commission, but I can give the assurance that we shall draw these matters specifically to its attention.
  I am sure that I am right in saying that the same position applies in the case of the split order. It is true that there is no power to order maintenance to be paid to the person who has the care and control when the custody rests in the other parent, but if we made the amendments asked for we should be in the position that there would be power if guardianship proceedings were taken, but not if matrimonial proceedings were taken. Therefore, it is better that we should look at the whole matter.
  My hon. Friend, and the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), asked whether there is power to order a wife to pay maintenance to her husband in respect of a child. I bow to my hon. Friend's tremendous knowledge of all the details of the law of guardianship, but I am bound to say that on this occasion I come down on the side of the hon. Member for Bradford, East, in saying that the provisions of this Bill are not otiose. The position is that if proceedings are brought under the Matrimonial Proceeding (Magistrates' Courts) Act and the court grants the children to the husband, it can order the wife to pay maintenance, but if the proceedings are brought under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, the Bill makes it absolutely clear that an order for maintenance of the children can be made only against the husband in favour of the wife. It is therefore necessary to amend that part of the Bill to bring proceedings under the Guardianship of Minors Act into line with what, as my hon. Friend rightly said, has applied
  458
  since 1960 in respect of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act.
  I do not know, Mr. Fitch, whether I have answered all the points that were made. My hon. Friend asked whether the words
  "having the custody of the minor "
  in Clause 1(5) referred to physical or legal custody. Having looked quickly at them, there is no doubt in my mind that those words must mean custody granted by a court order. The hon. Member for Bradford, East asked about legal aid in foreign proceedings. At the moment, legal aid does not apply to proceedings abroad, and I cannot hold out any promise that it will do so. Granting legal aid in proceedings abroad for actions relating to custody of children would raise issues going far beyond the scope of the guardianship law. It could hardly be introduced in a side way into this Bill. For one thing, it would require a money resolution, which is not attached to this Bill.
  Mr. Lyons: I was not suggesting that it could come within the purview of this Bill. I was hoping the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was looking at this problem with a benign eye, since there will be many cases in which women will have no chance of pursuing their children abroad unless they get financial assistance from the State.
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the eyes of my colleagues in the Treasury, which I think are probably more important, and, equally, to those of my noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, since this is a civil matter and the Lord Chancellor is responsible for civil legal aid.
  My final comment is that I am grateful for the general welcome which the Bill has been given. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North both made the point that it was all very well for me to say that the Bill is the result of a recommendation by a Conservative Party Committee, but that it is equally Labour Party policy. All I can say is that the difference between the two Governments is that we not only made this our policy, but have got things done about it.
  Dame Joan Vickers: We must be fair about this. It was the Labour Government which made me bring my Bill through and got it to Report stage, and it was the Conservatives who brought in 40 Members and talked me out.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that my hon. Friend is right. That is why it is unwise to leave these matters to Private Members. Both parties can claim to be sires of this Bill, but the difference is that the Conservative Party has chosen to give birth to a live baby.
  I have great pleasure, therefore, in again commending this Bill to the Committee, but before we adjourn may I thank you, Mr. Fitch, for presiding over the Committee today. I do not pretend that you have had an arduous task or that your powers of authority and leadership have been put greatly to the test, but I hope that you have found it in-

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Fitch, Mr. Alan (Chairman)

  Haselhurst, Mr.

  Brown, Mr. Robert C.

  King, Mr. Evelyn

  Carlisle, Mr.

  Lyons, Mr. Edward

  Cordle, Mr.

  Monro, Mr.

  Dunn, Mr.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Ellis, Mr.

  Walder, Mr. David

  Fraser, Mr. John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Goodhew, Mr.

  Weitzman, Mr.

  teresting, and certainly it has been a pleasure to have you in the Chair.
  Mr. Fraser: I should like to associate myself and this side of the Committee with those remarks. You, Mr. Fitch, are a very suitable guardian to have custody of our proceedings. You have maintained equal rights between the parties, and we have all been very glad to submit to your jurisdiction.
  The Chairman: I thank hon. Members for those kind remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Guardianship Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Committee rose at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Rheumatic Diseases
  Rheumatic Diseases
  Unemployed Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Unemployed Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Cervical Cancer (Screening)
  Invalid Tricycles
  Invalid Tricycles
  Scientology (Foster Report)
  Scientology (Foster Report)
  Supplementary Benefit (Prisoners' Families)
  Supplementary Benefit (Prisoners' Families)
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Elderly and Infirm Persons (Care)
  Elderly and Infirm Persons (Care)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Abortion (Lane Committee)
  Abortion (Lane Committee)
  Over-Eighties Pension
  Over-Eighties Pension
  Child Minding (Legislation)
  Child Minding (Legislation)
  Disability Income
  Disability Income
  Medical Treatment Benefits (EEC Countries)
  Medical Treatment Benefits (EEC Countries)
  Nursing (Briggs Report)
  Nursing (Briggs Report)
  Diabetics (Syringes and Needles)
  Diabetics (Syringes and Needles)
  Pensions Claims (Personal Documents)
  Pensions Claims (Personal Documents)
  National Assistance (Disregards)
  National Assistance (Disregards)
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Heating Allowances (Pensioners)
  Heating Allowances (Pensioners)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (Sunderland)
  Disabled Persons (Sunderland)
  Shipping (Labour Costs)
  Shipping (Labour Costs)
  Building Labour (London)
  Building Labour (London)
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Electricity Supply Industry Training Board
  Electricity Supply Industry Training Board
ENVIRONMENT
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Empty Properties
  Empty Properties
  Single Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Single Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Radioactive and Toxic Waste
  Radioactive and Toxic Waste
  Signposting (Manchester Area)
  Signposting (Manchester Area)
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
  Trunk and Principal Roads
  Trunk and Principal Roads
  Penryn Industrial Estate
  Penryn Industrial Estate
  A6, Clapham, Bedfordshire (Accidents)
  A6, Clapham, Bedfordshire (Accidents)
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Bricklayers and Carpenters (Apprentices)
  Bricklayers and Carpenters (Apprentices)
  Motorway (Leeds)
  Motorway (Leeds)
  National Coal Board (Grants)
  National Coal Board (Grants)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Rates (Empty Properties)
  Rates (Empty Properties)
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Devon No. 4 District Council
  Devon No. 4 District Council
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Applications)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Applications)
  Prime Minister (Residential Emoluments)
  Prime Minister (Residential Emoluments)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Albania (Diplomatic Recognition)
  Albania (Diplomatic Recognition)
  India (British Insurance Companies)
  India (British Insurance Companies)
  Passports (Departmental Employees)
  Passports (Departmental Employees)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Coal Faces (Gravimetric Standards)
  Coal Faces (Gravimetric Standards)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Industrial Competition
  Industrial Competition
  Colliery Shale (Aluminium Production)
  Colliery Shale (Aluminium Production)
  Fire Insurance
  Fire Insurance
  Computer Industry
  Computer Industry
  Trade Agreements
  Trade Agreements
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
  South Africa (Imports)
  South Africa (Imports)
  Hong Kong (Exports)
  Hong Kong (Exports)
  Pottery Exports
  Pottery Exports
  Textile Imports
  Textile Imports
  European Free Trade Area (Exports)
  European Free Trade Area (Exports)
  Stocks (Valuation)
  Stocks (Valuation)
  National Coal Board (Houses)
  National Coal Board (Houses)
  Weights and Measures Inspectors
  Weights and Measures Inspectors
  Industrial Liaison Officers (Universities and Polytechnics)
  Industrial Liaison Officers (Universities and Polytechnics)
  Iron Ore Imports
  Iron Ore Imports
  Maplin (Civil Aviation Authority's Report)
  Maplin (Civil Aviation Authority's Report)
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  PUBLIC INDECENCY (PETITION)
  PUBLIC INDECENCY (PETITION)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (MEETING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community (Annual Consumer Price Review)
  European Economic Community (Annual Consumer Price Review)
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Wheat (Denaturing Premium)
  Wheat (Denaturing Premium)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Meat
  Meat
  HIGHER COURTS (ACQUITTALS)
  HIGHER COURTS (ACQUITTALS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Retired Civil Servants
  Retired Civil Servants
DEFENCE
  TAVR (Liability Bounty)
  TAVR (Liability Bounty)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport (Deaf Children)
  School Transport (Deaf Children)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Primary Schools (Rural Areas)
  Primary Schools (Rural Areas)
  Nursery Schools (County Durham)
  Nursery Schools (County Durham)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Court of Appeal Referrals
  Court of Appeal Referrals
  Criminal Injuries (Claims and Awards)
  Criminal Injuries (Claims and Awards)
  Easter Day
  Easter Day
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Lump Labour Contractors
  Lump Labour Contractors
  Income Tax (Age Exemption)
  Income Tax (Age Exemption)
  British Petroleum (Government Representation)
  British Petroleum (Government Representation)
  Containers (Customs Inspections)
  Containers (Customs Inspections)
  Exports, Imports and Investments
  Exports, Imports and Investments
  COMMITTEE ON THE PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
  COMMITTEE ON THE PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
SCOTLAND
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Treatment Orders
  Treatment Orders
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  Hunterston
  Hunterston
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Steam Power (Use of Coal)
  Steam Power (Use of Coal)
WALES
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children

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

FRENCH NUCLEAR TEST IN PACIFIC
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, in view of the protest made to the South Pacific Forum representing eight Commonwealth nations, they will now make strong representations to the Government of France to cancel the projected nuclear test on the Muraroa atoll.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, following the recent talks between the Prime Minister of Australia and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, we have drawn the attention of the French Government to the communiqué of the South Pacific Forum.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming back the noble Baroness from her rather exciting experiences, may I ask whether something more than this indication of the Australian point of view is not necessary? Is it not unprecedented that a whole continent should have protested against an event of this kind—including even the Polynesian representatives in the French Parliament? Could not Her Majesty's Government protest very strongly on behalf of the two British possessions, the Pitcairn and Solomon Islands, which are in the neighbourhood of the atoll where this test will be carried out.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his welcome, I would say that the French Government are very well aware of our views. We have often said that we hope that France will accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which prohibits nuclear testing in the atmosphere.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she has seen the report of the Australian scientists based on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation: that there will be in distant Australia for the next 30 years one death each year from cancer arising from this radiation? Will it be within the terms of reference of the International Court at The Hague, when the case is brought there, to suggest that tests should be stopped until there is an international investigation into the effect of radiation on health and pollution.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that the New Zealand Government is considering bringing a case before the International Court and therefore I could not possibly comment on what would be in order there. So far as our own responsibilities are concerned, we found that the monitoring we carried out in previous years indicated that there is no danger to health in the area.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is partially aware—that some of us believe that there is between the great Powers a conspiracy of silence about the devastating effects of radioactivity? Will the noble Baroness try to take some action to bring it home to the Powers that be that science is being prostituted for the sake of power politics in the case of these continuous experiments in exploding radioactive material all over the earth.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that that goes a little wider than the specific Question on the Order Paper, but no doubt the noble Lord will recall that when Australia and New Zealand cosponsored a United Nations resolution to suspend atmospheric tests, we supported them.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAGE RATES: PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
2.43 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise the possible undesirable consequences of Parliamentary Committees being set up to investigate the internal affairs of foreign countries; and whether in particular they appreciate the damage to British trade which may be caused by the current investigation by such a Committee into wage rates in the South African Republic.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I can only speak for this House, but I understand that the Parliamentary Committee of another place has not yet decided precisely how it intends to carry out its task.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that it seems regrettable that a precedent like this—to interfere in the internal affairs of another country—should appear to be established, and that a considerable amount of the time of people in this country will be taken up by the procedure which is referred to and to which attention is being drawn? Would she not also agree that technologically educated productivity is what is really desired in South Africa, and that the danger of too rapidly extending this might well be to harm the Bantu workers because thereby unemployment will be increased, particularly so in an area where there is a mixture of sustenance and cash economy.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness answers that supplementary question, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it is customary for us to ask Questions in this place about the proceedings in another place? This Question would not be admissible in another place, and it seems to me that we shall get into the gravest trouble if we attempt to pursue matters which concern the procedure of another place who are them-
252
selves entirely sovereign in what they wish to do in the matter of Parliamentary Committees. May I ask the noble Earl whether he would sense the feeling of the House that we do not pursue this matter further.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think that there is a phrase in Erskine May which runs as follows: that Questions which criticise the decisions of either House of Parliament are inadmissible. I think that I would agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—and I have taken advice on this—that this subject would not be open to questioning in another place. I think also that in the interests of good relations between the two Houses, and in view of the quotation from Erskine May, we should be careful in pursuing a matter of this sort here, and especially careful not to cast reflections on what a Committee of another place has decided to look at, whether they are right or wrong in their decision. I would suggest to my noble friend, with all respect, that we should tread very carefully on this particular ground.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, of course I defer in advance to the ruling of my noble Leader. But would he not agree with me that my Question refers to interference in the affairs of other countries, a matter which is frequently raised by Questions in this House—regrettably in my opinion—and is the case in respect of this Question which I have put down? Surely no infringement on the prerogative of another place is involved in the Question which I have asked about conditions in South Africa.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain whether that question was addressed to me or to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. I was not suggesting to my noble friend Lord Barnby that he was in any way out of order at the moment, but I was suggesting that this is very delicate ground on which it would be right for all of us to tread very carefully. I would suggest to noble Lords on both sides of the House that it would be better not to pursue this line of questioning too far, if it were thought to be implying criticism of the procedure and proceedings of another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I support the noble Earl on that

253
point. First of all, would he agree that the burden of this Question is not what goes on in Africa but is basically the action of a Committee of another place? And whether it is in order or out of order, which is always an arguable point in our House, is it not contrary to the practice and the manners of our House that we should do this.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, will noble Lords allow me to support that observation? The Question refers specially to current investigation by such a Committee. Surely we are on very dangerous ground in respect of the relationship between the two Houses if this type of implied or explicit criticism is contained in Questions on our Order Paper.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their support. I am grateful to my noble friend for the action which I suspect he is about to take in not pursuing this line of questioning.

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND KENYA ASIANS
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of Press reports that the Government of Kenya has given Asian residents notice to emigrate in the near future, and, in view of recent announcements that nonwhite immigration into this country will henceforth be very restricted, what they propose to do should such expelled residents seek entry into the United Kingdom.
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOMEOFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government keep closely in touch with developments affecting our passport holders in Kenya. The Government's immigration policy makes provision for the continued admission of United Kingdom passport holders from Kenya and elsewhere, in a controlled and orderly manner, under the special voucher scheme.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer is it to be understood that in the case of Kenya there has been advanced by the taxpayer some £125 million since independence? Is it understood from the noble Viscount's reply that entry will be strictly limited. In the case of Uganda, in addition to the voucher scheme of, presumably, some 14,000, some 26,000 came in. Is it to be understood that there would be a strict restriction in the case of a demand of this character.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, what my right honourable friend has said is that the number of vouchers to be issued in the future is to be of the same order of magnitude as in the past, and I do not think it is very sensible to try to forecast the precise numbers which will be available in any particular country. But, as my noble friend knows, there has been a substantial restriction over recent years and in view of that, and what my right honourable friend has said, I think I can agree with the tenor of what my noble friend is suggesting.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, has the noble Viscount observed from the figures published by the Home Office the other day that the number of vouchers awarded to Commonwealth citizens as a whole was very much lower than in the preceding year? In view of this decline in the rate of immigration of voucher-holders, and also in view of the difficulties faced by United Kingdom citizens in Kenya and Tanzania, does not the noble Viscount think that it is time, as I have suggested on numerous occasions to the Secretary of State, that we should consider an additional special allocation of vouchers for our citizens in East Africa.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, we have, of course, just accepted a very large number of our citizens from East Africa in circumstances with which I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been greatly concerned, and rightly so. As I understand the situation, the Government have made no decision further than I have already stated, and although we keep in close touch with the Governments of the various countries concerned, I am not aware that we are planning to make any great increase in the allocation of vouchers, particularly

255
in view of the process of assimilation of those from Uganda, which is still going on.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Viscount able to confirm that the Government have given such notice to the Asian residents of that country.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am aware of what was said, I think at the end of April, by the Kenyan Minister for Commerce and Industry, but I do not understand there to be any urgent risk of people there being expelled, or anything of that sort. However, we are in close touch with the Kenyan authorities on the whole matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether it is the case that the Kenyan Government have co-operated in the quotas allowed under the voucher system.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, yes; I think that is absolutely right. I think we should all be very grateful for it.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this year, as last year, each voucher carries the privilege of 4 people possibly coming in so that whatever the number of vouchers granted annually—3,000 or 4,000—the number has to be multiplied by 4 as a possible inflow.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, as a statistic, and according to the figures that I have seen, my noble friend is probably right about that.

TRAFFIC DETECTOR UNITS IN LONDON STREETS
2.52 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: 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 is the function of the aluminium mushroom-shaped objects now being installed in central London streets.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords it would seem the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is referring to
256
the small boxes, often mounted on posts, containing equipment to receive signals from adjacent cable loops embedded in the carriageway to detect vehicles approaching traffic signals.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that one of these objects appeared in Whitehall last Friday. They are not the large boxes, but flat boxes. I feel that many citizens are a little concerned as to whether some sinister influence is afoot.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my information is that there are now somewhere between forty and fifty of these boxes in the Metropolis. If the noble Baroness and I live another three years we may perhaps find 300 or 400. They are, I gather, about 13¼ inches high, 8 inches wide and 4¾ inches in depth, and they are designed to act as detector units to warn traffic control of queues which may be building up.

DOMICILE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PROTECTION OF WRECKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
EDUCATION (WORK EXPERIENCE) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
LONDON CAB BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Rights and obligations which are imprescriptible for the purposes of sections 7 and 8 and Schedule 1]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved the following Amendment:
Page 20, line 24, at end insert—
("(d) any right to recover property extra commercium;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the position of this class of property in relation to the provisions of the Bill, a matter which has been drawn to our attention by the Keeper of the Records. I should explain that property extra commercium comprises various categories of things which cannot be reduced into private ownership, either because of their nature, or because of some relevant rule of law. Particular examples are court records or other public documents which are held by whoever may have custody of them for the benefit of the community at large and not for the individual possessor. Where such articles are found in the possession of someone other than the proper custodian, it has been held that the latter's right to recover them does not prescribe: the right of recovery persists, however long may be the period of time during which they have been outside the legal custodian's control. It is not intended that the provisions of this Bill should affect such items, or their present immunity from the running of prescription; and the purpose of this Amendment is to make that intention clear.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised the question of the use in this Bill of language which might
258
not be readily intelligible to the layman, and I did my best to explain reasons why we could not alter such long-standing terms of use in this Bill. Perhaps I could anticipate similar criticism by explaining that phrase "property extra conunercium" has the merit of long usage; and certain categories of property have been judicially defined as falling within this classification. The use of any other phrase would lose us the benefit of these judicial interpretations and, instead of making the Bill clearer, might well lead to future litigation to determine whether or not any particular item or class of property fell within the exemption conferred by Schedule 3. I should add that the proposed Amendment has been agreed to by the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for his clear explanation of what the Amendment means. I must confess, quite frankly, that I had not so suspected.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 75 as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 2, page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. When we last considered this Bill, I undertook to convey to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the very strong feelings on all sides of this House that had led to the addition of Clause 2(2)(e), the clause providing for payment of pensions to former members of the South Arabian Security Forces. This I did, and, as the noble Lords who have followed the fortunes of this Bill in

259
another place will have gathered, an exhaustive study of the subject took place in the following weeks. As a result, the Government decided that they were prepared, on grounds of hardship, to make the same arrangements for former members of the South Arabian Security Forces as already existed for civil pensioners of the South Arabian Forces. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced this decision in another place on April 18, and, with your Lordships' permission. I will repeat the relevant part of his announcement. He said:
"…we are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances with effect from April 1, 1973, to bring payments up to the level of pensions due for service given up to November 30, 1967. The Government have taken this step to try to alleviate the hardship suffered by individual pensioners. It in no way changes the Government's view that responsibility for these pensions rests properly with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen. I expect the annual cost to be between £100,000 and £200,000, and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented later. In general these arrangements will apply to all entitled officers, but I must make it clear that the Government reserve the right to deny a loan advance in any case where we are satisfied that there was disloyalty to the former British Administration."
My right honourable friend went on to explain that the Government already had power to make these loan advances without the inclusion of Clause 2(2)(e) that it was therefore unnecessary to retain it in the Bill, and that, more importantly, its retention would breach the principle that that legal responsibility for these pensions rested with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen. The Government's announcement was warmly welcomed by Members of the other place, who then agreed to delete Clause 2(2)(e) from the Bill. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that we have already taken action to establish the administrative procedures for making these payments. Officials of the Overseas Development Administration are now in Aden arranging to obtain the necessary evidence of entitlement.
So far as the Bill is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in this House at the Third Reading on February 20 that his Amendment was probably not satisfactory and implied that its purpose was to secure an undertaking from the Government to help these pensioners.
260
The Government are persuaded that those who deserve our financial assistance should get it, and I therefore hope that noble Lords will agree that the purpose of the Amendment has been achieved and that it would be undesirable, for the reasons I have stated, to retain Clause 2(2)(e) in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Tweedsmir of Belhelvie.)
3.3 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I personally am grateful, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will feel the same, for the Government's capitulation in this matter. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, but I do not see—and I am sorry to be ungracious—any thanks going to the Government for their handling of this matter. The noble Baroness told us that the Government had undertaken to reconsider the matter after the decision taken in this House. She then went on to refer to the announcement that was made in another place, but I am bound to say it was a little disingenuous not to mention the fact that the Government had in fact suffered another defeat on this very point by the expressed views of Parliament, both here and in Standing Committee in another place, where the Government in fact attempted to delete this Amendment without giving an undertaking and argued strongly against making these payments. Thanks very largely to the brilliant advocacy of my honourable friend Mr. Ivor Richard and the support he had throughout the Committee, including Conservative Members, the Government were beaten and gave in. I think that this is a measure over which Parliament as a whole can feel some satisfaction. In this matter we have met the obvious wishes of Parliament that promises solemnly entered into regarding payments to members of the Hadrami Beduin Legion should be honoured. After making comments which I fear are rather less gracious than I should have liked to make, I think this is a matter of great satisfaction to your Lordships' House.
There are only two points I should like to make now. First of all, as I understand the Government are now proposing—this is the phrase which is used—to "top up" pensions, I presume they will

261
pay the pensions on the same basis as is used for the Civil Service. I will not pursue this point, but I can foresee further difficulties for the Government in the formula they have used in this matter.
Secondly, it should also be noted that there is apparently no question of making any back payments of pensions. To that extent, the members of the South Arabian Forces who are now going to receive these loans—and I fully accept that this is the only way to proceed, and it is the way in which we proceeded—will receive them only from 1973. Though I am glad that the Government have moved so quickly in order to set up administrative arrangements, I think it is a pity that they are not making back payments. Nevertheless, I accept there is a certain rationality about their actions and that they are attempting apparently to alleviate the hardship. However, many of these people—and there are some who have been almost penniless, having used up all their savings—could have benefited very much from the payment of back pensions. I wish that even here we had been a little more generous.
I have previously expressed the view that in some respects the record of this country in regard to those who served us in Empire has not been as generous as one might have wished; and I received support in this respect from several Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and my noble friend Lord Segal, who also wished that we had taken a more generous view of our obligations to those who served us so faithfully, often at risk to their wives and families. Nevertheless, I would now recommend the House to accept the Commons Amendment. The Amendment which I put down was not drafted with the intention that it should remain as a permanent part of the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it was done to enable us to raise the matter; but it seems to have served its purpose rather better than many better-drafted Amendments.
3.8 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just said. This is a most agreeable way of expressing thanks to the many Colonial Servants for the work they undertook. There was some obligation to local officers overseas
262
who gave us so much faithful service. I would not care to go into quite so much detail as was given by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, concerning the procedures which occurred in another place, but I am most grateful to the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the speech she has just made; and I am grateful to the Government for now having accepted the need to honour these obligations, as I consider them to be.
There is, however, one other matter which impresses itself upon my mind at this time; namely, that this Bill originated in your Lordships' House, and after the powerful speeches that were made here it went to another place. I have only just had the opportunity of reading some of the speeches made there, but in general it seemed to me that what we had set out received general support in that place and, going back just a little into the history, when one realises that the whole of this issue was raised by a former administrative officer in Aden, who took up the case of these local officers, I cannot help feeling that this is democracy working in just the way the British people would like to see it working.
I emphasise that point in the few remarks I have to makeֵ We are grateful to the Government for the decision they have taken. I take that point. But I feel there is great force in what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said regarding the back-dating of these pensions to 1971. Only a few officers are involved—possibly something in the region of 103 or 104 former members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. If we could do that I should consider, as I said on Second Reading, that we shall have discharged our obligations with honour.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the Government's categorical statement that the responsibility for payment of these pensions ought to rest on the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen, would not the Government now feel that an obligation rests upon them once again to direct the attention of the Government of the Yemen to this fact and give the widest possible publicity to that Government's reply.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I want to make one point for myself about this matter which my noble friend my noble Leader knows that I feel. I

263
am not sure that when we were the Government we were as committed in this respect as he thinks we were. I am not sure that the Labour Government's original position was as vulnerable as it has been made out to be, because it is difficult here to identify those who loyally served and those who disloyally served. It should be said that some of us think that a number of the latter will receive payments in this way as well as a number of the former, and I do not believe that we ever committed ourselves as a former Government so far as we pretended. But none the less I am willing to go along with what has been said.
I should like to put to the noble Baroness a question which nobody else has asked. I would have thought that many other Members of your Lordships' House more legally qualified than I would have put the question: Why is this to be in the form of a loan payment? Unless there is some special meaning to the term "loan", it is a payment to be repaid. I am sure that my noble Leader knows why it is put in that way—indeed, he so indicated—but it seems odd to me, if we are genuinely fulfilling a genuine commitment which we genuinely believe we have, to pay people a pension for ever, Amen, that we should call it a loan. Would the noble Baroness please enlighten me.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to clarify a point? I cannot speak again, but under the rules I may clarify a point, no new matter being introduced. I referred to the promise. There is no doubt that those officers—and they were unanimous—who were there made such a promise. I have satisfied myself, and I am sure that the noble Baroness can do so, that there is a record that they were authorised to do it by the Foreign Office.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Not by the Foreign Secretary.
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if there is no further clarification required on points already made perhaps I could thank all noble Lords who have spoken and answer the points that they have put
264
forward. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, talked about the topping up of pensions. He will remember that the loans are a topping up payment to add to what the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen are paying to bring the total up to the pension level due. He also asked why it was not possible to pay these pensions—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? She referred on the last occasion to the announcement that I made previously with regard to the civil servants. We did not then speak about topping up; it was a loan, and I fully accept that. I think she may wish to leave the topping up point, and I will pursue that further with her later. It is an unfortunate phrase.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: But, my Lords, I think it was the noble Lord who first used the phrase about topping up.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Baroness tell me when I used that phrase.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord used the phrase—and I know the House will endorse this—in his opening remarks, not in his clarification, and I wrote the words down. He used the phrase to top up pensions, and that is why I wrote the words down. When the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see he did in fact use this phrase. He also asked about not just paying the loan advances as from April 1, 1973, but about retrospection. Retrospection was not given earlier when loan advances were made to the Aden pensioners in 1970, nor in 1971 to the Zanzibar pensioners. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development explained in another place that payments are intended to relieve hardship now and in the future. That is why we have down the starting date from April 1 1973.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was not as generous in his thanks as was my noble friend Lord Gridley. It is perfectly true that the Government did indeed suffer a defeat in both Houses of Parliament, but they have, after all, taken into account the expressed wish of Parliament as a whole. My noble

265
friend Lord Gridley was quite right to point out that this Bill started in this House; and it was because the expression of opinion among your Lordships was so firm on this matter that the defective Amendment was left in the Bill as a marker to those in another place who would be considering this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, asked me whether we would make clear to the Government of the Yemen that it was still their responsibility to pay these pensions. I can assure him and the House that we shall certainly do this. Two officials from the Overseas Development Department will stay in Aden for about two or three months to try to receive and process applications from pensioners and security forces.
The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said that he felt that the Government's original position—that was the Labour Government of the day—was not so vulnerable as it had been made out to be. He mentioned in particular the question of disloyalty. It is difficult now to assess what was the feeling in Parliament at the time, but as my right honourable friend has said—and I should like to repeat it—if after this period of time he can find any evidence of disloyalty through the normal processes of an application for a loan advance, he must reserve the right to withhold the payment until we are satisfied that it should be paid. We had a long discussion about this point in an earlier stage. Lastly, the noble Lord asked me why we were paying this in the form of loan advances, which theoretically must be repaid, and not in fact in the form of pensions. This is because, as we have always stressed—it has already previously been stressed—the principle of the legal responsibility for pensions rests with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen. I stress that once again. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate, and I am happy that your Lordships feel that we should now delete the paragraph.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1973
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the African Development Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on April 16, be approved. The purpose of the Order is to confer upon the Fund, and persons connected with it, the privileges and immunities which are required to be conferred by the Agreement establishing the Fund. Although we signed the Agreement on November 29, 1972, we cannot ratify it unless this Order has been made.
The African Development Fund is an international organisation established to supplement the activities of the African Development Bank, the membership of which at the moment is restricted to African States. In future those taking part in the Fund will be the African Development Bank itself and about 13 to 15 non-African countries. Others may join later. The object of the Fund is to make loans on "soft" terms to those African countries which are members of the Bank and which, because of their economic situation and prospects, need assistance on such terms. The Bank itself makes loans on harder terms and is therefore not a suitable source of loan capital for the poorer African countries.
The scale of privileges and immunities to be accorded to the Fund is very similar to that accorded to the Caribbean Development Bank, a similar financial organisation, in respect of which a draft Order was approved by this House in January last year. When ratifying the Agreement we shall make certain reservations permitted by it. These will have the effect of restricting the privileges and immunities which the Fund and its personnel can enjoy in this country. For example, it will mean that the Fund and persons connected with it will still be liable to prosecution for traffic offences, and persons connected with the Fund who are resident here will have to pay United Kingdom tax. These and other limitations on privileges and immunities are described in the draft Order. The Fund shares the headquarters of the African

267
Development Bank at Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. We do not in fact expect it to set up an office here, and therefore the practical application of this Order will be very small. I trust the House will approve this Order and so prove this country's continuing support for measures which are designed to promote the economic growth of the poorer countries of the world. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft African Development Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, laid before this House on April 16, bet approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure the House would like to thank the noble Baroness for the very clear explanation that she gave of this Order. We very much welcome the setting up of these softer terms of loan. The Order is very similiar to many others made under the 1968 Act, and we welcome it from this side.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Nature Conservancy Council]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, after ("the") insert ("carrying out")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and myself—Lord Inglewood has asked me to
268
apologise to your Lordships because important public business keeps him in the North of England—is fundamental to our whole modern conception of conservation, and the decision which your Lordships will reach this afternoon will probably condition the way in which the Nature Conservancy Council will work for the next half generation or so. I hope, indeed, that it will, because the Conservancy has been pushed about from pillar to post for far too long and it is essential that it shall now have some continuity. The Conservancy was set up in 1949 with the three fold function of acquiring and managing nature reserves, giving advice on conservation and organising and developing the associated research, and it was obvious from the beginning that the third is a prerequisite to the first two. You cannot choose a site of scientific importance by eye for its amenity value, as you would a National Park. It has to be chosen after full investigation, on the advice of an investigating team, for its scientific value. Research into the ecology of that reserve is essential if you are to produce a good management scheme, and the credibility of any advice which you give must depend upon its being seen to be dependent upon research.
Now the reserves themselves are field laboratories usually chosen as representative of some habitat, like mountains or moorland, which is common throughout the country and of which the reserve is a typical example, and field work in them must be reinforced by work in the laboratory. For example, a study of the inter-action of grazing animals with the vegetation is as essential in managing a reserve as it is on a farm, but with wild animals it is much more difficult and must involve analysis of their droppings in order to be able to recognise the remains of the various plants found there and see what relationship the quantity of that bears to the quantity of the same plant in the fields. So, as well as nature reserves, the conservancy had to set up research stations of which typical examples are Monkswood in Huntingdonshire, dealing with woodland and lowland grass research, Bangor in North Wales, dealing with upland pasture, and Banchory in Scotland, dealing with mountains and moorland.
The Conservancy therefore has been a science-based unit from the beginning,

269
and the conservation staff and the research staff have been virtually interchangeable, moving from one to the other, from the very beginning. It is that close contact between the conservation and research branches, at least those in the research branches engaged in tactical research, that has made the Conservancy what it is to-day, and my Amendment is intended to retain that position. In 1971 the Lucas Committee, which was investigtting the relationships between the Conservancy and NERC, said the following:
"The strength of feeling concerning the worthwhileness of conservation was most impressive. The word 'evangelical' was used by one witness to emphasise it. To it can be attributed the enthusiasm for conservation work that runs through all levels of the Conservancy. We do not doubt that this enthusiasm is evident to the people who are given advice. We were also most impressed with the conviction held throughout the entire Nature Conservancy that research and conservation were inseparable."
That was said of evidence given before it at the latter end of 1971 and the early part of 1972, and in case I should be accused of suppressio veri I should add that the Lucas Committee was in favour of keeping the Conservancy within NERC. This teamwork has been wonderfully successful. The Conservancy's advice has been increasingly sought by local authorities, by naturalist trusts, by farmers, foresters, landowners, and of course by Government Departments; and I would include foreign Governments, who have looked upon the Conservancy as a sort of model conservation body and have asked for advice as to how to set up such a body in their own countries.
Later this evening your Lordships will, I hope, give a Third Reading to a Bill on the conservation of badgers under which the Conservancy will have to give advice to the Minister on those animals. It is already engaged in investigating the effect of pesticides on badgers, but if it is to give all the advice that the Minister may need it will have to undertake much more research into the habits, behaviour, distribution and the like of those animals—because the Conservancy must always be looking ahead. It has to be ready to give advice on such matters as the effects on the countryside of a Barrage in the Wash or at Morecambe Bay, or on such less spectacular matters as the apparent
270
decrease in the numbers of some species of butterfly or peregrine falcon. In all those investigations both the conservation branch and the research branch—and, indeed, amateur naturalists as well—work closely together, because it has been found that much which was previously looked upon as being mere natural history can produce vital evidence in the study of the effects of pesticides provided that the evidence given is collated and analysed by scientists.
That is how the Conservancy developed, and your Lordships will well understand how in 1935, when it was suggested that the Conservancy should be merged with NERC, there was a tremendous outcry in case that contact between the conservation bodies and the Conservancy, and that close co-operation between research and the conservation side, should be lost. In the event, the Conservancy went into NERC With its functions exactly the same; with the same duties as it had had before, the acquisition of reserves, the provision of advice and—I quote from the Charter of NERC:
"carrying out and supporting such research as the Conservancy considers appropriate."
However, by 1971, for reasons into which we need not enter, the machine was not working smoothly, and it was suggested that the Conservancy should be taken out of NERC. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said on Second Reading, the Government received two entirely opposing pieces of advice: that the Conservancy should stay within NERC, and that the Conservancy should once again become independent. But the one point on which almost everybody was agreed at that time was that conservation and research should not be separated; and I have just quoted the Lucas Committee who found exactly the same.
The Government, rightly I think, decided that the Conservancy should again become independent, and within the Department of the Environment. That is a good move. It is in line of what happens in a good many Continental countries where there are close official contacts between bodies concerned with recreation and amenity in the field and those concerned with conservation and research. But, having taken that first step, Government seem to have faltered

271
at the second and, without the appreciation of the situation which Solomon showed, they chopped the baby in half. That has been proposed once before. The Slater Committee suggested when NERC was about to be set up that only the research part should go in and that the conservation side should stay out. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, was a member of that Committee and produced a Minority recommendation to the other effect. Indeed, it was his evidence I think before the Trend Committee which finally decided that the Conservancy should go into NERC with conservation as well.
The proposal of the Government was apparently not made in order to ensure that the new Nature Conservancy Council would be a better body than the Nature Conservancy had been. The only reasons given to us on Second Reading were, first, that it fell in line with the customer/contractor principle laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild; and secondly, it was suggested that NERC would be unable to carry out its statutory function of carrying out research into ecology if it no longer had the ecological work done by the Nature Conservancy under its own control. That last problem of NERC and some other body having concurrent powers of research was well in the mind of Parliament when the Act setting up NERC was passed. It was known that the Forestry Commission was to retain its research stations; that the fisheries laboratories of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries were to be retained. Nevertheless, NERC was given the duty of carrying out research into both forestry and fisheries. Indeed, it has not prevented NERC from setting up the Institute of Tree Biology which, as NERC says in its annual report, is complementary to the tactical and strategic research carried out by the Commission; and it has not prevented NERC from doing some admirable research work on fisheries, including a rather interesting survey on the food of herrings in the North Sea.
Your Lordships will therefore see that if the Conservancy Council was to retain the capacity for tactical research, and possibly for strategic research as well, that would not in any way preclude NERC from carrying out basic research in ecology as it does in fisheries and forestry.
272
Indeed, this is much to be encouraged because the Conservancy is I think carrying a certain amount of dead wood, from the conservation point of view, in the shape of too much basic research carried out at some of its stations; and much would be gained if NERC were to retain control of those stations and of the research carried on in them. Indeed, I should add that in 1971 NERC felt that it should be responsible for both basic and strategic research in all of it. I would not myself squabble very much with that view, although I think that possibly the new Nature Conservancy Council should have the power of commissioning strategic research as well.
The noble Lord also spoke of implementing, as I have said, the customer/contractor principle; but he did not say that that was going to make the new Council any better than the Nature Conservancy had been in the past, and unless it does so I think we must reject it. Because surely the object of this Bill must be just that: to make the new Nature Conservancy Council at least as good as the Nature Conservancy has been, and preferably better. If this new body has the same functions of conservation, of the giving of advice and of the carrying out of the appropriate research as the Nature Conservancy has had in the past, it will be at least as good. If to that is added an association, within the Department of the Environment, with other bodies concerned with the preservation of the countryside it should, I think, be better. For that reason I welcome the major provision of this Bill.
In conclusion, I should like to stress the point which I made at the beginning: that any decision reached now must last at least half a generation for the sake of the staff of both and for the sake of the members of the Conservancy and of NERC, none of whom have known where they were since the separation of the Conservancy from NERC was first suggested in the middle of 1971. Therefore it is essential that the decision which we take to-night should be such that no pressure to reverse it is likely to arise for some considerable time. I believe that if this Amendment is rejected there is bound to build up strong pressure to give the Nature Conservancy Council at least the power to undertake tactical research, and that that pressure will come not only from

273
outside, from the voluntary conservation movement, but even more strongly from its own staff. It will build up pretty quickly if that staff is good, and it would not be fair to resist it, unless the new Conservancy Council is going to be satisfied with the second grade. We shall not get and hold good staff if we are going to say to them that they are not fit to undertake research. On the other hand, if the Conservancy Council has the power to undertake tactical research, I cannot see any pressure arising to try to remove that from it. In short, I believe that the new Nature Conservancy Council could be an improvement on the old Nature Conservancy if it could carry with it into the Department of Environment at least the power to undertake tactical research. I think that only if it has that power will it be able to continue on an even keel for the next half generation or so. I beg to move.
3.43 p.m.
LORD KENNET: At the Second Reading of this Bill I said on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House that we were in broad agreement with what was proposed, not so much because we thought it was necessarily the right solution as because (a) it was a workable solution that the Government had clearly adopted, and (b) the Nature Conservancy had been so much "mucked around" over recent years that any tolerance of this would be better than further change. I did not mean to imply by that statement that we were necessarily committed to every detail of what was proposed in the Bill as it was introduced into the House, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has made a powerful case for permitting the new Conservancy Council to do some of its own research.
Let us look for a moment at the extent of the change which would be made by the Amendment. The Bill as it stands at the moment says that the Council may commission research and may stimulate research; it may do everything in favour of research except actually research. The Amendment before us simply says that as well as stimulating, commissioning, promoting and so on it may actually do some research. If I understood the noble Earl aright, he was laying particular emphasis on the doing of tactical research, which I take to be the rather small localised jobs which could be done
274
on one of the Council's own sites and which it would clearly be rather absurd to invite somebody else to come in and do for it, particularly as it has the staff.
So I am slightly torn in two directions: first, a desire that the Government should get what they want in this connection; and, secondly, by the intrinsic reasonableness of the case advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for his Amendment. At the moment I should be inclined to advise the Committee to vote in favour of this Amendment, unless the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can tell us that the Government have it in mind to introduce at Report stage some other Amendment, giving the new Conservancy Council the power to conduct some research of its own.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am going to ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be convinced, by what I have to say, that my noble friend on the Front Bench is right. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that before the Government proposals in this Bill were known last July there were in the Nature Conservancy two factions among those concerned with conservation: one in favour of staying in NERC and the other seeking an independent status outside NERC. But my noble friend said that both sides wished to see research and conservation remain integrated and in the same organisation. In that event, as my noble friend said, the Government decided to attach the Nature Conservancy in its new form, as the Nature Conservancy Council, to the Department of the Environment. This was an important if not a vital step, as I believe that only as part of D. of E. can the new Council give its best and most effective service to the nation.
Here I part company with my noble friend in connection with this Amendment. As compared with being under NERC, the new N.C.C. will indeed be a better body. It will have the money, the power and the advisory powers to achieve what it knows has to be done. But of course the price the conservationists have to pay for this great step forward is the loss of the ability to conduct a considerable amount of research. This is a price that I am prepared to pay—not that I do not appreciate the other side of the

275
case but because (and this is one very good reason) I agree with the Government's grand strategy for research. I appreciate that just as changes in responsibility for research will, for example, be accepted by the water industry—which has duties somewhat similar to conservation—so we who are concerned with conservation are right to accept this change in the national interest.
I go further. Are your Lordships aware that the majority of those employed by, or directly concerned with, the Nature Conservancy Council accept this decision and will genuinely try to make the new arrangements work.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I did not realise that he was speaking for the civil servants who work for the Nature Conservancy. Can he justify his statement? It is very important, and I should have thought that this was probably a matter which we should hear from the Government.
LORD CRAIGTON: If the noble Lord had waited for a moment I was going to give my noble friend an opportunity to justify it. As I say, the new Nature Conservancy will genuinely try to make the arrangements work. It realises that in the goodwill and determination to succeed there are undoubted advances in the present arrangements. I was about to say that the Minister will be able to tell me whether I am right in saying that since July the Conservancy and its committees have accepted the Government's proposals on the N.C.C. functions, even if regretfully, and that this acceptance was recently reaffirmed.
If this Amendment succeeds it will be the Nature Conservancy and its staff which will suffer. As my noble friend has said, it has experienced two years or more of uncertainty about the future. To plunge it back now into that state would really be unforgivable. Planning on the new basis is well advanced, and is it not now time to stop fighting old battles and to give an opportunity for the new organisation to be created.
I suggest to my noble friend, and I offer a solution to my noble friend and to your Lordships, that there is one step the Government must take to reassure
276
us all about the consequences of the loss of so much direct research. They must undertake to provide more money than they have initially proposed for the commissioning of research on the the customer/contractor principle. As the position now stands, the N.C.C. will be able to commission work only to the value of a mere £300,000 a year. That is a ludicrously small sum. For the new Council to have enough money to spend on research is the one factor that will keep the two bodies to a considerable extent dependent on one another in their relationships, and it is a far better solution than that referred to in my noble friend's Amendment. I beg the Minister to give us his assurance (I know that he cannot go any further than that) that he and his colleagues will look again at the amount available to the Council for commissioning research under the present policy and at the benefits that there will be for the whole field of conservation if that amount was substantially increased. The best way to get the best research for the new Conservancy is to ensure that it has enough money to pay the experts, with all their facilities, to do it for them, and not for the Conservancy to become a separate and perhaps ultimately an isolated research unit doing the job for itself, probably on a shoestring.
3.52 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: Like the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I speak with some direct, and indeed long, acquaintance with the Nature Conservancy both as a member of the Conservancy and for a time its chairman, and even now a member of its England Committee. I have felt what I think the senior members of the staff and those best qualified scientifically to speak really think, but I am not going to claim to speak for the Civil Service or the Scientific Civil Service because I do not think that is my proper function.
There are really two points here: first of all the reorganisation and, secondly, the future Council's function in regard to research. On the first question, my own view always has been, and remains, the same as that expressed to me in the corridors of this place by the late Lord Howick a fortnight or so before his death. He felt that the right solution was to leave the Conservancy as part of NERC with some adjustment to correct any

277
deficiencies that have shown themselves in the working of the system in recent years and with some redefinition perhaps of its research function. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, himself mentioned that view expressed by Lord Howick, otherwise I should not have felt myself entitled to refer to it. We both had come to the same conclusion after knowing all the arguments and divisions of opinion that have been expressed recently about the precise relationship between the two bodies.
I believe that the able officials and the scientific staff could have worked out a good system within the main structure of NERC, but I am not going to argue that. It has been decided otherwise, for reasons which are not very clear to me. But it has been decided, and I can understand the feeling of the staff that they do not want to be left in uncertainty any longer. They have worked under great difficulties for the last two or more years and they all came to the conclusion that it was time that this ended. So on that main principle I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that that part of the system should be left undisturbed. Whether it will in fact lead to anything being better conserved or anything being better researched into, I confess I am a little sceptical.
In my time there was no difficulty in dealing with different problems of research whether you labelled them tactical or strategic—they are all basic. It may be that the old Conservancy did not farm out to universities or others as much as it might have done, but if that position were to be made clear to it by the Government, or through NERC, I should have thought that that could have been cured without much difficulty. They ought not to try to do too much themselves. There is always a tendency in every organisation—Government, and, I suspect, non-Government alike—to do as much as possible for yourself. Everything done for a soldier in the war eventually had to be done by a soldier and any frictions that arise from that one cannot really cure.
But the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, raises a sharp clear-cut issue: are we to say to the staff who are left with the Conservancy: "You are not to carry out research"?—and I suppose that means,
278
"You are not to waste your time in thinking about it." That seems to me to be an impossible situation. If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, does not mind, I should like to look a little more closely at what he said. In effect it is that the Conservancy may have people who are labelled "scientists" and they are not to have a research capacity (whatever that means) but they must have a scientific competence, whatever that means. He then goes on to say—and I think the Government scheme implies—that with that distinction drawn you will still get men of high scientific quality to join the Conservancy. Why should a man of high scientific quality take up a post in which he is told almost as an instruction, "You are not regarded as having any research capacity, and, what is more, you are not to spend your time on any form of research. On the other hand, we must be sure that you have the right scientific competence, otherwise we cannot have you at all"? That is going to be a very difficult line to draw and I do not believe that it will attract the right kind of scientist. Surely the good scientist will fight shy of taking up any post of that sort.
There is the risk, which showed signs of developing years ago, of dividing the scientific staff into two groups—the people who really were researchers and those who were only some sort of superior park-keeper for conservation—and then saying that all that is wanted is a good superintendent of a park, with some scientific background. I do not think that that is the right way to tackle this problem, and I cannot believe that it will lead to the right solution. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, seemed to me to be encouraging. He did not pontificate and say, "This is the only way to do it"; he said he would be very willing to hear arguments from both sides. Is that not the best way of making progress: to think again, not necessarily agreeing to adopt Lord Cranbrook's wording that the new nature body is to carry on research, yet not saying specifically, "That is entirely outside your sphere"?
I believe that the eminent geologist who now presides over NERC and his able staff, and the people in the Conservancy, could, if they were given a little more time, find a better, more acceptable

279
and more workable solution than that now proposed. I differ entirely from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. If the staff now take the view that he says they take, it is merely because they are tired out, worried; they have been pushed about here and there for so long that they say, "Let us accept what is now proposed and make it work." As an old civil servant, I know of course that once Ministers have made up their mind that something has to be made to work, or to seem to work, for a time, the ability of the civil servant is equal to meeting their demands. But whether it will work for long satisfactorily is quite another matter.
I do not think this House ought to be influenced by what the current view of a certain number of civil servants may be. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cranbrook, I have met practically no one who thinks that this divorce between conservation and research is sound. What seems to me to have happened is that the Government, faced with this conflict of view, have jumped on the new principle of the Rothschild solution (as it may be called) of a contractor/customer basis. They have jumped on to that principle as though it were a raft on which they could float safely out of these troubled waters. I do not for a moment dispute that that principle may be a salutary and sound, and probably right, one in dealing with an engineering problem, a defence problem, a mining problem or perhaps anything which is directly a physical problem. I remain quite unconvinced that it is a right principle, for dealing with medical research (and I shall be interested to know what the distinguished physicians of the Medical Research Council really think about it, if it is to be strictly applied to medicine), and I am quite sure that it does not fit and is not applicable to the problems of conserving or studying fauna and flora living in natural conditions.
One can understand the desire of a Government to apply the same principle all over the field of research, but it seems to me that the problems are fundamentally different, the qualities of the people who work on them are often different, and that our administrative machine ought to adapt itself to the real underlying characteristics of the problems and not force on the problems a machinery which does not fit. I would therefore
280
urge the Minister, who has shown an open mind—or, if not an open mind, certainly not one completely wedded to what he has proposed—to think again, perhaps going a little further than he did on the Second Reading in showing how far he was willing to take account of other opinions on this very difficult problem. I believe that if he does that, and talks to the right people, something better can be found than the Bill as it stands. I deplore, as all your Lordships do, the fact that we are deprived at this moment of the statesmanship and love of nature which were found in Lord Howick, who certainly, though I think already feeling tired from his illness, said, "This has been done by the Government; we must make the best of it". He would be willing to fight a little harder, if he were still here, for the point of view which I believe practically the whole of the scientific staff of the Nature Conservancy believes to be right.
May I pass for a moment to a rather difficult point? There are no doubt advantages to be obtained by giving the Nature Conservancy in its new form independence of the Minister, with the power to go to, in my view, the right Minister, the Minister responsible for the environment, without having to explain any problem to the Treasury, or whoever it may be, through NERC, who in turn will pass it on. That has been the only cause of friction that I know of in the past, and the faults, I am sure, have not been all on one side.
But what rather alarmed me was the glee with which those who have changed their view see that they are going to get direct control of the cash. They say that it is too little, and ask, what is the good of£300,000? Of course it is very little, but I think that is a matter which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will want to think about. He may be quite sure that those who now accept this solution as right are thinking, "We have only to wait a few years and we shall have built up a parallel scientific establishment; whether they have got research capacity, or not. They will say, "We must have our own people. We cannot have these problems worked out and solved by people who are not part of our organisation."
May I conclude by saying that in the early days of the Conservancy I was

281
repeatedly struck by the immense advantages which arose from having scientists of different points of view, and different interests in a way, working side by side, going into the field together and feeling that they were part of one organisation. I remember very well when I joined the Conservancy Sir Arthur Tansley, the inventor of "ecology" as a science and one of the most distinguished ecologists we ever had, saying that to me in the field. He said, "This is going to develop in the way I want and in the way the country needs." You get these people with different training—the academic scientist, the Fellow of the Royal Society, the practical naturalist—and they are not hived off into two separate groups. They feel that they are colleagues, that they are working on the same problems, and that they will be solving them best if they work in close conjunction.
I do not know whether I am entitled to vote. I am a member of a conservancy committee at the moment, and if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford says he would rather I did not vote then I shall not do so. But I cannot disguise my conviction that essentially the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is right; nor my belief that another look at this difficult problem and consultation with the right people will find a better solution than that which is before your Lordships at the moment.
4.11 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, because I am too well aware that most of your Lordships who have spoken, or who are likely to speak, are far more experienced than I am. I am myself a lay person and I have no pretences whatever to scientific knowledge or competence. But it so happens that, through certain activities, I have been in very close touch with some members of both the Nature Conservancy and the NERC, and I am very much worried about the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has put before us. It appears to me that if we accept it as it stands and at its face value it could completely upset the balance which I believe is the basis of the Bill and which—and my information is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton—has been broadly accepted by those most closely concerned.
282
The difficulty about the Amendment is that if we accepted it it would elevate to one of the main functions of the new Nature Conservancy Council the function of research. That would be regrettable, because the main function of the Nature Conservancy Council is the conservation and management of the nature reserves and areas of scientific interest; and what is sometimes called basic research or strategic research does not seem to me, on balance, to be a major function of this body. I was particularly concerned that, in the course of his remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred, first of all, to practical research and then went on to mention strategic research as well. That seemed to me to be a misconception and made me all the more worried about the noble Earl's proposition. We may be in some danger over semantics and over what precisely we mean by "research", and I hope that when he speaks the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may help to clear our minds.
While it would be wrong to elevate research to being a major function of the new Nature Conservancy Council, it is also plain to me that there are some activities, which, by certain definitions, might be called "research", which would be inescapable functions of management. If that is what we mean then of course such functions should be part of the Nature Conservancy Council. I should not have thought there was any quarrel about that. But it is not quite clear in the Bill that this is so, and I have very great sympathy with the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who asked the Government to think again, because even if some of us feel it impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, as it stands, equally it is arguable that the Bill should be plainer, indicating that there are certain functions of monitoring, observation and so on which are absolutely essential to the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore, I hope that at the end of our discussion this afternoon we shall not come to a hard and fast decision; in other words, that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, may feel disposed not to press his Amendment. But he could be expected to do that only if the spokesman for the Government gave a clear indication that the Government

283
themselves were also prepared to go part of the way in clearing up what is at least open to dubiety. There could be difficulties over the interpretation of the Bill as it stands, and there might be limitations on the activities of the new Nature Conservancy Council under which I do not think any of us would wish them to labour.
I have tried to study the arguments both ways and I have sought information from those who are scientifically much better able to judge than I am myself. I think it would be fair to say that there have been quite strong criticisms by people in certain scientific fields of the work of a research nature undertaken hitherto by the Nature Conservancy. I am told, for example, that some of the conservation research which has been undertaken has had an inadequate scientific base. It has been pointed out to me that there is the temptation, which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, touched upon, if one does not have an adequate scientific complement and wants to go into certain fields—and conservation is becoming a more and more complex field—to set up one's own little research organisation, rather than take a wider view and go outside to those who could probably do the job very much better. I am also told that there are suggestions of a certain imbalance in the spectrum of information taken into account in reaching conclusions at the present time.
If we are to suggest that the new Nature Conservancy Council should undertake a great deal of its research—I am sure that even the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would not suggest that it should undertake all of it—then it seems to me that these possible deficiencies of working from too narrow a base, of working with too narrow a spectrum of information, will be intensified. There is also a danger of duplication if we accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, and the new Nature Conservancy Council might undertake work which could be far better undertaken by other organisations. I am thinking partly of such studies as geology, marine or freshwater biology and so on. There are other bodies which are particularly fitted for research of that type, and it would not really be in the general interest to encourage what might be—I hate to use
284
the term, but your Lordships know what I mean—second-class research, or less adequate research than that which could be undertaken by some of the other existing scientific organisations.
There is also the very important point which has been touched upon, of whether, if one limits in any way the research functions of the new Nature Conservancy Council, one will then be able to attract adequate staff. It is difficult to predict, but I am told that there is considerable interest in such posts as chief scientific officers; that is to say, persons who need to have quite considerable scientific competence in order to make the necessary Judgments, who are not themselves necessarily primarily interested in research but are more concerned with what in a broad sense might be called scientific management problems rather than academic research. One noble Lord—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Craigton—mentioned the Water Resources Board as a case in point. I do not want to discuss that because the Government are determined to kill it. Nevertheless, I, too, at one time had some dealings with the Water Resources Board, and I have made inquiries in that direction on this very point. I am assured that they have found no insuperable difficulty in attracting people of very good scientific attainment although they themselves commission most of the research that they require from other bodies. So that although the question of staff is an important one, it does not appear to me to be by any means insurmountable.
To sum up, it appears to me, as I said, that to accept Lord Cranbrook's Amendment would alter the whole balance of the proposed Bill and would elevate into a major function something which at most, it seems to me, should be a subsidiary function of the Nature Conservancy Council. Equally, I think we are absolutely right to press the Government to indicate ways in which the Bill might be amended in order to show quite clearly that there are activities—such as management trials, surveys, monitoring and so on—which are entirely proper to the staff of the Nature Conservancy itself, and that if they feel that, arising out of these activities, there are subjects which require research in depth, then they should be given adequate funds with which to commission such research.
4.22 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I wonder whether I might speak for a moment now because I have a Joint Select Committee meeting at half past four. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the Red Deer Commission and I am nominated by the Nature Conservancy. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has put down no Amendment to Schedule 1, which at the bottom of page 4 refers to the Deer (Scotland) Act, I do not think that in fact I shall be affected by this Amendment, but I just feel that I ought to make it clear that I might have some slight interest.
I should like to support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for two reasons which I do not think have been given so far—and I shall be very brief about them. First, I have been extremely impressed by the work which the Nature Conservancy have done, both on the Island of Rhum and in Glen Feshie, on red deer research as well as management, and in my opinion it would be extremely difficult to split these functions particularly on the Island of Rhum. Secondly, a House of Commons Select Committee on Land Use in Scotland recommended that the Nature Conservancy should be strengthened. They also recommended that the Countryside Commission for Scotland should be strengthened; and this was, as they put it, to create constructive tension with the two heavyweights in Scotland, the Department of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission. I think that almost everyone with whom I have spoken agrees that this recommendation was a good one, and I should have thought that if the Government went through with their present plans and split the Nature Conservancy management functions from their research functions the Nature Conservancy would be weakened rather than strengthened, and that to do such a thing would go totally against the recommendations of the Committee which reported to another place about four months ago. So I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will succeed in his Amendment.
4.24 p.m.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: It is perfectly plain from everything that has been said that the issue we are debating is as old as the Nature Conservancy itself. The
286
noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has indicated quite clearly what the basic considerations were when the Conservancy was set up. I, too, happen to have known about the start of the Conservancy. Sir Arthur Tansley was somebody who mattered a great deal in my life; and I was reminded only yesterday—and I have been reminded again to-day—that the particular issue we are discussing at this moment is one about which I expressed a strong view, many years ago. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to the work of the Slater Committee. I had forgotten about this when I was talking yesterday about the matter of this debate, but I looked up the Record and was reminded that I was in a minority of one on the Slater Committee, refusing to accede to the view that the functions of the Nature Conservancy should be divided as between management, acquisition and so on, on the one hand, and the conduct of research, on the other.
My view was not accepted by my colleagues on the Slater Committee, a Committee in the genesis of which I had also played a part, because of the peculiar position of biological research in the country at the time. But I see that my view was accepted by the old and now defunct Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and subsequently by the Trend Committee; and, as we have heard today, the same view was reinforced by the Lucas Committee only a little more than a year ago. I am therefore torn at the present moment between, first, my desire to see this matter settled, because I know many of the people concerned in the Conservancy and have known them over the years, and I believe and agree fully that the state of uncertainty which now prevails is not a good one. I am also very concerned that the Government take the right decision now because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, we want to see this matter settled from the point of view of reason for at least a generation ahead. Yet this is a matter which has come up constantly.
My other problem is that of being consistent with the views I have stated before, which are in print and to which reference has been made. Here, I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. We are not fighting old battles. This is a current battle, and I

287
think the Government are as much concerned as is the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that the right decision be taken now. The question is whether or not that decision can be made consistent with the wider lines of strategy which have been defined and accepted by the Government for the conduct of such research as is paid for in the public sector. As I say, I consulted the record last night and then I asked myself: has anything changed? Has anything changed that really makes it necessary now to separate the whole function of research from that of management? I am using the word "management" very broadly with respect to all the other functions of the Nature Conservancy.
Frankly, I am somewhat amazed, because I understand (I am open to correction if I am wrong) that until very recently, and practically without exception—and reference has been made to this already this afternoon—the members of the staff and the director of NERC itself and the old Conservancy Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, all argued for keeping together the functions which it is now intended to separate. What has happened, then, over the past year and a half? What new considerations have really entered the substance of the matter to make it necessary now to suggest this change? Frankly, I do not know, except in so far as we are dealing with definitions. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has asked whether we are not discussing semantic issues. Frankly, so far as I am concerned, there are many semantic issues here. I do not know what strategic research is. I am still doing research, but I do not know whether I am doing strategic research, basic research or applied research. I have not an idea what it is I am doing. I am doing research which is related to the particular interests I have at a given moment; and I do not believe that anybody in management would dream of separating the right of inquiry from the responsibility of execution. I do not believe, therefore, that the new Council could really work if it were precluded from carrying out research itself. But I also believe that the new Nature Conservancy Council could well hand over to NERC a lot of research of a continuing kind—call it what we will, strategic or
288
basic—and let us hope that a few of those who do this research win Nobel Prizes for doing it.
But there will be also research which I am confident will have to be carried out by the new Nature Conservancy Council. Let me say at once that I, for one—and I am here consistent with what I believed before—believe that the Government are right (and perhaps I would here depart from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb) in transferring the Nature Conservancy to the D.O.E. That is right. But I should like to be certain that the people who work at the bench are not inhibited in the way they might be if the words of the present Bill are interpreted too severely by civil servants. My erstwhile colleagues, I know, are very competent at interpreting words. I should therefore like to be assured (as I am sure would other noble Lords to-day) that the Government are not going to take too rigid a view about the particular words in the Bill. I believe that whatever the shortcomings of Lord Cranbrook's Amendment, it should be accepted by this House.
Here I depart from the noble Baroness, Lady White. I think that you cannot subcontract research. If you are an original person, you do not get an idea and say, "I have a brilliant idea—you work it out." Friends of mine on the Cross-Benches have carried out research and they know that it does not work this way. If the purport of the Bill and the particular section of it which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, wishes to see amended would be that there would be more paper work, pushing documents around, with, finally, the same chap doing the work he would have done if he had not passed paper around before it came back to his own desk, then I think it would be foolish not to pay attention to this very serious matter which is brought before us to-day.
In the long term I believe that what is suggested, as I said when the whole question of Government research and development was considered in this House, is a step in the right direction. But we must be careful that it is not an immediate step into a pitfall. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is right and that the people in the new Conservancy—and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made the same point—will be doing research. I think there is also

289
a job for NERC and that the Research Council can pursue many inquiries of a kind which do not immediately impact on the responsibilities of the new Natural Environment Research Council; but there is research work that needs to be done by that new Council. In the long term I do not think all this will matter at all. I trust that the long term will not be so long term and that I shall still be alive to hear that the whole of NERC is handed over to the D.O.E. and that the responsibility for research in this field is taken by the Department which has a responsibility to Parliament and to the people of this country for looking after all matters of management of our physical environment.
Therefore I would conclude by asking the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to consider whether there is some way of interpreting the words, or reconciling the words, of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with the words in the Bill so that the Nature Conservancy Council is not debarred from undertaking—whatever is the right description of the research which is immediately relevant to its executive functions—the responsibility which it is discharging on behalf of the D.O.E. Secondly, I should like to be certain that it is the Government's intention to see that the new Council is furnished (and furnished in relation to the other staffing jobs in the Department of the Environment) with a strong chief scientist organisation to make certain that the right questions are asked at the right time in such a way that too much time is not wasted before jobs are done.
4.35 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: It might be convenient for the Committee if I were to intervene, not so much to answer fully at this stage my noble friend's arguments, but to take the opportunity my noble friend's Amendment provides of setting out the Government's intentions as to the ordering of research in the natural environment, explaining in some detail the reasons behind those decisions and outlining the way in which we see them working out in practice. I look forward thereafter to hearing the views and suggestions of other noble Lords before intervening a second time to answer the debate.
290
I first turn to the basic concept of having D.O.E. and NERC. The creation in November, 1970, of the Department of the Environment, in which I serve and which has wide responsibilities in relation to the conservation of the environment in many fields, has enabled us to take a total approach to the environment to ensure that priorities are regularly reviewed and that problems which interact are not treated in isolation. We are concerned with the conservation of the countryside and the safeguarding of the National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty together with all sorts of other aspects of conservation. We are naturally concerned that policies on the conservation of wild life and of areas of scientific value should be developed within the context of our policies in other fields.
But since 1965 we have also had a Natural Environment Research Council—a council which is concerned with research into the whole range of earth sciences and ecology, nature conservation, geology, hydrology, oceanography, forestry, and marine and freshwater biology. Each of these benefits by being conducted within a system which provides a multi-disciplinary approach and by being able to draw on the resources of a widely-based research organisation. Under the present proposals a new Institute of Terrestrial Ecology is to be formed in NERC. Although this will comprise a number of geographically scattered stations and elements, it will be closely knit as regards policy and administration.
It is against this dual background that we have to consider the roles that are to be performed in relation to nature conservation, research into it and how they can best be developed. There is one aspect on which we can all agree. With the intensive and increasing pressures on the land of our small island and the importance of safeguarding its environment, an effective organisation capable of appreciating the significance of developments and of being able to implement sound nature conservation policies is vital.
The carrying out of research is one function. Another function of a different

291
sort is that of judging what research should be commissioned and the application of the results of that research. Whatever the arrangements, the combination of these two separate functions in a single organisation can of itself lead to difficulties. The Government have considered it right that the commissioning of research should be based broadly on the principle of a customer/contractor relationship—a close, intimate working relationship. This approach is being adopted, wherever it is appropriate, throughout the whole range of work of the Research Councils.
There is in our view no reason why the arguments for adopting that principle should not also apply broadly in relation to nature conservation. The Government obtained independent advice on the arrangements which should be made to set up the new Nature Conservancy Council by appointing Mr. Neville Heaton, who was formerly a deputy secretary in the Department of Education and Science, and has latterly been a deputy secretary in my own Department. He visited the Nature Conservancy's establishments and had discussions with the staff concerned. We are indebted to him for producing proposals which have clearly demonstrated the practicability of the Government's decision, and have met with the approval of the bodies directly concerned.
The Government are convinced that under the proposals we have put forward and embodied in the Bill the new Nature Conservancy Council will be able to derive the full benefit both of the research capability of NERC and of a close association with the Department of the Environment. My noble friend Lord Craigton asked about the resources available to the new Council. The amount which has been provided at present enables the existing level of research to be maintained. The future resources that may be made available will need to be considered both in the light of the new Council's proposals for its programme of work and their priority and also within the context of environmental policies generally. The Nature Conservancy Council will, of course, still need to have its own scientific competence, and there will also be a need for close links between the N.C.C. and NERC in order that the
292
full benefits of the new arrangements can be fully realised.
I should like to say a word about that. First, I should like to refer to the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on April 26 that he proposed to appoint Sir David Serpell to be the Chairman of the new Nature Conservancy Council. Sir David was the first Permanent Secretary of the Department of the Environment when it was formed in November, 1970. Sir David is just as convinced as I am of the vital importance of close co-operation between the new Council and NERC, and I am sure that he will do his utmost to foster it. I hope that noble Lords will join with me in wishing him well in this new venture. A first vital step in establishing close cooperation has already been taken by my other right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has appointed Sir David as a member of NERC. We regard cross-membership between NERC and the N.C.C. as particularly important; and, of course, there will need to be liaison at all levels, regional as well as central. More thought will be necessary as to the details, but some ideas have already emerged.
One important idea is that NERC have in mind giving one of their members a positive responsibility for keeping the liaison between the two bodies under review. We expect the new Council to consider whether there should be cross-membership on appropriate committees of either body. At officer level it has been suggested that NERC should participate in any advisory committee which the Chief Scientist—for which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, rightly called—of the new Nature Conservancy Council might set up to help in determining what research the new Council should commission; and that the new Council should be represented at meetings of any NERC group particularly concerned with research of interest to the Council. At the operational level similar formal arrangements for consultation will be needed between the staffs of the two bodies. Joint consultative committees might be set up to consider particular problems where this course was justified, and there could well be movement of staff between the two bodies.

293
Several noble Lords have already introduced the question of the scientific competence of the N.C.C. While the Government are clear that it would not be right for the Nature Conservancy Council itself to carry out substantial research, they are equally clear that it will need a proper scientific competence. There will be over 100 scientists in the regional staff of the new Council and we propose that there should be a Chief Scientist, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, suggested, supported by his own team. The Chief Scientist and his staff will assess and co-ordinate requirements and priorities for commissioned research. They will be responsible for forecasting future trends, assessing their effects on nature conservation and advising generally on the scientific aspect of the new Council's work.
Clause 1(4)(b) expressly gives the new Council power
"to do all such things…as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions under subsection (1)(a)."
This would cover, for example, the carrying out of investigation in the context of the Council's management function, though it is not intended that it should go as far as research. But we should certainly expect to see the regional staff and wardens—as the noble Baroness, Lady White, envisaged—continue to carry out surveying and monitoring work in carrying out their management and advisory functions. Many of these scientists in the regions are highly qualified and extremely knowledgeable men in their own right, and it will be important that they do not lose touch with their practical contacts with ecology and natural history. If the new Council were to have an exclusive, separate and substantial research capability, as would be allowed for under my noble friend's Amendment, this would mean that there would be less opportunity for the regional staff to keep themselves closely involved in scientific work. This has been a continuing problem throughout the life of the Conservancy. We are confident that under the Government's proposals the new Council will be able to attract and to retain the right kind of scientists and will have an appropriate scientific standard in relation to other bodies.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am trying to follow very closely what the noble
294
Lord is saying. Is he saying that these 100 scientists are not going to be able to do research? He said that they can monitor and do ancillary duties. He also said that they must not lose touch with ecology. But nature conservancy is ecology. I do not understand: are they not going to be able to do any research at all?
LORD SANDFORD: This, of course, is the main argument that we are having. As I said in my opening remarks, I thought that it would be helpful to set put the broad basis and background against which we are having this debate. I am anxious to hear the views of noble Lords, particularly about the way in which the kind of research they want to see the N.C.C. carry out might be defined. It is not defined at all in my noble friend's Amendment. Perhaps we might come to that later. If I may concentrate at the moment on setting out the background against which we have to conduct this debate—
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will appreciate the great importance of this. If he is opposing his noble friend's Amendment it seems to me that he will succeed in carrying the majority of the Committee with him only if he can give more satisfactory assurances about Clause 1(4)(b) than so far he seems to me to have done.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope that I shall be able, before I finish, to satisfy both the Committee and also the noble Baroness. But, if I may, I should like to concentrate, as I have been doing, on the background and the outline of the arrangements against which we shall very shortly have to take a decision. The final points I want to make relate to the views of those actually involved in working these arrangements and on whom we rely to make the progress which we all wish to see. Several noble Lords have recognised how very important they are, after all the controversy and uncertainty in this field. There have been differing views and conflicting advice on the form which the organisation should take. But it is true to say now that both NERC and the Nature Conservancy Council have accepted the Government's decision, and this I regard as being of very great importance. Their acceptance of the

295
decision was reiterated at meetings which those bodies held last month. Both bodies have welcomed the Government's detailed proposals for implementing the decision. I would suggest that noble Lords must surely let this fact weigh with them in considering this Amendment.
In response to my noble friend Lord Craigton's request, I shall be glad to confirm the views of the NERC and the Conservancy staff sides, and I will quote from a passage in the comment they have submitted. They say:
"In general, given the decision to place the Conservancy research and conservation functions in separate organisations (N.C.C. and NERC) the Staff Sides welcome the proposals from DOE and NERC for implementing this decision. These show, at least in principle, that the new arrangements for the Nature Conservancy are being worked out in ways that can benefit conservation and staff interests alike. With goodwill and determination from all concerned both the conservation functions and research associated with these should develop satisfactorily and in harmony. The Staff Sides intend to do all they can to achieve this, since the careers and livelihood of our constituent members are at stake. We look for a firm and positive lead from the two Councils and their Chief Executives in bringing the new arrangements into being successfully and as quickly as possible."
In an area where there has been so much controversy, I think it is remarkable that there is now such a widespread feeling that the Government's proposals set out in their consultation papers should be implemented with the minimum of delay and further uncertainty. I cannot stress too strongly the unsettling effect that there would be on the work of the Conservancy and on staff morale if the whole basis on which we have been proceeding so smoothly was now changed.
I have thought it helpful to intervene early in the debate on my noble friend's Amendment to set out broadly the reasons behind the Government's decision to establish the N.C.C., to set forward the arrangements we propose for arranging research into nature conservation in the future, and the way in which we see these arrangements operating in practice. I believe the Committee will recognise them as being practical and well suited to the present structure of Government in which environmental research and environmental policies are now being handled. I should now very
296
much welcome the further views of noble Lords before fully answering all the points of rather greater detail which noble Lords have raised.
4.53 p.m.
LORD IRONSIDE: This Amendment seeks very simply to enable the N.C.C. to "carry out" its own research in addition to "commissioning and supporting it". This is different from the statement which appears in the Nature Conservancy article of the NERC, which merely refers to "carrying out and supporting", the main difference being whether you do it yourself or sponsor somebody else to do it for you. But I think here we are dealing with words, as many speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady White, have already said; and, so far as I can see, we are in difficulty about the definition of "research", which means one thing to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and another to other noble Lords. To me, it means carrying out genuine research, and not such things as management studies. My noble friend Lord Sandford has drawn attention to the way in which the so-called research can be fulfilled by the N.C.C. under the terms of Clause 1(4)(b). I do not pretend to be in any way an environmental scientist, but I have been concerned with research for many years and it seems to me that the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council will not be impaired at all by the terms of Clause 1 as drafted.
The so-called research function has in the past been related primarily to conservation management and advisory work. This is not, strictly speaking, basic research, which in recent years has become so important in the environmental field. Nature Conservancy research teams did undertake basic research where it was necessary in order to resolve underlying ecological problems, but I think that this shows that the Nature Conservancy have never really had these research resources on tap, so to speak. In fact, Nature Conservancy has now become even more strongly concerned with the establishment of management of nature reserves, and basic research has advanced to such an extent, widening in scope and disciplines, that it would be difficult to mount effective programmes, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has said, without calling on special multi-disciplinary teams

297
with considerable resources at their disposal, so that they can work above the threshold level which is likely to assure the successful outcome. Surely, this is where NERC as a whole is able to offer the best solution. The very object of the Research Council is to promote the advance of fundamental knowledge about the environment and to contribute to the training of the scientific manpower of the country. The resources at its disposal will ensure, to my mind, a co-ordinated research programme to back the programmes of the various bodies concerned with the environment, and it will have the ability to command the necessary funds.
With priorities to consider, I cannot see a satisfactory research wing of the N.C.C. developing and attracting the right sort of scientific staff for meeting the advanced research objective, except at the expense of duplication. I think my noble friend Lord Sandford has explained the management and advisory functions of the N.C.C. extremely well, but I should like to digest these later when I read them in Hansard. It is clear that they are by themselves very considerable indeed, without taking into account any research work which might be undertaken or commissioned.
I should like to say a word or two about commissioning research. This is not a lesser way, or a more inefficient way, or a poor man's way of having research carried out; it can be done as effectively, and very often more efficiently and promptly. But more thought has to be given to the reasons for doing it, and more consultation has to take place in order to make a case for the work to be done and to avoid duplication. The results obtained in this way are, from my experience, as valuable as those obtained in-house. Very often, the sponsor saves himself the cost of a large number of specialists and their facilities, all of which constitute a running expense which has to be maintained over the years.
Finally, the Nature Conservancy Council is surely not intended to be a research council. I think this is becoming plainer as the debate progresses. But I do not see that it will be prevented by the Bill from carrying out its functions in terms of trial, monitoring, observation and that sort of thing. I do not think you can
298
call this genuine research. I should be glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Sandford has to say in detail about Clause 1(4)(b) and the powers that the N.C.C. will have under that clause to carry out these functions which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook believes are research.
4.59 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are taking a very long time over this one Amendment, but it is extremely important and goes to the very heart of a piece of legislation which, although modest in size, is of great national importance; namely, the whole method of conduct into conservation and research which will increasingly play a major role in human planning and human activity. I must confess that the more I have listened to the debate the more depressed I have become by the somewhat mechanistic approach of the Government to an issue of the greatest sensitivity. I have the greatest sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his task in trying to use appropriate language for a Minister in an area where almost inevitably one goes back into the philosophic realms into which we were launched somewhat dubiously a little while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. It is indeed unfortunate that we are having to discuss again the customer/contractor relationship, though I was interested to note the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (though of course it may not have been meant as a definition), that a customer/contractor relationship is a close and intimate working relationship. This has not always been the case in customer/contractor relationships. Perhaps the noble Lord is saying that that is what it ought to be—
LORD SANDFORD: —and is, in many cases.
LORD SHACKLETON: —and is in many cases. I do not doubt that the arrangements the Government are making with regard to the working relationships of this rather high-sounding Terrestrial Ecology Institute—and again one would like to know more about that, and to know whether they will be doing straight botany or biology or whether they really will be the ecological or the nature conservancy wing of NERc—are the best arrangements that can be made, given

299
the split in the old Nature Conservancy. If I understand it correctly, the old Nature Conservancy had two wings: a research wing and a wing responsible for the management of nature reserves. I do not know whether co-location is possible. Of course it will not be possible where the research stations are, and I imagine these will form the heart of the Terrestial Ecology Institute.
Incidentally, if I may quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, whose memory and vigour is so much greater than is the case with many of us, I think he said it was that very great man, Professor Tansley, who first used the word "ecology". My information is that the word was first used by Thoreau in the middle of the 19th century. If there is one subject with which the Nature Conservancy is concerned, it is ecology. I share the views of my noble friend Lord Kennet, that we do not want to vote against the Government on this Amendment and we are not in any sense approaching it on a Party basis. So far as I am concerned, my noble friends on this side may go whichever way they think the argument has taken them, because this is not a Party issue.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that I am worried, not about the immediate effect but about the long-term effect of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, specifically refused to say at any point that any of the scientists who will be working for the new Nature Conservancy Council—these hundred scientists—will be able to do research. Again, if I may go back to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild—and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will confirm this—it is absurd to talk about scientists. It may be all right in the electronics field—I am not sure, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is a physicist—but in this field it is impossible to think that scientists cannot do research. Yet it appears that under this Bill they are forbidden to do so. If they are not forbidden, it must be explicitly stated that they can do research. If we look at the particular provision contained in Clause 1(a)(iii), we see this:
"(iii) the commissioning and support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in the opinion of the Council is relevant to the matters mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above…"
300
We have been told by the Government that they can do surveys and that they can monitor; but supposing that a particular scientist working in a particular field of research, such as the nature conservationist area in the island of Rhum—it is almost entirely a research project but none the less it is a conservation area where people are concerned with the control of red deer, their breeding, herd management and so on—wants to do some research. As we know from my noble friend Lord Snow and others, there are sometimes conflicts in the corridors of scientific power and it will be possible for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to say, "This is not allowed under the Bill". Noble Lords may say that it would be absolutely absurd to say that. I quite agree, and I should like to ensure that the Bill is explicit enough to allow this.
If I may say so, it was not my intention originally to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but to urge him, in the light of the discussion, to have another look at perhaps a narrower Amendment on Report stage. But even now any danger of destroying the research part of the old Nature Conservancy—the old part which is left behind in NERC—can be prevented because the Secretary of State has absolute powers to give directions in this matter.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the person he referred to; that is, a person who wants to do research, can apply for a grant from NERC in fact and still carry out the research.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I feel very hesitant to say to somebody with as much knowledge as the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that I really do not believe that it is possible for scientists working in the field to work in this sort of way. I would much rather the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, explained how this might be done. But what is the definition of research? Whether we like it or not, in fact the Nature Conservancy Council will be contributing to research: and I should like to see in this Bill either the form of words proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, or a form of words indicating that this capacity is here.

301
We have heard a great deal about the desirability of getting a decision from the point of view of the staff. I do not doubt that it has been a very weary time for them. I have also talked to members of the staff of the old Nature Conservancy, and have had the same advice; but in Parliament we have to take the right decision on this matter. I do not think we have it yet. It may well be that the Minister will be able to satisfy us when he comes to speak again. I hope we can be given some explanation. It may well be that we shall not need to vote, but if there is not a proper assurance—and I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but I doubt whether he can give us the assurance that he will tackle this on Report stage with a different form of words—then my advice to my noble friends will be that they are free to make up their minds and, if they wish, free to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, if he decides to take the matter to a Division.
5.10 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, may I intervene for one short moment? We all ought to be extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for initiating a far better Second Reading debate on this Bill to-day than we had at Second Reading, and a much fuller one. Also, if the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will forgive me, a most splendid remark fell from his lips this afternoon which I shall long remember—I wrote it down. He said:
"I am still doing research and I have not an idea what it is I am doing."
I know exactly what he meant, but it is an awfully good remark, and we must send it off to Private Eye.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, if I knew what I was doing, I should not be doing my research.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: You would not be doing your research. If you knew what you were doing you would not be doing it. That would have been a different remark. However, my Lords, we must give great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said sometime ago about the difficulty of a scientist taking on a job which is going to fulfil him fully and his skills and knowledge if he is to be specifically divorced from his laboratory or work bench. When we
302
had the debate on the Rothschild Green Paper there was a great split of opinion, and the point came out tremendously strongly that scientists, if they were worth the name of scientists, must go on being scientists. They all feared being diverted into administrators.
I heard an example of that only the other day in a different sphere. A bank official with whom I was connected was being recommended the registrar's department of his bank. Several of his friends said, "I hope he does not get diverted into that because this man is a banker". We were assured that he was a banker, and a skilled banker, and he would conic back into the main stream of banking, and that he was not going to be diverted for life into being a registrar, which, however honourable a profession, was not his. The point the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made is an extraordinarily important one. I hope that when we are considering Lord Cranbrook's Amendment we shall give it very deep consideration. Shall we get in the future the right staff on this Council who are to be scientifically qualified to have what is called a "scientific capacity" but they are not allowed to practise their art—because that is what it comes to—or science. I have grave doubts about this, and we should bear this in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and also perhaps my noble friend Lord Sandford, spoke as if a wrecking Amendment had been moved by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, and that the whole of this carefully thought out Bill was going to be destroyed by this Amendment. It was as if Lord Cranbrook's Amendment were a Motion to reject the Bill on Second Reading. If your Lordships read what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook proposes to do now, I do not think it can be considered to be a wrecking Amendment. If you insert the words he asks to be inserted in line 19, the clause will read:
"the following functions, namely…the carrying out the commissioning and support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research…"
All he is doing is adding the fact that they may, they can, they are not precluded from doing or individual scientists are not precluded from doing, direct research as well as the other matters which they must do in commissioning

303
research on the contractor/customer principle. The point we are now being asked to consider, as I take it, by my noble friend Lord Sandford the noble Baroness, Lady White, and presumably my noble friend Lord Sandford, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and presumably my noble friend Lord Craigton, is that these two things cannot be run in double harness, that you cannot have these scientists doing any research themselves if they are part of an organisation which has been set up as a customer to give out with its money contracts to other more qualified contractors. We must consider this carefully: do these destroy each other, or can they run in parallel? I hope they can.
I was slightly surprised, when my noble friend Lord Sandford was speaking, when he said that this principle—may we call it the Rothschild principle?—which I believe in, provided that it is not taken to extremes, had been adopted by Government and therefore there were not going to be any Councils doing research any more; it would all be done by contract. I must be very naÏve and foolish, but I had not realised that both of the research institutes with which I am interested—and I immediately say not as a scientist but as a layman, a poor administrator—which receive all their funds from the Agricultural Research Council are precluded from doing research. Neither the director of the Meat Research Institute, of whose Advisory Committee I am Chairman, nor the Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Institute at Long Ashton, is precluded from going near their benches or from writing up the results of their work in Nature or from maintaining their own laboratories. The argument when we were debating the Rothschild Green Paper was that many scientists had great fears that they were never again going to be allowed to go anywhere near their laboratories, or a piece of apparatus; that the rest of their lives would be spent in an office answering telephones and writing minutes. We hope that that fear has been allayed in practice, that research activities are still going on, and that scientists have not been turned wholly into administrators.
Heaven knows! We all want passionately that the Nature Conservancy shall be allowed to settle down and get
304
on with work which is becoming increasingly important. But must we now see these people—perhaps these people alone—being made the example of the principle right to the end: "No science at all; only administration for you, though all of you must have the correct scientific knowledge so that you can commission the right things"? But who are you going to get to work along those lines if this is being hammered home like that? I hope that we may be able to say that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has not moved a wrecking Amendment, but that he has moved a sensible Amendment, and one that we can vote for in this House. Perhaps it is not in the right order, perhaps it should be reworded so that it might read that they may carry out research as well as commissioning it. Perhaps it would seem better to my noble friend Lord Sandford that the Amendment should read that the Council should have the power to commission and support research; and he might like to have the relevant words put in brackets or in small type at the end of the sub-paragraph. It might make all the difference if that were how it was put. I hope that this is not too simplistic. I hope that we shall be able to do this.
May I digress for one second on an interesting point? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that Thoreau first used the word "ecology". I thought it was Stapleton. But what matters is how you spell it. If you look up the word in the dictionary, in a 19th century dictionary, you will find it spelt with an "œ"—"œcology". It is only the modern word, which perhaps is different from the œcology, spelt with a diphthong, that is in modern dictionaries and is the "ecology" that we are talking about to-day. My Lords, I have spoken for too long, but the clock has stopped.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: I have the greatest sympathy with those who worked with the old Nature Conservancy, who had to fight for it in its earlier days and who had to fight for its money to do research. They had to fight to get the absolutely essential research off the ground. But I do not think we should allow that battle of bygone days to dominate our thinking at the present time. I myself am inclined to the view that an established administrative department should not normally

305
do research itself—not that it should necessarily not do it, but that it should not be a normal function of an administrative department to do research. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, when she said that if it does research there is a tendency for it to take its eye off its main task. I think that that is a very cogent argument indeed—at least, it is with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, questioned whether we should get good staff for the Nature Conservancy if they were not allowed also to do research. I think the Fulton Report and the action that stemmed from the Fulton Report, leading to the interchangeability of scientists in the fields of administration and research, has put a different complexion altogether upon this matter, and the proposal of the Government in this Bill I think facilitates the interchangeability of scientists within NERC. From the scientist's point of view, I think it is far more important that you should get a squad of scientists in the Nature Conservancy, as the Amendment suggests. The ecology scientists themselves will have a much better opportunity if they are in NERC and not under the Conservancy Council.
There is another scientific reason that I think holds good for the Government decision, and it is that we cannot forecast at the present time what are going to be the sciences and fields of knowledge that will have to be brought in to deal with ecological problems. If we put the scientists under the Council at the present time, then there may be a barrier between getting the answers from associated fields which may indeed be fundamental. For that reason I think that the proposals are the right ones. I regard this Bill as the logical evolution of the whole subject in the organisation of matters concerning the environment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—and I am speaking only from information, as I might say, on the scientific worker's desk. It seems to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said: that the scientific staff concerned on the whole support the Government proposals. If my information is correct, they are very apprehensive that these proposals as they stand in the Bill before your Lordships just now may not go through. In the words of one scientist, they have been
306
already too much bashed around, and if scientists get bashed around they do not do very good scientific work. I support my noble friend, Lord Craigton, in resisting this Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I hesitate to add anything to what has been about a two-hour debate on a single Amendment, but I think that there is a psychological point to be considered. If you know that you are the only person who can do something, the chances are that you will not bother to do it. If you know that other people can do it as well, you are much more likely to. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, pointed out very correctly, this Amendment is not confining research to the Nature Conservancy; it is merely allowing them to do it, and surely that is a very sensible thing to do. The result will be that it will be much more likely to be done. Therefore I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: Having heard the views of all noble Lords who have taken part so far in this very valuable, extensive and thorough debate, perhaps I could now deal rather more fully with my noble friend's Amendment. What is envisaged by my noble friend in proposing his Amendment is that some research should be carried out by the Nature Conservancy Council and some by the Natural Environment Research Council. His Amendment does not seek to show where the dividing line should be. Indeed, one of the difficulties is precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has indicated. It would be extremely difficult to mark out this boundary, and the problem is not honestly solved by saying that the division can be dealt with administratively. We should still find that the precise boundaries between the research functions of the two bodies would be extremely difficult to define.
The research which it has been suggested the Nature Conservancy Council should carry out must be carried out from a sound scientific base. If the N.C.C. were to undertake much of this they would need a much larger organisation. That could well result in uneconomic expenditure and there might well be duplication of effort as between the N.C.C. and the NERC, as well as confusion of aim within the N.C.C. itself. So we are convinced that

307
if the main research function in relation to nature conservation is to be performed effectively it is essential that the carrying out of the research should not be divided broadly between the NERC and the N.C.C. A matter that we consider to be really important is for research to be undertaken, at least in the main, by the body concerned with the whole range of earth sciences and ecology. This ensures that research into nature conservation and other environmental research can be properly developed and integrated as a whole, and their interrelationships, which are considerable, fostered and safeguarded.
If the carrying out of research were divided broadly between the NERC and the N.C.C., the sorting out of which research should be done by the new Council and which by NERC, and how the properties and staff should be divided, would be extremely difficult, and any such division would be a continuing fruitful source of friction between the two bodies. To give the new Council a full research capability would inevitably lead to its drawing apart from NERC and to an increasing isolation from the mainstream of environmental research efforts. By contrast, under the Government's proposals there could be a close and working relationship between the two bodies, and the integration of nature and wild life research with other related research in other fields of the environment.
Now perhaps I could just give one example out of many of why it is good sense for applied conservation research as a general rule to be carried out on a scientific base within NERC, and how difficulties would arise if this were to be done by the Nature Conservancy Council. Take just as one example, out of many that could be given, the Toxic Chemicals Section at Monks Wood, which I was looking into myself only two days ago. This is a section that was formed at Monks Wood in 1960, and it is an example of how there may develop a need for a major reorientation of a research effort. The section was originally formed when suspicions first arose of trouble from the organochlorine pesticides. This problem has now largely been dealt with and is broadly under control. But in future the section will need to turn part of its attention to new kinds of pollution and problems arising
308
from the non-agricultural sources, such as heavy metals. These new problems are not confined to terrestrial wildlife in agricultural areas, and research on them will need to be undertaken in conjunction with freshwater and estuarine pollution research undertaken in other NERC institutes and laboratories. To attempt the redeployment and regrouping that is now needed would be impossible if this capability resided exclusively within the Nature Conservancy Council. As I say, there are many other examples I could quote and that is just one.
LORD SHACKLETON: Why should this redeployment take place as a result of this Amendment? I simply do not understand. As somebody who has followed closely the progress at Monks Wood, it never occurred to me that this would be moved to the new Council. But that is not the argument, as I understand it.
LORD SANDFORD: The point I was making was that the N.C.C., if it had a major research capability of its own, might well have tackled a problem of that kind, finished it, and then, if the capability resided in the N.C.C., it would not have the capability of adjusting itself in the broad front which is possible in a body which is based inside an organisation with a broader range of disciplines.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I think this must be made clear to us. I do not understand this at all. I have followed this debate with the greatest interest and it is important. But if the N.C.C. does a piece of research which leads to problems which it is not equipped to deal with, what possible reason is there to stop it from passing them over to NERC? I simply do not understand the argument at all.
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I could continue rather than dwell too long or, that particular example. It is pertinent—and perhaps this leads on from what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just been saying—to mention that, even under the present arrangements, the Nature Conservancy does not carry out research by any means in all the fields in which it gives advice. Perhaps that is the point the noble Lord was making and I am glad to be able to confirm it. For example, much of the Conservancy's advice on the status of bird populations

309
has been based on work commissioned from the British Trust for Ornithology and the Wildfowl Trust. As regards the conservation of geological features, advice by the Conservancy has been based on research carried out by the I.G.S. and by universities. So that demonstrates that the new Council can operate in independence of in-house research. What is important is that the Council has a scientific competence to commission the necessary research work and to interpret the results obtained by others. That is what the Government are aiming to ensure that it will do.
I have already explained at some length the reasons which underlie the Government's proposals, but I recognise the great value of the many expressions of opinion that have been given by noble Lords in this Committee this afternoon. I should like to take time for the Government to think further and carefully about what has been said because it is of such value. We could consider whether we would be able to recommend at Report stage an Amendment in a form of words which might help in bridging the gap which at present divides the Government and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in the bald Amendment which he has down on the Order Paper to-day, which has enabled us to have this extremely valuable debate. So I should like to follow up the suggestion which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and maybe the valuable suggestion of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave about using small print in brackets, in order to meet some of the views that have been expressed.
To adopt the Amendment in the bald form which is now before us would pose considerable difficulties in sorting out the respective roles of the NERC and the new N.C.C., and I should have to ask the Committee to resist that if my noble friend were to press it. But I ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment to-day, on the understanding that the Government want the benefit of the views that have been expressed this afternoon, and to take time to do it and look further into the matter. I give my noble friend the assurance that when we have done this I will write to him so that he will have time to consider his position further before the Report stage.
LORD KENNET: By and large we on this side were not convinced with the noble Lord's reasons for rejecting the Amendment as it stood, because it seems to us that if you give a body freedom to do research you do not thereby automatically incur all the confusion and competition which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, described. It is not an impossible administrative problem for the NERC and the new Nature Conservancy Council to settle between them a frontier on the kinds of research they might be doing. I repeat that merely to give the new Council the power to research, as opposed to having no power to research whatever, would not by any means be such a receipe for confusion. But, having heard what the noble Lord has to say about the Government's intention of looking at the possibility of introducing later an Amendment which would, as he put it himself, bridge the gap—and one can see many ways in which the gap might be bridged; one can see many research powers which might be given to the new Council under certain limitations, limitations which would ensure a tidy frontier such as the Government wish—let me say that I think many of us on this side, although this is not a Party matter in any sense, would be glad if the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, were to feel it right to withdraw his Amendment at this stage. He can always put down the very same one again later if he does not like the Government Amendment he sees. But if he did not withdraw the Amendment we should not feel able to advise the Committee to reject it; we should not feel able to join with the Government in advising the Committee to reject it.
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I feel as if I am now about to reply to a Second Reading debate because this debate has been more like that than a Committee one. If I may deal first with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I must confess to having been profoundly disappointed in his reply, because by and large he did not answer any of the points which I made in introducing this Amendment. His basic principle seemed to be that NERC and the Conservancy Council, having power to undertake research, could not coexist. I think I showed when I moved this Amendment that many other bodies

311
with exactly the same powers as NERC —I quoted two: the Forestry Commission and the laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, both of whom have exactly the same remit of research into forestry and fisheries respectively as NERC has had—can and do co-exist, and it has not made the slightest difference to NERc's being able to undertake research. The example the noble Lord chose of being one of the things that ought not to have been done by the Conservancy could scarcely have been a worse one.
Your Lordships may not be aware that when there were first indications that wildlife was being affected by toxic chemicals research into this was started at Monkswood, and one of the remarkably interesting things which turned up was that in the Highlands of Scotland eagles were dying like flies and those which did not die were laying eggs which were not fertile, whereas the ravens were continuing to flourish and breed like rabbits. They both feed on the same food, very largely carrion; and in fact up there it was dead sheep. If this matter had been left to a series of boffins in a research department they would have thought this a most extraordinary thing and started to look for some other reason. In point of fact, the people working there were in close contact with workers in the field. One man in the research department had a man who had worked in the fields for many years and knew that when an eagle eats a dead sheep, like nearly all the other such types of bird, including hawks and owls, it eats a great deal of the wool which had been impregnated with poison, whereas the raven pecks away at the meat and eats very little of the wool. That is exactly the sort of reason why the field worker and the man in the laboratory must be in touch; indeed, one ought to have the same people working side by side in the same organisation.
The time has now come when that work has got beyond tactical or strategic research, or whatever we call it (it is very difficult to define these stages): it has become basic research, and I think it is perfectly correct to say that it is time that work passed to a body responsible for basic and not for tactical
312
research. The noble Baroness, Lady White, had the same sort of difficulty in trying to define where one started and the other finished. If she will look at the Bill she will see that my Amendment would make no greater difficulties than exist already, because the Conservancy Council is going to be able to commission and support undefined research. It might even be the effect of pesticides on the pancreas of a golden eagle, but the research cannot be defined in the Bill and that is the fundamental difficulty I shall have when I come to meet the suggestion of the noble Lord that I should withdraw my Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made a point which I also made when I moved this Amendment, and again the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, did not really reply to it. It is that there is bound to be constant pressure to start some form of research going in an organisation where we have (as I hope we shall have) scientists who are really keen on their jobs. Such pressure is just the thing we have to try to avoid. What we want now is stability; that the new Nature Conservancy Council should be established in such a way that there will be no pressure coming from outside or inside to deflect it from the course which has been laid down. I believe there are bound to be pressures if research is introduced; it is bound to set up the sort of "empire building" squabble between NERC and the Conservancy which we are all so anxious to avoid. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, tried to answer that point at all.
We then come to the point that has been made, of the difficulties under which the staff have worked. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, read a resolution of the staff, the preamble to which was. "Given the decision of the Government"—to do this. That has been the whole trouble, and it is bound to be the trouble that we shall have to face up to when we deal with this problem. What in fact has happened is that the Government have started to take steps to implement legislation which Parliament has never looked at. The result has been that people have been told into which pigeonhole they will be put if certain things happen, and now in fact if something else happens they will get into more distress. The fact that

313
there has been a muddle, the fact that the staff have been muddled up by the Department of Science and by the Department of the Environment does not mean that just for that reason we have to reach the wrong decision to-day. I believe that the right decision is to accept my Amendment.
The noble Lord said—I am afraid with every sort of equivocation that he could, as he went through it; and I do not in any way intend to be rude—that he might be able to find a way of bridging the gap. I do not see how the gap can be bridged unless my Amendment is passed. The only way of bridging the gap is to define the sort of research which the new Conservancy Council is going to undertake. That will be no more difficult if my Amendment is passed than if it is withdrawn. I believe your Lordships should establish the principle that you feel it is
impossible to divorce conservation from research, which I think was the unanimous opinion of the whole of the staff concerned with this a year ago. All that has happened since then is that they have been so "mucked about" that they are saying, "For heaven's sake! leave us alone; we will take second best if we cannot get first best". I believe it is our job to start this new Council off on the right lines, and unless the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can stand up once more and say, quite unequivocally, that he will find some means of ensuring that the new Nature Conservancy Council has the power to undertake some research I am afraid that I must press my Amendment.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents. 47.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ferrier, L.

Raglan, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Fiske, L.

Redesdale. L.

Albermarle, E.

Fulton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Ridley, V.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Rowallan, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Royle, L.

Arran, E.

George-Brown, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Granville of Eye, L.

Segal, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenway, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Scrota, B.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Snow, L.

BIyton, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Soper, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Stamp, L.

Carnock, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Stocks, B.

Champion, L.

Hylton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jacques, L.

Strang, L.

Coleridge, L.

Janner, L.

Strange, L.

Colyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kindesley, L,

Tanlaw, L.

Cottesloe. L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cowley, E.

Landsdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Waldegrave, E,

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

Williamson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Loudoun, C.

Willingdon, M.

de Clifford, L.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Dundonald, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Elliott of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Wynford, L.

Energlyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Haig, E.

Polwarth, L.

Blackett, L.

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

Rankeillour, L.

Bledisloe, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ironside, L.

Shannon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Craigton, L.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Daventry, V.

Mar, E.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

White, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Advisory committees of Council]:
5.58 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) a committee for the purpose of giving them advice about the discharge of their functions in England, and").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend has asked me to move this Amendment very shortly. Clause 2 says:
"The Council may appoint committees."
but that,
"Without prejudice…it shall be the duty of the Council to appoint"
committees for Scotland and Wales. When on Second Reading I suggested that there should be a separate committee for England, my noble friend Lord Sandford said in reply that he wanted the. Bill to permit the Council to provide whatever committees for England it considered best for English conditions. But there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent the Council, as it might well wish to do, from appointing a second committee for Scotland though it has not been suggested that Scotland should not have a statutory committee. The Council may, if the Minister suggested, eventually wish to have English provincial committees, but these could not and should not be a substitute for a statutory committee to consider England's problems as a whole. There are many problems which can be considered only in an English committee relationship.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will remember, I spent a decade in this House and in another place fighting on every Parliamentary battlefield for a square deal for Scotland. It is a refreshing change to be fighting for a square deal for England; and this Amendment is no less than that. I do not think we run the risk of the Council deciding at some time not to have any committee at all for England, but without this specific reference the Bill does create unnecessary misunderstanding. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend is perfectly right. The Bill continues in effect the requirement for separate committees in relation to Scotland and Wales but makes no provision at the moment as regards England, and the reason for that is exactly as he reports me as having said at Second Reading. What more I want to say is that, now that the Chairman-designate of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir David Serpell, has been appointed, I am sure the best course would be to discuss the matter with him in the light of any views expressed on this Amendment beyond those already expressed by my noble friend. We could then consider this Amendment in the light of his views, and those of his Council about the provincial arrangements, if the Council and the Chairman wish to have any, so that the committee and your Lordships will know precisely what arrangements are being made for England. I hope that, with the assurance that we will consider the Amendment on that basis, and shall be able to return to it with that extra information at Report stage, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment now.
LORD CRAIGTON: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Administrative and supplementary provisions relating to the Council]:
6.3 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page line 15, at end add (" and any other land occupied by them shall be deemed, for the purpose of any rate on property, to be property occupied by on or behalf of the Crown for public purposes.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This Amendment deals with the status of the property of the Nature Conservancy Council, other than nature reserves, for the purposes of rates on the property. Under the Amendment such property will be regarded as being occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes. The effect of this is that the Nature Conservancy Council will not be under a requirement to pay rates but, as in the case of Crown property, a contribution will be paid in lieu. The Amendment does not apply to the Nature Conservancy Council's nature reserves. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 already provides for the Council to be treated as a Government Department in relation to land in which they have an interest and which they manage as a nature reserve. As a result of this, for rating purposes all of the Council's property will be treated in the same way. I beg to move.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL
6.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Sandford)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 2 [Interests qualifying for compensation]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 42, after ("of") insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next one standing in my name, to which I should like to speak now, with your Lordships' agreement, are the first of the Amendments which were originally tabled for Report stage but which have been deferred until now at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can appreciate the noble Lord's dismay on first perceiving the bulk of these Amendments, but as my noble friend Lord Sandford explained at Report, there is no need to be intimidated by this. Most of them simply adapt to the law of Scotland provisions already in the Bill or apply those provisions to the peculiarly Scottish kinds of agricultural tenants. It is a complicated subject and also one on which there are a great many small differences between Scottish and English law.
I should like to explain these special kinds of tenure, for the benefit of those noble Lords who do not share the familiarity with the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Crofters, cottars, landholders and statutory small tenants are peculiarly Scottish classes of tenant. Crofters and cottars are found only in the seven counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross-shire, Sutherland and Shetland. Landholders and statutory small tenants are confined to the rest of Scotland. A crofter is the tenant of a croft, which is a small agricultural subject, who enjoys security of tenure virtually in perpetuity as well as the right to assign or bequeath his holding. He is responsible for providing his own house and buildings and is entitled to compensation for them on renunciation or removal from the croft. The only limitation on his security is that the landlord

319
has the right to apply to the Scottish Land Court for authority to resume the whole or part of the croft for a reasonable purpose having regard to the good of the croft or the estate or to the public interest.
A cottar is the occupier of a dwelling-house with or without agricultural land attached to it, who may or may not pay rent, but is in occupation with the consent of the landlord. He or his predecessors will normally have provided the dwelling-house, and he has similar compensation rights to a crofter. A landholder is the tenant of a small agricultural unit outside the crofting counties who in most respects is comparable with a crofter. He enjoys comparable security of tenure and is responsible for providing his own house and fixed equipment, for which he has similar compensation rights to a crofter. Statutory small tenants are a diminishing class, comparable to landholders but distinguished from them by the fact that they have not provided the greater part of the improvements on their holding.
In addition to the Scottish Amendments which have been carried over from Report stage, we have found it necessary to introduce some small drafting improvements, but these are quite straightforward and I shall explain them as we come to them. Turning first to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the purpose of them is to bring within the scope of Part I of the Bill the interests of crofters and similar classes of tenant who are peculiar to Scotland. The Amendments recognise the fact that the crofter is normally required to provide his own equipment on his holding for which he receives compensation on outgoing. It is possible that this compensation or the sum which he receives for the holding on assignation may be reduced by the injurious effect of the use of public works. It seems reasonable, therefore, to regard the interest of the crofter in this context as more analogous to that of an owner-occupier than of a year-to-year tenant, who does not normally have to provide his own equipment. We are therefore extending the definition of "owner's interest" in this clause to provide for this. The position of landholders, statutory small tenants and cottars is broadly similar to that of a crofter, and they
320
are therefore also covered by the Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, I feel obliged at this late stage of the Bill to object to so many Scottish Amendments coming up at such short notice on so complicated a subject, much of it very highly legal and technical in its aspect. I have used the time that has elapsed between Report stage and to-day to make inquiries in Scotland as to the effects of these Amendments and about the way in which they have been received by the main agricultural interests. The noble Lord will be glad when I say that nothing that I have been told—with one exception, which is the subject of an Amendment that I have tabled—has given me any cause to believe that I should oppose any of these Amendments that have been re-tabled by the Government to-day.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke to me early this afternoon about this Amendment, and said that he feared he would not be present when we reached it. If he had been here, he would have asked (I may be wrong, but I think this arose from discussions he has had with the Law Society) why in this widening definition a liferenter has been excluded. I do not know whether in fact a person who holds the liferent of a property which is affected under Clause 1 would benefit if liferenters were not specifically mentioned. Perhaps the noble Lord can say what is the position of a person who holds a liferent of a property in Scotland and who is affected under provisions where other people are being given protection.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, did indeed inquire of me earlier about this point. I have made inquiries and, as I understand it, the reason for the exclusion of a life-renter as such is that a liferenter does not have a realisable interest which could be depreciated as a result of the use of public works. On the other hand, a crofter, or one of the other specified categories here, is entitled on renouncing his tenancy to receive compensation for his buildings, and this compensation is what could be depreciated by the use of public works. As I understand it, where there is a liferent it is the trustees who will be entitled to receive compensation,

321
not the liferenter direct; and presumably the liferenter would benefit through the fact of the assets of the trust being added to by this compensation. I understand that that is the position.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thought that that might be the position, but can the noble Lord go a little further? He said, "as I understand it", but that is not the same as saying that the trustees will receive compensation and the liferenter will therefore benefit indirectly. Perhaps, even if it may be a little out of order, when the noble Lord can get specific information he will be able to say that the trustees will be in exactly the same position as any other owner. It is just possible that I have spoken sufficiently long out of order to enable the answer to be given.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords. I am sorry to say that that is not the case. But I will certainly endeavour to obtain confirmation in time to give the noble Lord a reply at a suitable moment later on.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("and
(b) a crofter, a landholder, a statutory small tenant and a cottar in the land.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it did not seem to me that anybody said anything. I heard no murmur of "Content" at all, and I certainly did not say "Not-Content". I think noble Lords ought to say something.
Clause 4 [Assessment of compensation: general provisions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 43, after ("or") insert ("to a contract made after the relevant date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As subsection (4)(c) stands, in cases of contracts for grant of a tenancy entered into before the relevant date there could be duplication of compensation because both parties to the contract would be entitled to
322
claim. A correction is required to secure that both could not, and the Amendment secures that the landlord's interest is valued subject to the contract for the tenancy. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 8 [Other restrictions on compensation]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 38, after ("by") insert ("the use of").
The noble Lord said: my Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. It ensures that the depreciation referred to in subsection (1) is depreciation caused by the use of the works (which is what Part I is all about) and not by other factors, such as the construction of the works. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 19 [Interpretation of Part I]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 16, after ("always") insert ("since 17th October 1969").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the last to Part I, and it is a technical one. Part I applies only to highways first opened to public traffic on or after October 17, 1969, and the word "always" thus needs to be qualified to bring it within the terms of reference of Part I. Without the date the provision could be held to deal with situations in the indefinite past, which is not what it was intended to do. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 20 [Sound-proofing of buildings affected by public works]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert ("and the area in which a building must be situated if a duty or power is to arise in respect of it").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, regulations under Clause 20 may make provisions for the level of noise giving rise to a duty or power, and may specify the classes of buildings in respect of which a duty or power is to arise. By subsection (3) they may also provide for the

323
relevant level of noise in a particular case to be determined by reference to certain documents. It is envisaged that the regulations will require responsible authorities to determine the relevant level of noise in a particular case, either by prediction in accordance with a formula evolved and contained in a published document, or by measurement in individual or groups of cases, and, in the case of prediction, to publish a map in advance of the construction of the works showing the area in which the relevant level of noise is predicted to be reached. The intention is that buildings situated within that area shall be eligible for sound insulation work on the application of some person. The powers need to be wide enough to enable responsible authorities to publish such a map or take other steps which would result under the regulations in some buildings being eligible and others not. As drafted, subsection (2) does not quite ensure this; hence this technical Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 7, is consequential on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, after ("noise") insert ("or the relevant area").—(Lord Sandford.)
6.20 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("(5A) Regulations under this section may authorise the council of a London borough to contribute towards expenses incurred under the regulations by a responsible authority in respect of the insulation of buildings against noise caused or expected to be caused by the use of any highway in that borough in relation to which an order has been made under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (traffic regulation orders in Greater London).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to
"make regulations imposing a duty or conferring a power on responsible authorities to insulate buildings against noise caused or expected to be caused by the construction or use of public works or to make grants in respect of the cost of such insulation".
The term "responsible authority" is defined in subsection (11) of the clause
324
as including, where it relates to a highway,
"any authority having power to make an order in respect of that highway under section 1 or 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967…".
Section 1 deals with orders outside Greater London, whereas Section 6 covers orders in the Greater London Area. In Greater London the authority having power to make an order as respects roads other than trunk roads is the Greater London Council. In the case of trunk roads it is the Minister or, with his consent, again the G.L.C. Subsection (5) of this clause enables regulations to be made to
"authorise or require local authorities to act as agents for responsible authorities in dealing with claims and in discharging or exercising the duties or powers of responsible authorities under the regulations, and may provide for the making by responsible authorities of payments to local authorities in respect of anything done by them as such agents".
As I have stated, the G.L.C., and not the London boroughs, is the authority which has the power to make such regulations in Greater London on highways other than trunk roads, and cases could occur where the G.L.C. could make an order at the request of a London borough, and that borough, being willing to make a grant to the G.L.C. towards the cost of any subsequent sound insulation scheme, may find itself unable to do so because of the restrictions of subsection (5) as it now stands. I am advised that subsection (5) is restricted to anything done by local authorities as agents for responsible authorities, and there is no circumstance in which the G.L.C. would be acting as agent for a London borough in this matter. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable a London borough to contribute to the expenses where the G.L.C. is acting as a result of a request from a London borough and that borough is willing to contribute towards the costs. I am assured the Amendment is acceptable to the London Boroughs Association, and I hope it is in a form which the Minister can accept. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for moving and explaining this Amendment, and I am glad to confirm that it is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 19, line 43, after ("section") insert ("may contain such supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient and")
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. It provides for the regulations to include such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary for the purposes of the sound insulation scheme, since it is impossible to visualise and hence specify in this clause everything which it may be desirable to include when the regulations come to be drafted and presented to Parliament. I beg to move.
Clause 21 [Sound-proofing of buildings affected by aerodromes]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 29, at end insert ("but a scheme under that section need apply only to such classes of buildings as the Secretary of State thinks fit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has a little more substance than the ones I have been moving immediately prior to this. Clause 21 extends the meaning of "dwelling" in Section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965 to enable sound insulation to be installed in "buildings". This was done so as to match the new provision for sound-insulating buildings in respect of other public works in Clause 20. The existing powers in Section 15, however, are at present not adequate to enable regulations introduced under it to specify the classes of building in respect of which insulation might be installed, and the parallel with Clause 20(2)(b) is thus incomplete. This Amendment, therefore, simply provides powers in relation to aerodrome schemes which Clause 20 already provides for other schemes. I beg to move.
Clause 22 [Acquisition of land in connection with highways]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 23, line 16, leave out ("and other land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 simply corrects a mistake in drafting which results in more of subsection (4) being left out of the Scottish application than was intended. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it seems to me that this is perfectly reasonable and, looking at this, one wonders why the words that are being altered were inserted in the first place—
"open space or fuel or field garden allotment and other land".
If it had read,
"open space and other land"
in the first instance, would that not have included a fuel or field garden allotment, or can they be regarded in some ways as not being part of any other land? However, it is not the Scottish application and I will not press it.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will excuse me from dealing with that English matter.
Clause 26 [Acquisition of land in connection with public works]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 26, line 32, after ("highway") insert ("or in Scotland a road").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 12 I will speak at the same time to the two subsequent Amendments. These are necessary because "highway" has a different meaning in Scotland from that which it has in England and Wales. In Scotland a highway is a road maintained by a highway authority. There are also roads built and maintained by other public authorities, such as the Forestry Commission and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, to which the public have access. In England these would be highways, but in Scotland they are just "roads" and are not therefore excluded from Clauses 26 and 27 as they are worded at present. It is, however, desirable to exclude such minor roads which are not the responsibility of a highway authority in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and the effect of these Amendments is to achieve this exclusion.
If your Lordships would allow me, while dealing with this question of highways and roads might I try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the point which he raised at an earlier stage in relation to definitions, arising, I think, under two previous clauses, Clauses 18 and 19—the definition of a "highway authority" in Scotland. While in Clauses 1 to 18 of the Bill inclusive the expression "the appropriate highway authority" is used, the definition of that expression in Clause 19 is given in terms of the words "highway authority", and the words "highway authority" also appear in subsection (3) of Clause 19. So the definition of a "highway authority" is still necessary for the purposes of Clause 19 itself. Admittedly it is a definition for Scotland only, and it has not been considered necessary by the English draftsman to insert a parallel one for England and Wales. I think that this can be accounted for by the differences between the ways in which the meaning of "highway authority" is given in the Highways Act 1959, applicable only to England and Wales, and in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, which applies to Scotland. I have therefore made these inquiries and, as a result, should like to assure the noble Lord that the definition of a "highway authority" in Clause 19 does serve a purpose. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for explaining why there should be these two definitions in the previous clause. I admit that I had given up hope of hearing more about it. It is a long time since I asked the question. I thought that all the typewriters had disappeared from St. Andrew's House or that the Minister had lost his pen. I accept what he says as a reason why this should be done. I still do not feel that it is necessary, but if the draftsmen feel that it is so, then I am not disposed to argue about it.
Clause 27 [Execution of works etc. in connection with public works]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 formally.
Amendment moved—
328
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("or in Scotland a road.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 28 [Power to pay expenses of persons moving temporarily during construction works etc.]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 4, at end insert—
("(5) In the application of this section to Scotland 'highway authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, and in subsection (1) for any reference to a highway there shall be substituted a reference to a road.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 29 [Right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling]:
6.32 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 27, leave out ("five") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am acutely aware that this matter has been debated twice already in this House and twice in another place. I am also conscious of the fact that it is not to the liking of your Lordships generally that an Amendment at Third Reading should be moved in similar terms to one moved at either the Report or Committee stages. But I have been encouraged to table this Amendment, which is much more modest than has been considered previously, since it has been obvious at almost every stage of the passage of the Bill through this House and through another place that there is considerable disquiet and concern that the Government appear not to have fully appreciated the position of those people who as a result of public policy find that they have lost their homes.
Clause 29 provides for compensation to persons displaced as a result of compulsory acquisition. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put it at Report stage, it is compensation to cover the grief and distress of being uprooted against one's will from a place that has become one's home. If I may say so, that has been the concern and disquiet throughout. I appreciate that the Government have

329
recognised the rightfulness of the claim for such solatium as is covered by the clause. I equally appreciate their desire to legislate to meet it. I have no wish to repeat all the arguments that were advanced on the Committee and Report stages, and certainly not to repeat all the points that were raised in debate in another place, but I think that there ought to be made clear the very deep concern which has been expressed at every stage of the Bill, at Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage. And I think that concern will be evidenced again this evening.
The Government may say they have been flexible. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said just that at the Report stage. He confirmed what I had already acknowledged when we were considering the matter: that there had been a reduction from the original figure of seven years to one of five years before the Bill reached this House. What was the reason for putting "seven years" in the original text of the Bill I do not know. Neither do I think that a case has been stated to support the choice of the term of seven years. What I do know is that there were, from the very beginning, strong feelings that there should be a "nil" qualifying period. In this House an attempt was made to persuade the Government to accept a "nil" period; an effort was made to amend the period to two years and again to three years. I think that it is crystal clear, reading all the discussions that have taken place, that five years is too long a period to satisfy those of your Lordships and those Members of another place who have followed the debates and listened to the arguments. On Report here an Amendment to reduce the period to one of three years was lost by only two votes.
The Amendment that I now move is a very much more modest one: four years instead of the original seven years, four years instead of the five years that is now mentioned in the Bill. I would hope that the Government will seize the opportunity to show that they have some regard for the concern which undoubtedly has been shown in this House and which was evidenced by the closeness of the vote at Report stage. We are concerned here with a solatium for the loss of a home. How that can be quantified I
330
do not pretend to understand. How anyone can say that it takes a minimum of five years before attachment to a home merits compensation, I find impossible to comprehend. People generally do not buy a house because of the prospect of being turned out; they do not buy a house because they are going to enjoy a period of insecurity. They buy a house because they need a home.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said at Report stage that attachment to a home grows as the period lengthens and that it is certainly stronger after five years than it is after three years. I found that at the time (and on reflection I find it still) a generalisation that would be difficult to prove. Some people at the moment of occupation would feel more strongly attached to their home than some people who had lived in a house for a decade; for some it will be their first home after years of waiting and attachment will be deep and profound. I cannot accept that there will be a large number of people who will buy property and move into it knowing that it is going to be taken from them and being aware of the levels of compensation available to them.
There are no fortunes to be made in this—only grief and distress that those involved have no security of ownership. We are not talking about large sums of money. The figures for compensation range from £150 to £1,500. My Amendment does not involve a total figure much in excess of £2 million at the outside. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, at Report stage to suggest a figure of something like £5 million a year. At Report stage he talked about a total cost of compensation to meet this grief and distress of about £25 million. I do not know whether that £25 million was a firm figure. I very much suspect that the cost of the acceptance of this Amendment would be somewhere between £2million and £2½ million a year at the very outset. To qualify for consideration a claimant for compensation will need to have been in occupation of the dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence; in other words, he must have been in occupation by virtue of an interest or a right. I hope that the Government will respond to the very moderate nature of the Amendment. While not meeting the position as fully

331
as one might wish, if the Government did accept the Amendment it would help many who are surely deserving of consideration. I suggest that it would indicate that the Government are sensitive to the very strong feeling which I believe still exists with regard to this matter.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment very strongly and very briefly—very strongly because that is how I feel about it, and very briefly because I feel that the case has already been argued fully and forcefully in Committee and at Report stage. I cannot believe that there is anyone who does not welcome this new principle of home loss payments. All we are trying to do by this Amendment is to ensure that the principle is extended to include another group of people who, we believe, will be affected no less than those already covered by the provisions in the Bill. It is no doubt a matter of opinion as to how long a person has to occupy a house before he or she experiences a sense of loss or distress when that house is forcibly taken away. But it is the fact, my Lords, that in the debates on the Amendments moved in Committee and on Report every speaker, with the exception of my noble friend the Minister, expressed the view that five years was too long a period before one could qualify for this payment. I must confess, my Lords, that throughout the passage of this important Bill I have been rather disappointed at the apparent unwillingness of the Government to yield at all to many of the reasonable Amendments which have been put down, and the reasoned arguments which have been put forward. In my view this one is quite the most reasonable and I urge my noble friend the Minister to concede that it is so, and to show a degree of flexibility at this stage. If he finds that impossible, and if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, decides to press this Amendment, I urge your Lordships to give it your full support.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I too, will be brief, but I think there is one point worthy of notice. Because of the movement of work people from one part of Britain to another the period of occupancy should be lower because the fluidity of labour is an important matter
332
in a modern technological world. Long periods of dwelling in the same area, especially in modern development, are not expected as they were in years gone by. Without developing the argument, because I think it is self-evident, I believe my noble friend is right to attempt to reduce the period of years of occupancy, and I hope that the Amendment will be regarded as worthy of support.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that we can deal briefly with this matter because it has been debated four times already and most of the main issues are well understood. I would rebut the contention of my noble friend Lord Davidson that the Government have not been flexible on this point, or in respect of the Bill in general. I have today already accepted one Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I have accepted earlier Amendments, and it may be that I shall accept one more But on this topic the Government have already responded to the views expressed in another place and have reduced the period to five years. I would, however, summarise the four points on which I must advise the House to support the Government.
First, my Lords, as everyone knows, we are here introducing a new payment not designed to represent the value of what is being taken, but to console those forced to leave homes for which over the years they have formed a strong attachment. The people we really need to have in mind are not those who have been living in their houses for two, three, four or five years, but those who have lived in their houses for most of their lives. It is these people for whom this payment is chiefly provided. But we have to provide a cut-off point. I think it fundamental to the concept that there has to be a period of occupation long enough to form an attachment, and not a "nil" period for which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has sometimes argued.
Five years has been selected for three reasons. The first, which is the least important, is to establish a cut-off point; to ensure that those most likely to suffer distress will benefit, while at the same time keeping within bounds the cost of a provision which, of all those in the Bill, is the one making the heaviest call on

333
the taxpayer. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was perfectly right. This particular provision requires about £20 million a year from the taxpayers at large, and the effect of the acceptance of his Amendment would be to increase that sum by £2 million or £3 million. That is one reason for the cut-off, but it is not the main one.
The two more important reasons are these. First, a public work takes a long time to plan and to implement and there will be plenty of occupiers of five years' standing who would know at the very outset of their occupation that they were likely to be dispossessed; and to reduce the qualifying period even to four years would increase the number of such people and the number of unwarranted payments made at the expense of the taxpayers and ratepayers. No one can be precise about the number who would be in that position, but plainly there could be many, and I will give the House two reasons for being able to say that quite categorically.
Take, for instance, housing schemes, slum clearance schemes, the ones most likely to generate claims to which this section applies, dealing with unfit houses. These programmes nearly always cover a period of five years. The first official step is that the medical officer of health inspects the area and makes recommendations about the extent of the clearance area to be proposed. This may well be common knowledge locally, and once the clearance area is declared a prospective purchaser would be alerted. After the declaration of the clearance area a further period of one or two years or more may elapse before the compulsory purchase order is confirmed, and another couple of years before households are moved out of the area. In some cases demolition may be deferred for a still longer period.
Another public work giving rise to claims for home loss is, of course, the construction of new roads. The relevant period is that period which elapses after the publication of the line order and before construction actually begins. The periods that have elapsed in respect of one or two well-known roads are these: the A.66 Kendal link, 6 years; the Reigate-Godstone section of the M.25, 5 years; the Lightwater-Sunbury section of
334
the M.3, 5 years; the Lofthouse-Ferry-bridge section of the M.62, 6 years 4 months; the Fiveways corner intersection of the M.1 with the North Circular, 6 years, 3 months; the M.40 Gerrards Cross by-pass, now under construction, 7 years, 10 months. There was some talk about possible speculation in this field. I did not make very much of that, and I do not make much of it now. But I think that from what I have said noble Lords will see that in both these areas there is more often than not the likelihood that the number of people moving into the properties will know when they move in that they are going to be dispossessed within those periods.
The final reason I give for the cut-off of five years having been selected is the most important, not because it represents any sort of meanness by the Government, but from a desire to concentrate the available help on the people who most deserve it. If the qualifying period were reduced the number of people qualifying each year would be permanently increased. This would mean not only higher annual expenditure, which as I have said is a factor, but not the most important one, but also less room for manoeuvre if and when any Government give consideration to raising the minimum payment of £150 under Clause 30(1), which can be done by the order of the Secretary of State. It is worth realising that most of those who will benefit from this minimum payment of £150, or some larger sum if a larger sum is introduced, live in slum clearance areas where five out of every six houses required for public work are situated. If the period were reduced further these people could suffer in this way, whereas those who bought a house four years before it was due to be acquired for a scheme, and did so in the full knowledge of the prospects, would be given an undeserved payment which could be as high as £1,500.
As I said at the beginning, we have to remember that we are not talking here about compensation for the value of what is taken or of losses caused by compulsory displacement. Those are covered of course by the existing compensation code, as amended and as enlarged by the other provisions in this Bill. What we are talking about is a special, new, additional

335
payment over and above these for people who are subjected to great distress when they are forced to move away from homes where they may have brought up their families or lived for the best part of their lives—much longer periods than those we are talking about. As I say, the Government have already reduced the qualifying period in response to arguments in favour of those who have occupied their homes for a lesser period, but we remain persuaded that it is not right to accept any further dilution of our concern for occupiers of very long standing, or to open the provision further to the possibility of making payments at the taxpayers' expense to those who knew from the outset that they were not taking up their permanent home.
I hope that with that even fuller explanation than I have given before the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, as he will see that we are trying to be fair as well as generous; but if
he does, I must ask the House to resist it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his reply, but I find what he has said quite unconvincing. I think that further talk now will not carry the matter any further. Those of your Lordships who were present in the Chamber will have heard the debate. I should have liked to deal point by point with what the noble Lord has said, because there is an answer to every point he has made. The Government have not been flexible in their expression of opinion in this House on this most important matter, and I think your Lordships should be given an opportunity to vote on it. I think a Division is fully justified before this Bill proceeds further.
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56: Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Royle, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Arran, E.

George-Brown, L.

Serota, B.

Auckland, L.

Hale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bacon, B.

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hoy, L.

Snow, L.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Soper, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Brockway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stocks, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strange, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Teviot, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monson, L.

White, B.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Williamson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wise, L.

Dundonald, E.

Phillips, B.

Wynford, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fiske, L.

Rhodes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

de Clifford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Allerton, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balerno, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Berkeley, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Boothby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Onslow, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Haig, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carrington, L.

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

Penrhyn, L.

Coleridge, L.

Polwarth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lothian, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Daventry, V.

Mar, E.

Tenby, V.

Terrington, L.

Vivian, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Young, B.

Vernon, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.3 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Where an interest in a dwelling is vested in trustees (other than a sole tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925) and a person beneficially entitled (whether directly or derivatively) under the trusts is entitled or permitted by reason of his interest to occupy the dwelling, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as occupying it by virtue of an interest in the dwelling.
In the application of this subsection to Scotland the words "(other than a sole tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925 ") shall be omitted.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This is a technical drafting Amendment prompted by the Law Society. As Clause 29 stands, it could be open to doubt whether the interest of the entitled person is in the dwelling or in the process of a sale. For the avoidance of doubt, the Amendment provides that the interest is in the dwelling. Clause 29(4)(a) includes interest in the dwelling, subject to the trust for sale. There is no such doubt in the case of a sole tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925, which applies only to England and Wales. Such a tenant does not have an interest in the dwelling. As that Act does not apply to Scotland the second paragraph of the Amendment is formally required.
Clause 32 [Supplementary provisions about home loss payments]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 32, leave out lines 24 to 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and to speak to No. 18, because the first paves the way for the second. One of the qualifying conditions that had to remain in order to confer on a person the right to claim a home loss payment is that that person can perhaps specify an interest or right of dwelling in the home from which he is displaced. This condition
338
is necessary to ensure that only one home loss payment is made in respect of each home. In some cases, however, two or more persons could have a qualifying interest in the same home which they jointly occupy—for example, a husband and wife who jointly own their own home or are joint tenants of it. The provision is not exact enough as it stands to cover this current situation, and the redraft takes the form of removing the last four lines of subsection (4) and re-introducing them in an improved version in a separate subsection. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) Where there are two or more persons entitled to make a claim to a home loss payment in respect of the same dwelling (whether by virtue of joint occupation or of subsection (4) above) the payment to be made on each claim shall be equal to the whole amount of the home loss payment divided by the number of such persons.").—(Lord Sandford.)
7.6 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 33, line 5, leave out ("a") and insert ("(i)a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to the subsequent Amendment which is consequent upon it. These Amendments deal with the situation where someone who would have been entitled to a home loss payment dies before he can claim it. As Clause 32 stands at present, other people who have lived in the dwelling for five years up to the date of displacement can claim the payment to which the deceased person was entitled, but only if they were entitled to benefit under the will or under the law of intestate succession. It is possible, however, for the deceased person to have made a will leaving his entire estate to a distant relative or, for that matter, to a dogs' home. If this happened, the widow would be unable to claim a home loss payment. Nevertheless, as your Lordships know, they

339
have certain rights under Scots Law, into which I need not go, which ensure that even although they are not named in the will the widow or widower and the children of the deceased receive a portion of the estate. In these circumstances, I think your Lordships will agree that it is right that the widow or widower and children should be able to claim a home loss payment in the same way as if they had benefited under the will. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 8, at end insert ("and at the end there shall be added the following words 'or(ii) a right to jus relicti, jus relictae or legitim out of the deceased's estate'.")—(Lord polwarth.)
Clause 33 [Home Loss payments for certain caravan dwellers]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 33, line 34, after ("effect") insert—
("(a) as if in subsection (3) for the words "in occupation of a dwelling or a substantial part of it", "resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it" and "in occupation thereof" there were substituted respectively the words "in occupation of a caravan site", "resided in a caravan on that site" and "in occupation of that site";
(b) as if in subsection (4) for the words "resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it" there were substituted the words "resided in a caravan on the caravan site"; and
(c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21, which is a drafting Amendment for the sake of elucidation, to apply more clearly the references in Clause 32, subsections (3) and (4), to displacement from a dwelling to the situation where a person residing in a caravan or on a caravan site is displaced from that site.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22:
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)").—
Clause 34 [Right to farm loss payment where person displaced from agricultural unit]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23, and I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 24, because No. 23 is merely a paving Amendment. When the series of Scottish Amendments were down at Report stage and I asked for them to be deferred till now, I undertook to investigate what Scottish opinion was regarding these Amendments. Among others, I consulted the Crofters Commission and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland—two bodies which seemed to me to cover between them the majority of agricultural interests affected by this Bill. My contacts with the Crofters Commission were in writing, and then I followed the line of letting the National Farmers' Union of Scotland know what the Crofters Commission had said. For their interest, they adopted the views expressed by the Crofters Commission.
As I said on the Amendments to Clause 2, in the light of these discussions I am prepared to accept that the Amendments which the Government have now retabled at this stage are satisfactory and I have therefore no reason to object to any of them. If I may quote in part from what the Crofters Commission wrote to me, they said this:
"The Commission, in exercise of their statutory function to advise the Secretary of State on crofting matters, have had discussions with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on a number of points which now appear to be satisfactorily covered by the amendments to the Bill proposed to be moved on Third Reading next week".
They then went on to refer to the various points which have been taken care of by these Amendments. They continued:
"The one fresh point which has emerged since the Commission considered the provision of the Bill in relation to crofters concerns farm loss payment. The position here will be that (1) The farm tenant holding on a lease of which not less than three years remain unexpired will qualify for this payment. (2) The farm tenant on tacit re-location or on a lease with less than three years to run will not qualify; (3) the crofter will not qualify. In all three cases under Clause 47"

341
which I think is now Clause 48
"and the proposed new clause following it the tenant's compensation will be assessed having regard to his security of tenure—which is substantially security for life in the case of farm tenants and security in perpetuity in the case of crofters. This recognition of the true duration of the tenancy right brings into question the validity of making a three years leasehold the watershed dividing those who can qualify for farm loss payment from those who cannot and suggests that the farm tenant and the crofter should qualify in every case".
As I understand the position, it is this: we might have two adjoining farms affected by proposals for road works or reservoir works. In one case the man is sitting on a lease which has three years or more still to run. He may have been in the farm for a year, five years, ten years or fifteen years. What matters is that there are three years or more still to run. His neighbour on the adjoining farm has been there for many years. His lease has run out, but by virtue of the law he is there, if he so wishes, for the rest of his life and can pass the tenancy on to his son. So he has the possibility of a tenancy for much longer in many cases than the three years that remain in a lease.
Similarly, the crofter is there in perpetuity. His right is very much better than that just coming from a three years balance of lease. In these circumstances, I cannot see why the three years is taken as the position which will determine that farm loss payments should be made. In putting forward an Amendment of this kind I was conscious of the fact that I was venturing into a field which might have repercussions in other parts of the Bill. I should be very much surprised if the Amendment which I have put forward is technically acceptable because it probably has consequences elsewhere. If the Government are disposed to agree with me that injustice would be done by sticking to these three years, then I would invite them to accept this Amendment on the basis that the opportunity would be afforded to another place for the Government then to table whatever other Amendments were necessary to put the matter in order.
If the opportunity had been available to do this at either the Committee stage or Report stage, there would have been a substantial opportunity available to me to propose all the necessary further
342
Amendments. But, coming up at this last stage—not of my seeking but of others doing—I am deprived of what would have been the ordinary Parliamentary opportunity. Therefore unless the Government can advance some perfectly valid reason why the three years' provision should remain, then, defective or satisfactory, they should accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
7.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the technical method that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has suggested would, so far as I know, be a perfectly valid way of dealing with this matter were I to be basing my argument on pure technicalities. I am not going to do so; I am going to develop this as a matter of principle. Apart from having discovered what "tacit relocation" means—which, for the benefit of those who do not know, means not being relocated but staying in the same place—I do not want to address the House on the technicalities of this matter at all. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may recall—I do not know whether he was present at the time or not—that we have had discussions in the course of this Bill on similar points regarding England and Wales. He will appreciate that the scheme of the Bill on farm loss tenants has been to treat the so-called owner, who is the owner or tenant with three or more years to run, and whom the noble Lord correctly mentioned, in a different way from the tenant who has less than three years to run on a lease, or a tenancy from year to year.
One of the reasons why this has been done—and at the moment I am talking about South of the Border; I will come to Scotland in a moment—is that traditionally the protection and the law relating to the two different sorts of tenure on an agricultural holding have developed in entirely different directions. For instance, it was partly in recognition of the Government's unwillingness to put in provisions for farm loss payments for the tenant whose lease has less than three years to run, that we now have what is Clause 48, which provides for the reversal of the fairly recently propounded assumptions for the purposes of assessing compensation. That was the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rightly referred.

343
As I explained at earlier stages of the Bill, under Clause 48 (and the same thing is now being provided by my noble friend Lord Polwarth's Amendment No. 29, which adapts Clause 48 for Scotland, and the special provisions in the new clause in Amendment No. 30 which deals with the particular problems of the legislation for crofters) we shall have the situation whereby we disregard altogether the scheme for the purposes of assessing compensation. The noble Lord will probably remember the way this was explained previously. We have to take account of the fact that the person is losing his land in whole or in part. One looks at the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act or of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act and one finds when planning permission for a scheme has been granted—in this case for public work—normally one may assume that the tenant of the farm can be got rid of in order that that development should take place. In other words, the landlord can get rid of him on the strength of the planning permission that has been granted for the development, and until we introduced Clause 48 the law, certainly South of the Border, has been that you assessed compensation on the assumption that the owner of the land was going to be able to get rid of the tenant on the strength of the scheme of public works, and in those circumstances the tenant is likely to have comparatively modest compensation paid to him because one assumes that he is going to go reasonably soon anyway.
Now that is reversed in Clause 48 and the subsequent Scottish provisions. We now assume that although the owner can get planning permission for something else you can take that into account. You do not take account of the scheme itself, and therefore you credit the tenant with security of tenure which he would have and you disregard the scheme altogether. This greatly increases the prospects of him getting compensation on a larger scale but it is of course tied, and has to be tied, statutorily to the statutory machinery for dealing with the termination of agricultural tenancies. That is why one has references in Clause 48 to these two sections of the Agricultural Holdings Act. We are now putting in the equivalent sections of the Agri-
344
cultural Holdings (Scotland) Act and the situation is not the same in law as it is for owners.
That is the basic scheme of the Bill. The payment which will come as compensation under Clause 48, with the long-stop of the four years rent under Section 12 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which applies to Scotland except in the case of crofters, as I understand it, is intended to be, as it were, a make-weight for the tenant not having the farm loss payment. The owner who loses his farm does not get the four times rent or anything like that; he is dealt with on a perfectly ordinary basis of having the value of his interest taken into account and assessed in the ordinary way of compulsory purchase. But we have to create an artificial situation for the tenant of three years or less, taking account of the existing law.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the explanation he is making, but did not the 1968 Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act already make a differentiation? Is it not a fact that in that Bill the farm tenancies in Scotland were differentiated as between those of England and Wales, and whatever the law was up until that time the very fact that someone was a tenant farmer, he or she was entitled to have as his or her successor a member of the family who was associated with agriculture, and to this extent the Scottish position was different from the rest of the country.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that is so. I did not remember that it was in the 1968 Act but I knew it was the law. I was just going to come on to this point. I was trying to set the background about the difference in the legislation for tenants as opposed to owners, which inevitably affects the way that one frames the compensation provisions in this Bill.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I did not want to get up quite so quickly again. All I am saying is that I cannot remember whether it was the 1968 Act or the next one, but on that occasion a differentiation was made between tenants in Scotland and tenants in England and Wales. So he had certainly much greater security of tenure than in other parts of the country.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I accept this. As I said I am just coming on to this very point. What the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is doing against the background of the Bill as reinforced by these two Amendments, Nos. 29 and 30, to which we shall come fairly soon, is suggesting that we should cut across the previous differentiation both in this Bill and in other legislation which divides off in law and in the Statute the position of the tenant from the position of the owner. I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but in a way it is a somewhat bizarre one because I think he is saying that agricultural tenants in Scotland (and this is reinforced by Lord Hoy's point) and the crofters have now been legislated into a position whereby they are in fact virtually in the same position as an owner. I think that is really what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was saying. That may be so in practice.
I understand the point the noble Lord is making. The laws may have been so altered that it gives them, and indeed their successors, an almost indeterminate period of tenure, but I am afraid that I cannot advise the House that the artificial creation of this position by Statute is the only way in which one can frame the compensation code. I think one has to realise that whatever you do by a method in a Statute to increase the security of tenure of the tenant, you still do not get away from the fundamental division, which I believe applies in Scots law as well as it does in English law, between the tenant, or somebody who is still said to be the tenant, and the owner of the land itself. Now that distinction remains in Scots law as it does in English. To suggest that it has been so whittled away that one has altogether to disregard the way in which the law has been built up when framing this sort of measure would, I suggest, be a mistake.
Now what would be the effect of leaving the Bill without the farm loss payment when one looks at the Scottish position? Unlike the tenant in England, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has already said, the Scottish agricultural tenant has already acquired by Statute, not by common law, a greatly increased security of tenure, and the crofter an almost infinite one. The Bill deals fairly generously with crofters already. If the house goes they get the home loss payment; they get the mort-
346
gage provisions under Clause 41; they will get, if the buildings are left, injurious affection for the buildings under Part I of the Bill and they will get the ordinary compensation to which they are already entitled in the law relating to crofting. So they are fairly well done by in terms of Statute. But in addition to this—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount on one point only? When he said the crofter would get the home loss payment, where the farmer, the owner, lives on the farm and owns his house, whether a tenant of three years or more or an owner, does he qualify for home loss payment as well as farm loss payment? Because if so he is in no different position than the crofter.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: As I understand it I think the owner does, but the tenant does not, but I must check on that.
LORD HUGHES: What I am saying is that bringing in the reference to the crofter getting his home loss payment is an artificial point because he is in fact the owner of the house on the croft; and the farmer who owns his house will get a home loss payment as well as the farm loss payment which, after all, is a year's profits.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: But he gets the home loss payment because of the situation the noble Lord has mentioned. He probably—I think he almost always did—built the house or provided the house in the first place. I am simply saying that under this Bill if you look at the rest of the provisions which give him compensation he is already fairly generously dealt with.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount put it as though the crofter was being especially generously treated in getting a home loss payment. He is not; he is just being put in the same position, if I am right, as anybody else who owns his home. He is not being favourably treated. I agree he may be generously treated, but he is being equally generously treated with other people.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was wrong. In fact the owner and tenant both get their home loss payment, so I think the point goes. But I was inviting the noble Lord at that moment to look at the peripheral parts

347
before we come to the centre. The centre of it is this: Under Clause 48 as existing, and as we propose to amend it, and the new clause for crofters, the compensation that the tenant or the crofter will get takes account—the more so because of his increased security of tenure in Scotland—of that very security of tenure in assessing the compensation that he gets. To that extent, to the extent that he has greater security than the tenant in England, because of the existing Statute law which we merely adapt, he has the advantage over the tenant in England and Wales, and except in the case of the crofter he will still have the fall-back of the provisions of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1968 to underpin any shortfall there may be. We think that the result of the valuation of a croft on the basis of this sort of security of tenure is likely, as I said when discussing this clause in regard to England, to be beneficial, because the longer the security that you assume, presumably in valuation the greater the number of years' purchase you take for the capital value of the holding.
But to go beyond the adaptation and the adoption of the existing statutory provisions to protect the tenant, whether in England and Wales or Scotland, seems to us to strike at the basic subdivision of the whole of the principle of this measure: that we treat an owner and a tenant in a different way. It may be artificial, but this is the way the law has been built up. It would have the repercussion, of course, of making the situation quite different in principle in England and Wales from what it would be in Scotland, and we do not think that either the small tenant or the tenant of short-term in Scotland, or the crofter, is going to be badly affected, in view of the concessions that were made and are now being repeated in Scotland as a result of the discussion in another place which pointed out that there could be this differentiation which favoured the owner-occupier and which we have tried to meet by virtue of Clause 48. However much the law may have drifted into making the tenant into something very nearly an owner, I cannot advise the House to depart from this basic dichotomy of tenure which still exists North of the Border as it does South.
7.33 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally resumes his seat, may I ask him this question? The Bill as it stands confers rights on a tenant; it gives a tenant a right not only to the compensation under Clause 48 but to the farm loss payment under this clause which we are discussing—not only to an owner; it gives it to a tenant in certain circumstances. The tenant who has a lease of three years or more to run qualifies for both these items of compensation. The tenant who has three years to run in due course could become a tenant on tacit relocation in Scotland, so that what determines whether he is going to get one payment or two payments is not the merits of the case but the accident of the time during his lease when this event takes place. If he had been there for three years longer, and therefore one would assume with an even greater right to compensation than if he had been there for the shorter period, by being there three years longer and not having a balance of his lease to run, he loses. It seems contrary to all natural justice that this should work this way.
The noble Viscount said that, by doing what was done in Clause 48 and the new clause applying these conditions to Scotland, very much more generous compensation was being paid because the security of tenure aspect was being taken into account. That I accept. But that applies in exactly the same way to the man who has three years or more of a lease to run. Shall I put it this way? If we are going to compare like with like we should confine the comments to tenants. Can the noble Viscount assure me that if we have two farmers, one with three years or more to run and another one held on tacit relocation, in the second case the compensation under Clause 48 will be greater than the compensation payable to the man with three years to run, and that the farm loss payment which the second one gets more or less puts him in the same position as the man on tacit relocation? If that is the position, then I accept that the Government are right. But if the payments being made to both of these people under Clause 48 and the new clause are to be similar, then the man with the shorter right, the man with three years to run, is the one

349
who is going to get the larger payment, and I cannot see the justice of that. Can the noble Viscount give me that assurance: that the man on tacit relocation will have a higher compensation under Clause 48 and the succeeding clause.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to take this agricultural side entirely out of the context of the rest of the compensation code. May I take the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, back a moment and away from the agricultural field, because this principle applies across the board with tenancies of all sorts. I personally know the law in England and Wales very much better than I know what happens in Scotland, but I think the basic land clauses codes are very similar in both countries. Precisely the same point applies to the person with a business tenancy of, say, a shop. It does not make any difference whether you look at a business or agriculture for this purpose.
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords. Would the noble Viscount give way for one moment? It is not the same because I do not know of any business tenancy which can be continued on tacit relocation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: I am, my Lords.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Well, my Lords, my noble friend says the situation in Scotland is different in this matter, but the fact remains, I would suggest, that if the premises of a tenant of a business firm, a shop, are compulsorily acquired, and he has a lease which is, say, of three years or five years, it will be the value of that lease that he gets. If he has only a very short lease of a year or less to go, then he will be compensated under a different code in Scotland as in England, and he will in the case of Scotland not be given the benefit of any security of tenure. In fact, he did not get very much benefit of security of tenure previously, although he does under this Bill in England. You cannot altogether, therefore, dissociate what is being done in agriculture and take, as it were, an arbitrary line of three years from what applies to the rest of the compensation code.
350
The noble Lord wants an assurance. I cannot say what the Scottish Land Valuation Court is going to do about this matter, but I think the noble Lord will himself have been involved in sufficient matters of valuation in the course of his long civic career to be able to know roughly that this is likely to be the case. If you value a tenancy which is assumed to be a very long or indeed a perpetual one you are likely to get a greater value than if you value a tenancy which has only three years to run. Therefore, I would expect the results of these cases to be in favour of the tenant who has the shorter tenancy in law but the one which is protected longer by Statute.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Viscount has admitted that he is not as familiar with Scottish law as with English law. What I suggest is that no one valuing a tenancy with a three years' lease to run is going to value that on the basis that there is only three years, because anyone dealing with this subject knows perfectly well that when the three years have expired the tenant can continue to sit there. So he is there for life just as much as the man whose lease has expired. So it is not the case that one man is going to be valued on three years and another man is going to be valued on his life expectation; they are both going to be valued on their life expectation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that may be so, but the tenant on a three years' lease or more does not, as I understand it, profit from the switch of assumptions in Clause 48 of the Bill as applied to the tenant in Scotland. The noble Lord shakes his head but what assumption is to be made about his continuation of tenancy? I do not believe that this has ever been decided by the Land Valuation Court in Scotland. It may have been in England. The result in England was that when you looked at this situation you took into account the scheme which would in fact enable the landlord to terminate that tenancy. Why should the valuation procedure in Scotland fail to take account of the fact that if, theoretically, the man was going to stay for another three years there was going to come a scheme which would enable the landlord to terminate

351
that tenancy? I cannot see any reason why the courts in Scotland should come to a different conclusion on this point from that of the courts in England. This is precisely what we hope to reverse in Clause 48.
I cannot see any reason there why what I have said about the assumptions which will underlie the two different forms of valuation are not sound. But there is one additional point, that where one considers the tenant with the three year tenancy and the owner, they do not automatically get the farm loss payment. They get it only if they go back into farming within the specified time and start up on a farm somewhere else. So it is a conditional payment. I will not go into all the details of it but they do not automatically get the farm loss payment. What I am saying is that the short term tenant or the crofter will automatically get the benefit of the valuation under Clause 48-and Clause 49 in Scotland—and therefore he is bound to get his payment, whether or not he starts up anywhere else.
I have made a long speech and I have tried to answer the noble Lord's questions. If I have not convinced him I am sorry, but I must go back to the point that although I cannot forecast what the courts will do—it would be foolish of me to try to forecast the values that the valuation courts in Scotland would put on this matter—I have attempted to set out what I believe is likely to be the situation. I have tried to deal with the position between the two forms of tenure which we still want in principle to stick to and adapt in order to provide different forms of compensation, building upon each and upon experience in the past. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, does not like it, but nevertheless that must be the principle upon which the Government must stand.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it looks as though it is to be a duel between us if no-one else wishes to enter the battle. I will only say this: I am extremely dissatisfied with what the noble Viscount has said. I am quite certain that if his knowledge of the law of Scotland, particularly of agricultural law, had been as sound as no doubt his knowledge of the English law is, he would not have
352
said some of the things that he has said. The dividing line which is being imposed in Scotland is wholly artificial. The noble Viscount said that the tenant with three years to run does not automatically get the farm loss payment. Of course that is so; but my Amendment would not give it automatically to anybody either, because I have not interfered with what is in the Bill itself, namely, that the farm loss payment is only made to someone who starts up in a farming business somewhere else within three years and if he never starts up, or if he waits four or five years to start up, he is not entitled to the farm loss payment. I am not quarrelling with that. What I am saying is that there are two classes of tenant: the one whose lease has expired and who can remain there for the rest of his life and transfer the lease to his son, who in turn can remain there for his life. He is not to qualify for a farm loss payment. But if it had happened while his lease still had some time to run he would get both payments. The noble Viscount has not been able to contradict what I have stated, that it is virtually certain that in assessing the compensation under Clause 48 (or in Scotland under Clause 49) the amount which would be paid to the man who was dispossessed of his farm while his tenancy had three years or more to run would be as great as the man who is on tacit relocation because the court is bound to take into consideration that that man's lease is not going to be terminated at the end of three years.
The division therefore is a wholly false one. It is perhaps valid in relation to business premises, perhaps valid in relation to English agricultural and land laws but it has no validity in Scotland whatsoever. I doubt whether in the past I have often found myself in complete agreement with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland; I do not know whether I have ever been in complete agreement with the Crofters Commission. I am quite certain that I have never been in complete agreement with both of them at the same time. Yet that is the position in which I find myself now. I cannot accept what the Government have said. Having regard to the composition of the House it would be a waste of time to divide the House. I think this is a case where I have the arguments but the Government have the troops.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, sits down may I just take the opportunity of saying that I am very much persuaded by his arguments. I think the tacit relocation for Scottish agriculture is a very much cherished system of land tenure, and to knock it in the face is certainly an unwise thing to do. I have only one other remark to make. I think this will be an absolute bonanza for the Scottish lawyers, and I have no confidence that if the matter comes to judgment the Scottish judges or whoever evaluates it will in any way be likely to accord with the English judges.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it was not my intention to prolong this debate, but I think it would be quite wrong of us to allow it to finish—
LORD DENHAM: Order, my Lords! —by leave.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am certain that even the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would grant me leave to say a word or two in order to pour a little oil on troubled waters. I doubt whether the noble Lord understands what this is all about, but I am sure he wants to keep us all in order. If I may have his leave and the leave of your Lordships to speak, I am certain that we should not want to finish on an unsatisfactory note. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has rightly pinpointed what I attempted in a short interjection some twenty minutes ago. I remember very well that the difference between the Scottish position and the English and Welsh position was made in a Bill which I was taking through the House of Commons, and which indeed caused considerable trouble from the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I think what my noble friend has done to-night is to prove that if we allow this Bill to go through, at least to the best of his belief and mine, we shall be creating an anomaly between two sections of farming which we feel to be unjustifiable.
The noble Viscount has been very courteous and has argued his case well, but I thought at the very least, when this difference of opinion arose, that he would have said that he was prepared to have one more look at the point; and after we had the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I found it difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord
354
Polwarth, did not say, "Well, if there is this difference we will have another look at it". I cannot see what harm this would do, because it would be very foolish indeed to legislate an anomaly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that we do not know what the judges will decide in cases of this kind. The judges, after all, can only decide on the law that we are creating. It is not for them to create law but to interpret it, and if there is an anomaly that makes it all the more difficult. I would not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in saying that by agreeing to this we are creating a bonanza for Scottish lawyers; but when there is this difficulty and if there is an anomaly all I am saying is—and I am certain that my noble friend Lord Hughes would agree—that if the noble Viscount would say, "Having thought it over once again, and having had a word with my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I should like to look at it just once more", then of course we should be perfectly willing to do it. Despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Hughes feels that he has numbers against him, I am sure that he has justice on his side and it may well be that if we cannot get a satisfactory reply we should decide this matter for ourselves and for the judges in the Division Lobbies of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the protection which Scottish agricultural tenants now have, which of course was brought in by the Acts of the Government of the noble Lord opposite, is really complete appropriation of the landowner's land? As we have heard in this debate, and as I know only too well, if one has a farm tenant, he and his descendants have that farm for hundreds and hundreds of years. The landowner has, to all intents and purposes, had his land appropriated. I do not see why the tenant should have any more compensation than a tenant in England or Wales where he is under a lease for a certain number of years. When the landowner had his land expropriated under the law brought in by the Government of noble Lords opposite, he got no compensation for losing his land. I and my descendants have lost a lot of land for ever owing to that law which the noble Lord's Government brought in.

355
I do not see why a tenant should get any more compensation at ail, because the landowner received no compensation for losing his land. Why should the tenant get compensation for something for which he has not paid.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked a question before I finally resumed my seat which makes it technically proper for me to get up again although I did not gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Masserene and Ferrard, was interrupting my speech. In fact he was resuming the debate on the 1968 Act, and on that basis I would have expected him to be moving an Amendment that nobody should get any farm loss payment and nobody should get the benefit of Clause 47, and that when the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, moves the new clause after Clause 48 the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, should be opposing it on these views.
However, having regard to what my noble friends feel, they have persuaded me that I should be wrong not to carry this matter to a Division, because if the Government are right they have a further opportunity in another place of pressing their point of view. But by having deprived me of the opportunity of raising it before this stage, if the Amendment is rejected that ends the matter, because the other place can only consider Amendments to Amendments. If the Government wanted to be fair, if they were absolutely certain that their case was right, they would accept the Amendment and ask the other place to take it out for reasons advanced there, where at least they would have the advantage of having the Lord Advocate trying to persuade them on the law of Scotland. In these circumstances, my noble friends think that it would be a dereliction of duty on my part not to press the Amendment. In saving that, I am not casting any reflections on the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I appreciate that I am a very poor substitute for the Lord Advocate and it may well be that I have this wrong. The noble Lord is perfectly right that we cannot reconsider this matter at all unless this Amendment is accepted. Perhaps I may, by leave, answer this point. I am as much out of order as the noble
356
Lord, Lord Hoy, if I do not obtain the leave of the House.
LORD HOY: Much more!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Except that my noble friend Lord Denham did not pull me up. I have been talking to my noble friend Lord Polwarth and to my noble friend Lord Sandford about this matter. It probably would be as well if we were to check the matter up. I may say that if my noble friend Lord Balerno thinks that there is something in this point also, of course I wish to pay regard to his views as well as to those of noble Lords opposite. Upon reflection, and having discussed the question with my noble friends, I think that we should consider again some of the points that noble Lords opposite have made. I do not think that even my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate will be able to forecast what the Land Valuation Court in Scotland will say. I do not think that anybody will be able to give assurances on what the precise effect of this will be, because it turns on valuation and assumptions and it is difficult in a vacuum to know the result. But, on the assumption that we cannot necessarily maintain this particular provision in the Bill, and that the Government may have to advise another place that it is wrong to have it in, we are prepared to have another look at this matter. I do not know whether or not the Amendment is acceptable technically. I do not think that it very much matters. Similarly, if it has to be put right and to be maintained, then an Amendment can be dealt with in precisely the same form in another place. I understand the difficulties under which the noble Lord has laboured because of the time scale of the Scottish adaptations. But I may say that the English N.F.U. got on to this point a long time ago. I understand the noble Lord's own difficulties here and in the circumstances we are prepared to accept these two Amendments, but without any promise that they will finally stay in the legislation when it is passed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount was very generous at the last stage in agreeing to defer all the Scottish Amendments to this stage. He has become even more generous to-day and

357
leaves me very much in his debt, irrespective of what the other place may do to the Amendment. I am most grateful.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
Amendment moved—
Pate 35, line 17, leave out from second ("lease") to end of line 19 and insert ("with an unexpired period or continuing on tacit relocation, or of a crofter;").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 40 [Duty to rehouse certain caravan dwellers]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 25:
Pace 44, line 9, after ("effect") insert—
("(a) as if for the words preceding paragraph (a) there were substituted the words "Where a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site is displaced from that site in consequence of"; and (b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back to caravans and England. This is a drafting Amendment for the sake of elucidation to apply the reference in Clause 39(1) to displacement from residential accommodation to the situation where the person residing in a caravan on a caravan site is displaced from that site. Amendment No. 26 is consequential upon Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("residential accommodation or").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 41 [Power of relevant authority to make advances repayable on maturity to displaced residential owner-occupiers]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 46, line 21, at end insert ("and at the end there shall be added the following words" or by virtue of a tenancy or other interest to which the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961 or the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931 apply;
(ii) in paragraph (b) for the word "tenancy" there shall be substituted the words "lease or by virtue of such a tenancy or interest";")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment extends the provisions of Clause 41 to crofters, landholders, statutory small tenants and crofters in Scotland. As I explained in relation to an earlier Amendment, the position of these classes of tenants in respect of their dwellings is closely analagous to that of an owner-occupier and this Amendment has the effect of bringing them within this definition. I beg to move.
Clause 47 [Compensation in respect of short business tenancies]:
7.58 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 51, line 17, leave and insert—
("(1) Where in pursuance of any enactment providing for the acquisition or taking of possession of land compulsorily an acquiring authority—

(a) acquire the interest of the landlord in any land subject to a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure for business tenants) applies; or

(b) acquire the interest of the tenant in, or take possession of, any such land,

the right of the tenant to apply under the said Part II for the grant of a new tenancy shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable by the acquiring authority (whether to the landlord or the tenant) in connection with the acquisition of the interest or the taking of possession of the land; and in assessing that compensation it shall be assumed that neither the acquiring authority nor any other authority possessing compulsory purchase powers have acquired or propose to acquire any interest in the land.
(2) Subsection (1) of section 39 of the said Act of 1954 (right of tenant to apply under the said Part II for a new tenancy to be disregarded in assessing compensation for compulsory taking of possession of land subject to short tenancy) shall cease to have effect.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 47 is designed to deal with the principles on which compensation should be assessed in the event of compulsory taking. Under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the occupant of business premises is entitled in certain circumstances specified in Part II to apply for and to be awarded a further tenancy of his premises. Section 39 of the 1954 Act, to which I have referred, provides that that right to have a fresh tenancy in certain circumstances is to be disregarded in assessing the quantum of

359
compensation available in the event of a compulsory taking. Clause 47, subsection (1), as it at present stands, would repeal that provision of Section 39 of the 1954 Act. The object of that is in order to provide that the right of the tenant to a new lease should be taken into account in assessing compensation payable both to the landlord and to the tenant. The difficulty with regard to Clause 47 as it at present stands (as those who on this side of your Lordships' House have considered it think, rightly or wrongly) is that it does not achieve its purpose. You may constantly get cases in which, for example, the acquiring authority as part of its plan acquires possession of the land, with the result that under certain decided cases, which I will not cite to your Lordships, the right to a further tenancy could not be taken into account. If that is a correct view, then Clause 47(1) as drafted at present fails of its purpose.
The object of the Amendment which I move is to try to ensure that what I conceive the Government's purpose to be in drafting Clause 47 is in fact achieved. The Amendment would seek to insert in front of the existing subsection (1) of Clause 47 the new subsection set out in the Marshalled List which would require in terms, affirmatively, that the right to have a new lease is to be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable both to the landlord and the tenant in the event of a compulsory taking. Ordinarily that would produce the result that the measure of compensation payable, at any rate to the tenant, would be enlarged. Therefore, the Amendment is designed to give back to Clause 47 an effect which we on this side of the House, rightly or wrongly, think it would not achieve because of the way in which subsection (1) is drafted.
The effect of the Amendment would be fairly considerable when the acquiring authority or the local authority is doing what I think is commonly known as "topping up"; that is to say, making a payment in order to achieve justice, even if the specific term laying down the right to compensation is not precisely fulfilled. That right is at present preserved in subsection (5) of Clause 37 of the Bill, and
360
the effect of the Amendment which I commend to your Lordships would be that it would really enlarge the power of the paying authority to see that justice was done by a topping up process under the new form which it takes in subsection (5) of Clause 37. That basically is the reason for the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to give yet another demonstration of the reasonableness and flexibility of the Government, to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the explanation of his Amendment and what it seeks to achieve, and to confirm that it is indeed necessary to resolve this anomaly and therefore it is acceptable to us.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I only rise again to thank the noble Lord very sincerely for what he has just said. I am most grateful to him.
Clause 48 [Compensation in respect of agricultural holdings]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 52, line 38, at end insert—
("(7) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) in subsections (2) and (3), for the references to section 24(2)(b) and 25(1)(e) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 there shall be substituted respectively references to sections 25(2)(c) and 26(1)(e) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;

(b) after subsection (2)(a) there shall he inserted the following—

"(aa) there shall be disregarded any entitlement of the landlord to resume land comprised in the holding by virtue of a stipulation in the lease, and any notice already given in pursuance of such a stipulation which would not be or would not have been effective if the stipulation were construed as not including authority to resume the land for the purpose of its being required by the acquiring authority; and"

(c) at the end of subsection (2)(b) there shall be inserted the following—

"and

(c) if land comprised in the holding Las been resumed by reason of such an entitlement or notice which is to be so disregarded that land shall be assumed not to have been so resumed.";

(d) in subsection (3), after the word "disregarded" there shall be inserted the

361
word "(a)", and at the end there shall be added the words—

"and

(b) any entitlement of the landlord to resume land comprised in the holding by virtue of a stipulation in the lease, and any notice already given in pursuance of such a stipulation which would not be or would not have been effective if the stipulation were construed in accordance with subsection (2)(aa) above.";

(e) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6A) This section shall not apply to an agricultural holding which is a croft or the holding of a landholder or a statutory small tenant.".")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. This brings us to the clause we have already discussed somewhat in advance, Clause 48. The purpose of this Amendment is to add a further subsection to apply the provisions of the clause to agricultural tenants in Scotland who hold on leasehold tenure. The effect is, therefore, to give these tenants the entitlement given in the clause to have their security of tenure taken into account. This is done by paragraph (a). Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are necessary because we must make provision in Scotland to deal with the case where a tenant is dispossessed not by notice to quit but by resumption under a provision in the lease. In Scotland such a resumption is not, as in England, regarded as a notice to quit. The Amendment also makes it clear that this clause does not apply to the other classes of Scottish tenants, crofters, et cetera, with whom we shall be dealing in a new clause which I shall be proposing shortly. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, having departed, it is not necessary for me to come to the Minister's aid.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 48 insert the following new clause:
Compensation in respect of crofts, etc.
".—(1) This section has effect where in pursuance of any enactment providing for the acquisition or taking of possession of land compulsorily an acquiring authority—

(a) acquire the interest of the landlord in an agricultural holding which is a croft; or

(b) take possession of a croft.

(2) In assessing the compensation payable by the acquiring authority to the landlord of a croft in connection with any such acquisition of an interest as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above—

(a) there shall be disregarded any right of the landlord to apply to the Scottish Land Court under section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 for authority to resume the croft and any such authority already granted which would not be or would not have been effective if in that section the reference to resuming the croft did not include a reference to its being resumed for the purpose of its being required by the acquiring authority; and

(b) if the crofter has surrendered his croft under the said section 12 by reason of an authority which is to be so disregarded it shall be assumed that he has not done so.

(3) In assessing the compensation payable by the acquiring authority to the crofter in connection with any such taking of possession of a croft as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, there shall he disregarded any right of the landlord to apply to the Scottish Land Court under the said section 12 for authority to resume the croft or any such authority already granted which would not be or would not have been effective if the said section 12 were construed in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above.
(4) If the compensation payable to the crofter as determined in accordance with subsection (3) above is less than it would have been if that subsection had not been enacted, it shall he increased by the amount of the deficiency.
(5) This section shall apply to part of a croft as it applies to an entire croft.
(6) This section shall apply to the holding or part of the holding of a landholder as it applies to a croft or part of a croft except that for any reference to a croft, crofter or section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 there shall be substituted respectively a reference to a holding, landholder or section 2 of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886.
(1) This section shall apply to the holding or part of the holding of a statutory small tenant as it applies to a croft or part of a croft except that—

(a) for any reference to a croft, crofter or section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 there shall be substituted respectively a reference to a holding, statutory small tenant or section 32(15) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;

(b) in subsection (2)(b), for the words "crofter has surrendered his croft under the said section 12" there shall be substitnted the words "landlord has resumed the holding under the said section 32(15)"';

(c) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) The compensation payable to the statutory small tenant shall be reduced by an amount equal to any payment which the acquiring authority are liable to make to him, in respect of the taking of possession in question, under section 12 of the

363
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (additional payments by acquiring authority in circumstances described in subsection (1)(b) above).";

(d) in subsection (4), for the words subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3) and (3A)"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30. I realise that at first appearance this new clause seems somewhat formidable, but I can assure your Lordships that it does no more than apply the provisions of Clause 48 to crofters, landholders and statutory small tenants who are not subject to provisions relating to notice to quit. The need for separate and somewhat lengthy provision is dictated by the different form of legislation governing these different forms of tenure. The main difference in the legislation is that where the landlord wishes to get possession of any land in the case of such tenancies he requires to proceed by way of an application to the Scottish Land Court for resumption rather than by notice to quit. I beg to move.
Clause 49 [Compensation where occupier is rehoused]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 53, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to a case where a notice to treat is deemed to have been served by virtue of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planing Act 1968 or Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (general vesting declarations) as it applies in relation to a case where a notice to treat is actually served.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No 31. It is a technical Amendment. Clause 49(2) provides briefly that where a private tenant is re-housed at the expense of an acquiring authority after notice to treat has been served on the landlord the compensation payable for the landlord's interest in the property is not enhanced by the vacant possession he thus obtains. In the case of a general vesting declaration, however, a notice to treat is only deemed to have been served. By this Amendment the clause will apply the limitation on the value of the landlord's interest in a case where the tenant is re-housed whether a notice to treat is actually served
364
or only deemed to have been served. I beg to move.
Clause 53 [Effect of counter-notice tinder section 52]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 61, line 5, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (7), for the word "court" and for the words from "subsections (2)" to the end there shall be substituted respectively the words "the Bank within the meaning of section 3 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845" and the words "the following provisions of the said Act of 1845 shall apply to that suns with the necessary modifications—

(i)section 75 so far as it relates to the opening of an account,

(ii)section 76 so far as it relates to the giving of a receipt,

(iii)section 77,

(iv)section 79."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 32, which is of a fairly technical kind. Its purpose is simply to insert the appropriate references in subsection (7) of Clause 53. This clause covers the case where the tenant surrenders his interest in the land but the landlord does not do so, and provision is made for the situation where a landlord does not accept the sum payable by the acquiring authority for the surrender of the tenant's interest. The procedure for dealing with monies in such cases in England and Wales is governed by the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, which was a consolidation measure. There is no precise Scottish equivalent, and it is necessary, therefore, to apply the relevant provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, and this Amendment makes the necessary substitutions. I beg to move.
Clause 55 [Effect of counter-notice under section 54]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 63, line 22, at end insert—
"(3A) Where a tenancy is terminated by virtue of sub-section (3)(c) above, section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (landlord's right to compensation for deterioration of holding) shall have effect as if the proviso required the landlord's notice of intention to

365
claim compensation to be served on the acquiring authority and to be so served within three months after the termination of the tenancy.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move another technical Amendment. Clause 55(3) is concerned with the acquiring authority's, the tenant's and the landlord's rights and liabilities in the situation where an agricultural tenant has given up possession of his holding to an acquiring authority and the authority has not been authorised to acquire the landlord's interest in part of the holding; that is, that part to which the authority's notice of entry did not relate. Subsection (3)(d) provides inter alia that any liabilities of the tenant to the landlord which arise on or out of the termination of the tenancy are transferred to the acquiring authority. One such liability could be in respect of compensation payable to the landlord under Section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 for general deterioration of the holding. Under this section the landlord has to give notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to claim such compensation not later than one month before termination of the tenancy. In the situation with which Clause 55 is concerned it is the tenant rather than the landlord or the acquiring authority who determines the date on which the tenancy is terminated, since this occurs when the tenant gives up possession to the acquiring authority. The Amendment therefore provides that in these circumstances the landlord has three months after termination of the tenancy to give notice in writing to the acquiring authority of his intention to claim compensation under Section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 for general deterioration of the holding. I beg to move.
8.10 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 63, line 27, leave out from ("(3)") to end of line 31 and insert—
("(d) for the words from "contract" to "1948" there shall be substituted the words "lease, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961, the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931":
(c) in subsection (3A), for the reference to section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 there shall be substituted a reference to section 59(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and for the word
366
"proviso" there shall be substituted the words "said section 59(1)".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in two parts. The first amends the Scottish application which appears at present at subsection (4) of Clause 55. It has been expanded to include crofters, landholders and statutory small tenants so that they may all get the benefits of this clause. It also makes a small drafting improvement. The second part of the Amendment is the Scottish application of the one just moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford to page 63, line 22. The purpose is simply to apply this new subsection to Scotland by inserting the reference to the appropriate provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act for the references to the English Act. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 58 [Notice to quit agricultural holding: right to opt for notice of entry compensation]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 67, line 4, at end insert—
("(6A) The reference in subsection (1)(a) above to a notice to treat served by an acquiring authority includes a reference to a notice to treat deemed to have been so served under any of the provisions mentioned in section 52(5) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another technical Amendment. Clause 58 provides for a person in occupation of an agricultural holding, having no greater interest therein as a tenant for a year or from year to year, to opt for notice of entry compensation if he is served with a notice to quit the holding after an acquiring authority have served a notice to treat on the landlord. In some types of acquisition, however, a notice to treat is not actually served, but is simply deemed to have been served. This occurs where a general vesting declaration is made, or where acquisition follows a purchase notice. In order to preserve the rights of a tenant under Clause 58 in these circumstances, the Amendment provides that the reference to the authority's notice to treat includes a reference to a notice to treat deemed to have been served. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 67, line 4, at end insert—
("(7) In the application of this section to Scotland—
(a) for subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) either—

(i)subsection (1) of section 25 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 does not apply to the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of hat section (land required for non-agricultural use for which planning permission has been granted, etc.);

(ii)the Scottish Land Court have consented to the operation of the notice and stated in the reasons for their decision that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 26(1)(e) of that Act (land required for non-agricultural use not falling within section 25(2)(c));";

(b) in subsection (2)(a), for the references to sections 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and 11(1) of that Act there shall be substituted respectively references to section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947;
(c) in subsecion (2)(b), for the references to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and section 15(2) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 there shall be substituted respectively references to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and section 15(3) of the said Act of 1968;
(d) in subsection (6), for the reference to section 32 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 there shall be substituted a reference to section 33 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;
(e) after subsection (6A) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
("(6B) This section and section 59 below shall have effect in relation to a notice given in pursuance of a stipulation in a lease entitling the landlord to resume land for building, planting, feuing or other purposes (not being agricultural purposes) as it has effect in relation to a notice to quit as if, in this section, subsections (1)(b) and (6) were omitted; and references in this section to the termination of the tenancy shall be construed accordingly.
(6C)This section shall not apply where the person in occupation of an agricultural holding is a crofter, landholder or statutory small tenant."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36 which applies to leaseholders in Scotland the provisions of Clause 58. This clause deals with the right of a tenant who is given notice to quit an agricultural holding to opt to have the compensation fixed as if he had been given notice of entry by the acquiring authority. The
368
Amendment does this by adding a subsection to the clause which substitutes references to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 for references to the English Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and by substituting other appropriate statutory Scottish references. It also makes the provision normally required in Scotland to deal with a notice given under a power of resumption instead of a notice to quit. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 58 insert the following new clause:
Requirement to surrender croft, etc: right to opt for notice of entry compensation.
".—(1) This section has effect where—

(a)the person in occupation of an agricultural holding is a crofter and is required by an order of the Scottish Land Court under section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 to surrender his croft; and

(b) the crofter is so required—

(i)after an acquiring authority have served notice to treat on the landlord of the croft or, being an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, have agreed to acquire his interest in the croft, and

(ii)where the Court have been satisfied under the said section 12 that the landlord desires to resume the croft for a reasonable purpose which is a purpose other than an agricultural purpose.

(2) If the crofter required by such an order to surrender his croft elects that this subsection shall apply to the order and gives up possession of the craft acquiring authority on or before the date on which the croft is required to be surrendered in accordance with the order—

(a)section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (compensation for tenants from year to year, etc.) shall have effect as if the crofter had not been so required to surrender his croft and the acquiring authority had taken possession of the croft in pursuance of a notice of entry under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 on the day before that on which the croft is required to be surrendered in accordance with the order; and

(b)any provision of an order under section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 relating to the compensation to a crofter shall not have effect in relation to the surrender of the croft by reason of the order.

(3) No election under subsection (2) above shall be made or, if already made, continue to have effect in relation to any land to

369
which such an order relates if, before the date on which the croft is required to be surrendered in accordance with the order, an acquiring authority take possession of that land in pursuance of an enactment providing for the taking of possession of land compulsorily.
(4) Any election under subsection (2) above shall be made by notice in writing served on the acquiring authority not later than the date on which possession of the croft is given up.
(5) This section shall have effect in relation to an order to surrender part of a croft as it has effect in relation to an order to surrender an entire croft and references to a croft shall be construed accordingly.
(6) The reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) above to a notice to treat served by an acquiring authority includes a reference to a notice to treat deemed to have been so served under any of the provisions mentioned in section 52(5) above.
(7) This section shall apply to a landholder as it applies to a crofter except that for any reference to a croft, crofter or section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 there shall be substituted respectively a reference to a holding, landholder or section 2 of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886.
(8) This section shall apply to a statutory small tenant subject to the modifications set out in Part I of Schedule (application of section (requirement to surrender croft, etc.: right to opt for notice of entry compensation) to statutory small tenants) to this Act; and in accordance with this subsection this section shall have effect in relation to a statutory small tenant as set out in Part II of that Schedule."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last Amendment which your Lordships considered provided for the application to leasehold tenants in Scotland of the provisions of Clause 58. This new clause which, I am afraid, is necessarily somewhat lengthy because of the difference in the basic legislation, adapts these provisions to crofters, landholders and statutory small tenants, differences concerning the legislation for whom I explained earlier on. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 59 [Notice to quit part of agricultural holding: right to claim notice of entry compensation for remainder of holding]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 67, line 45, at end insert—
("(6) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) in subsection (1) for the reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal there shall he substituted a reference to the Scottish Land Court;

370

(b) in subsection (2) for any reference to the Lands Tribunal there shall he substituted a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland;

(c) in subsection (3) for the references to sections 11(1) and 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 there shall be substituted respectively references to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 and section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 inserts an additional subsection to Clause 59 to apply its provisions to leasehold tenants in Scotland. As your Lordships know, this clause gives a tenant who has been given notice to quit part of a holding and has opted to have it treated as a notice of entry the right, in certain circumstances, to require the acquiring authority to take the entire holding. The Amendment has to substitute such references as the Scottish Land Court for the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland for the Lands Tribunal. The Amendment also substitutes references to the appropriate Scottish Statutes. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 59 insert the following new clause:
Requirement to surrender part of croft, etc.: right to claim novice of entry compensation for remainder.
(".—(1) Where an order of the Scottish Land Court in respect of which a person is entitled to make an election under section (requirement to surrender croft, etc.: right to opt for notice of entry compensation) relates to part only of a croft or holding and that person makes such an election with the period of two months beginning with the date of the making of the order, he may also within that period serve a notice on the acquiring authority claiming that the remainder of the croft or holding is not reasonably capable of being farmed either by itself, or in conjunction with other relevant land as a separate agricultural unit.
(2) If the acquiring authority do not within the period of two months beginning with the date of service of a notice under subsection (1) above agree in writing to accept the notice as valid the claimant or the authority may, within two months after the end of that period, refer it to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and on any such reference the Tribunal shall determine whether the claim in the notice is justified and declare the notice valid or invalid in accordance with its determination of that question.
(3) Where a notice under subsection (1) above is accepted as, or declared to be valid under subsection (2) above then, if before the end of twelve months after it has been so accepted or declared the claimant has given up to the acquiring authority possession of the part of the croft or holding to which the notice relates, section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 shall have effect as if the acquiring authority had taken possession of that part in pursuance of a notice of entry under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 on the day before the expiration of the year of the tenancy which is current when the notice is so accepted or declared.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 54 and subsection (3) of section 55 above shall apply in relation to subsections (1) to (3) above and to a notice under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to those sections and a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section 54, and shall so apply with the necessary modifications and as if in section 54(3)(b) for the words "service of the notice of entry" and in section 55(3) for the words "the notice of entry" there were substituted the words "the order of the Scottish Land Court".
(5) Where an election under section (requirement to surrender croft, etc.: right to opt for notice of entry compensation) above ceases to have effect in relation to any land by virtue of subsection (3) of that section any notice served by virtue of this section shall cease to have effect in relation thereto.
(6) Subsection (3) above shall apply in the case of the holding of a statutory small tenant as if after the word "1845" there were inserted the words "and section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968".".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is really the other half of the Scottish application of the main provision. The Amendment which we have just disposed of applied the provisions of Clause 59 to leasehold tenants in Scotland. This new clause does the same thing for crofters, landholders and statutory small tenants. It gives such tenants the right to serve a counter-notice to a notice of entry affecting part only of a croft or holding. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships further on this point. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 63 insert the following new clause:
Provisions relating to acquisition of new rights in Scotland
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Lands Clauses Consolidation
372
(Scotland) Act 1845 and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 shall apply subject to any necessary modifications to the compulsory acquisition under any enactment of a right in or over land by the creation of a new right as they apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under the enactment in question.
(2) Section 61 of the said Act of 1845 (estimation of purchase money and compensation) shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of such a right as if for the words from "value" to "undertaking" there were substituted the words "extent (if any) to which the value of the land in or over which the right is to be acquired is depreciated by the acquisition of the right".
(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1947 (protection for vendor against severance of house, garden, etc.) shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of such a right as if at the end there were added the following sub-paragraph—

"(2) In considering the extent of any material detriment to a house, building or manufactory or any extent to which the amenity or convenience of a house is affected, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland shall have regard not only to the right which is to be acquired in or over the land, but also to any adjoining or adjacent land belonging to the same owner and subject to compulsory purchase."

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of any enactment which makes specific provision to the like effect as the provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 which, rather surprisingly, although it introduces a new clause, does not in fact introduce anything new. Rather, it transplants existing provisions of the Bill to a more suitable place in it and widens their application. The existing provisions are in Schedule 1, paragraph 71, and in that location they of course apply only where land is acquired as a result of a blight notice. The intention was that they should apply generally to the compulsory acquisition of rights over land, and to achieve this it is necessary to have a new clause in the appropriate part of the Bill. Briefly, the provisions which we are transplanting provide a basis for the valuation of rights over land where these have to be acquired compulsorily; for example, to lay drainage pipes in connection with a road scheme. The basis is simply the effect on the value of the land caused by the acquisition of the right over it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 72 [Land affected by new street orders]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 76, line 29, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) either—

(i) is within the outer lines prescribed by an order under section 159 of the Highways Act 1959 (orders prescribing minimum width of new streets); or

(ii) has a frontage to a highway declared to be a new street by an order under section 30 of the Public Health Act 1925 and lies within the minimum width of the street prescribed by any byelaws or local Act applicable by virtue of the order; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41, the last Amendment from England. It does not alter the substance of the clause. At present, the clause is not correct in relation to orders made under Section 30 of the Public Health Act 1925, because such orders do not, in fact, prescribe outer lines for a new street as do orders made under Section 159 of the Highways Act 1959. The Amendment puts this right by making a separate reference to land which has a frontage to a highway declared to be a new street by an order under Section 30. The Amendment substitutes a new paragraph (a) in subsection (1) of Clause 72. Sub-paragraph (i) of the new paragraph (a) repeats the former provision in relation to an order made under Section 159 of the 1959 Act. Subparagraph (ii) makes separate provision for land which has a frontage to a highway declared to be a new street by an order under Section 30 of the 1925 Act and lies within the minimum width of the street prescribed by by-laws or a local Act. The effect of this is that Section 192(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 will have effect as if it included the land specified in sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) of Clause 72(1). My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 83 [General interpretation]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46. These Amendments are purely concerned with definitions of a number of expressions arising because of the different Scottish conditions. Apart from
374
that they remove from lines 34 and 35 words which are no longer necessary following Amendment No. 14. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 84, line 6, at end insert:
""cottar" has the same meaning as in section 28(4) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955;
'"croft", "crofter" and "landlord", in relation to a croft, have the same meanings respectively as in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955;")
Page 84, line 9, at end insert ("or, in relation to Scotland, means a person in need under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 as read with section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972.")
Page 84, line 20, at end insert:
(""holding", in relation to a landholder and a statutory small tenant, has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 and "landlord", in relation to such a holding, has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;
"landholder" has the same meaning as in section 2(2) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;")
Page 84, line 23, at end insert:
""road" has the meaning assigned to it in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970;
"statutory small tenant" has the same meaning as in section 32(1) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911.")
Page 84, line 34, leave out from ("25") to ("above") in line 35.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 85 insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE
  APPLICATION OF SECTION (REQUIREMENT TO SURRENDER CROFT, ETC.: RIGHT TO OPT FOR NOTICE OF ENTRY COMPENSATION) TO STATUTORY SMALL TENANTS.

    PART I
    Modification of section (requirement to surrender croft, etc: right to opt for notice of entry compensation).
    Section (requirement to surrender croft, etc.: right to opt for notice of entry compensation) shall apply to a statutory small tenant subject to the following modifications—

    (a) for any reference to a croft, crofter or section 12 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 there shall be substituted respectively a reference to a holding, statutory small tenant or section 32(15) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;

    (b) in subsection (1), for the words from "crofter" in paragraph (a) to "so required" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted

    375
    the words "statutory small tenant and resumption of the holding is authorised by an order of the Scottish Land Court under section 32(15) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911; and (b) the resumption is so authorised";

    (c) in subsection (2), for the words "crofter required by such an order to surrender his croft" there shall be substituted the words "statutory small tenant, resumption of whose holding is authorised by such an order";

    (d) in subsections (2) and (3), for the words "croft is required to be surrendered", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "holding is authorised to be resumed";

    (e) in subsection (2)(a), after the words "year, etc.)" there shall be inserted the words "and section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968" and for the words "the crofter had not been so required to surrender his croft" there shall be substituted the words "resumption of the holding had not been so authorised";

    (f) for subsection (2)(b) there shall be substituted the followine paragraph—

    "(b) any provision of the said section 32(15) relating to compensation to a statutory small tenant shall not have effect in relation to the resumption of the holding by reason of the order."

    (g) in subsection (5), for the words "to surrender", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "authorising resumption of".

  PART II
  Section (requirement to surrender croft etc.: right to opt for notice of entry compensation),as modified, in its application to statutory small tenants.
  Resumption of holding of statutory small tenant; right to opt for notice of entry compensation.
  (1) This section has effect where—

  (a) the person in occupation of an agricultural holding is a statutory small tenant and resumption of the holding is authorised by an order of the Scottish Land Court under section 32(15) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911: and

  (b) the resumption is so authorized—

  (i) after an acquiring authority have served notice to treat on the landlord of the holding or, being an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, have agreed to acquire his interest in the holding; and

  (ii) where the Court have been satisfied under the said section 32(15) that the landlord desires to resume the holding for a reasonable purpose which is a purpose other than an agricultural purpose.

  (2) If the statutory small tenant, resumption of whose holding is authorised by such an order, elects that this subsection shall apply to the order and gives up possession of the holding to the acquiring authority on or before
  376
  the date on which the holding is authorised to be resumed in accordance with the order—

  (a) section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (compensation for tenants from year to year, etc.) and section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 shall have effect as if resumption of the holding had not been so authorised and the acquiring authority had taken possession of the holding in pursuance of a notice of entry under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 on the day before that on which the holding is authorised to be resumed in accordance with the order; and

  (b) any provision of the said section 32(15) relating to compensation to a statutory small tenant shall not have effect in relation to the resumption of the holding by reason of the order.

  (3) No election under subsection (2) above shall be made or, if already made, continue to have effect in relation to any land to which such an order relates if, before the date on which the holding is authorised to be resumed in accordance with the order, an acquiring authority take possession of that land in pursuance of an enactment providing for the taking of possession of land compulsorily.
  (4) Any election under subsection (2) above shall be made by notice in writing served on the acquiring authority not later than the date on which possession of the holding is given up.
  (5) This section shall have effect in relation to an order authorising resumption of part of a holding as it has effect in relation to an order authorising resumption of an entire holding and references to a holding shall be construed accordingly.
  (6) The reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) above to a notice to treat served by an acquiring authority includes a reference to a notice to treat deemed to have been so served under any of the provisions mentioned in section 52(5) above.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47, which introduces a new Schedule which, in spite of its rather formidable appearance, does no more than substitute in the new clause inserted after Clause 58 references to statutory small tenants in Scotland for all references to crofters. I have already explained to your Lordships the position of these tenants, with their special statutory provisions. Part I of the Schedule makes the necessary applications to the tenants, and we thought it would be helpful to set out in Part II how the new clause would read as applied to them. So that is there for clarity; the clauso itself forms the second Part. I beg to move.
  Schedule 1 [Application of Part V to Scotland]:
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 90, line 9, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 48 I will at the same time speak to Amendment No. 49, with your Lordships' agreement. These Amendments extend the scope of the blight provisions in Scotland to include land surrounded by or adjoining a housing treatment area. While this will usually be an area in which buildings are to be demolished, it is possible that blight could in some circumstances arise as a result of an area being designated for improvement, and the Amendments cater for this possibility. I beg to move.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 90, line 12, at end insert—
  ("or
  (b) is land surrounded by or adjoining an area declared as aforesaid to be a housing treatment area, whether or not the resolution provides that any of the buildings in that area are to be demolished.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 91, leave out lines 31 to 51.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50, and in so doing arrive at the finishing post some three lengths behind my noble friend. This Amendment is the other half of the transplanting operation which resulted in the new clause after Clause 63. I think that speaks for itself, and I accordingly beg to move.
  LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment for me to say that I regret that, at a time when the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was happily engaged in Scotland and under the belief that all these matters were being dealt with by Lord Sandford, he should have had to come down here today. However, he must accept that I have not given him a difficult passage.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Compensation Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  8.25 p.m.
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, but before this complex and intricate Bill leaves the House I should like to express the Government's appreciation for the helpful spirit in which the whole House has approached it. The legislation we have been dealing with is very complex. The whole Bill has been subject to a very large number of Amendments and to an excessive number at this late stage, for which I repeat my apologies. As I say, my noble friends and I are most grateful for the patience and the forbearance which the House has shown, and for the help it has given. I should particularly like to thank noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes; the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy; and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—for the co-operation they have accorded us at all stages. The Bill will undoubtedly confer many new but overdue benefits upon private individuals whose lives and property are affected adversely by public works, and I believe it does so in a manner which is both generous and equitable. For this reason, I am happy to be able to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we on this side appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just said, and we thank him for it. The Bill leaves this House very different from the measure it was when it was introduced here, and I should like to say that dealing with it has not been easy. We have had to take considerable spates of Amendments with very little warning. I never thought that I should have to take this Bill through its Committee stage to the extent that I had to, and I approached it with some trepidation. I wish to say how appreciative I have been of the courteous manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford,

  379
  and his noble friends have dealt with the Amendments that we have advanced from this side of the House. I have said that the noble Lord and his noble friends have always been courteous. I think they have been too seldom willing to make concessions that we on this side would have appreciated. I am grateful for the acceptance of such Amendments as the Government have accepted from us. I feel, I suppose not surprisingly, that the Bill would have been the better had more of them been accepted.
  My Lords, I have a feeling that following me there will be one or two of your Lordships who will still be not satisfied that we have on the Record in regard to certain aspects of this Bill as much information as could be desired. Because I know that those noble Lords are going to follow me, I certainly do not wish to take up your Lordships' time any more. I repeat that those of us on this side who have played any part in the passage of this Bill have been appreciative of the courtesy that has always been shown; and for our part we have endeavoured, in our approach, to be constructive throughout.
  8.28 p.m.
  LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like at the outset to associate myself very sincerely with what my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has just said about the Government Front Bench. They are very difficult to deal with. They put us in a good humour and they advance arguments in a most admirable form, and it is difficult to make certain that one is not over-persuaded by them. I always do my best.
  My Lords, I have been asked, at this, the last stage of the Bill, to raise three separate points as they affect different sectors of our community. Two of them have already been extensively argued and one of them has been dealt with, though far from as fully as the other two. Two of them deal with that Part of the Bill, Clauses 64 to 79, which deals with blight notices, and one of them deals with Clause 29, which is the clause which deals with home loss payments. To keep my argument in order, obviously I should start with that point which relates to Clause 29. Tenants of licensed premises, in the circumstances which I shall seek to describe in a moment, are put in a very
  380
  difficult position indeed. We are apt to call the tenant of licensed premises a landlord, but are quite wrong in so doing; he is a tenant. In most cases he has a tenancy agreement for the public house or licensed premises concerned, but a number of tenancy agreements in existence between the publican and the brewer (who is the owner of the premises) contain a provision which is, broadly speaking, in similar form. I have specimens in my hand and I should like to read out the relevant part of one specimen which comes from the normal tenancy agreement between a very well known brewery company and its tenants.
  It is provided in that agreement as follows:
  "Immediately upon the service of a notice to treat with a view to the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the landlord therein the tenant will continue to trade in and upon the same premises only with the consent of the landlords."
  The effect of the law on that is that when a notice to treat is served, the licensee, who theretofore has been an ordinary tenant in law of the licensed premises, is converted into tenant at will or a licensee—a licensee in the strict legal sense. He ceases to be a tenant and has no further interest as such. That puts him in an extremely vulnerable position in relation to the provisions of this Bill and of other Acts which affect this provision.
  In the first place, it has the result that he no longer has any right or expectation of acquiring a new licence under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1964. Secondly, inasmuch as he has become a licensee or a tenant at will and no longer a tenant with an interest, he is disqualified from obtaining a home loss payment under Clause 29 of this Bill. Thirdly, I am told—and I was given an example today—that some housing authorities of local authorities decline to accept on their housing lists persons who were licensees of licensed premises. How often that happens I do not know, but I am told that it does from time to time happen. Therefore, if this provision remains in the contracts between the owner of licensed premises and the licensee, the licensee's position becomes very weak and vulnerable. He may have to leave the licensed premises; he gets no home loss payment; he has no hope of a further tenancy and

  381
  he may find it difficult to get accepted on to the housing lists of a local authority.
  That matter was raised. It has been considered by Ministers and it has been put to the Government that it would be a fair thing to provide in effect that a provision of that sort should be ineffective to prevent, in so far as the licensee's right is concerned, home loss payments under Clause 29 of the Bill. Ministers have indicated that they feel there is a difficulty in acceding to that view, although I think that they have made it clear that they feel some considerable sympathy for the position of the licensee who is held upon an agreement in that form.
  I do not seek now to re-argue the whole problem. I have stated it. I am told that there are now negotiations in progress between the Brewers' Society and organisations representing licensed victuallers, with a view to the removal from the tenancy agreements of licensees of the type of provision which I have read out to your Lordships a few moments ago. If that can be done and if, by removal of those words, the licensee can remain an ordinary tenant, whether from year to year or whatever may be the period of the tenancy, his right to a home loss payment under Clause 29 is preserved and his position will be improved.
  In addressing your Lordships at this late stage of the Bill I can in the circumstances do no more than ask the Government Ministers to indicate, if they feel able to do so, that it would be their view that fair treatment of the licensees should result in the elimination from their tenancy agreements of the type of wording that I read out. It would have the effect of putting them in the same position as other tenants. At the moment they are not in the same position; they are in a very much weaker position, and it is unfair that that should be so. I do not know which noble Lord is going to reply from the Front Bench but it would be of the greatest help to those representing the interests of licensed victuallers if the Minister felt able to indicate at any rate his agreement that it would be right and proper, by the elimination through negotiation of that type of wording from the tenancy agreements, to put licensees of public houses in the same position
  382
  vis-à-vis this Bill,vis-à-vis, for example, the Landlord and Tenants Act 1954, as are other tenants of business premises. That is my first point.
  I then go to the point which relates to blight notices. They have been fully argued already, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I should not usefully be occupying your Lordships' time, I think, if I did more than simply to place on record the unease and disappointment that I and many of my noble friends on this side of the House feel at the position as it is left in the Bill having regard to the various changes which have been made and the form of the Bill as it has emerged. The first of the two points that I wish to raise relates to Clause 68(6). That subsection would repeal Section 11 of the New Towns Act, 1965. It would, by so doing, remove from the owners of land and the occupiers of land within designated areas, areas designated for the purposes of a New Town Corporation, the right to serve after seven years a blight notice under Section 196 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, in relation to land or premises with which they are concerned.
  The point which I would seek to place on record and which I submit is to be regretted is this: that the change made by the Government with regard to the legislation affecting blight notices takes away the right which has already accrued to a number of persons affected by designations of areas for the purpose of New Town Corporations. Under the existing legislation, under the provisions of that section of the 1965 Act which it is sought to repeal, the owner or occupier of premises affected by a designation notice is entitled, once seven years have gone by, to serve his blight notice under Section 196 of the 1971 Act and he need not, once seven years have gone by, prove that the land with which he is concerned is affected by blight. That is a technical term in the Statutes with which your Lordships will be familiar. He need prove nothing. All he does is to serve his blight notice and he then can enjoy all the rights which the service of a blight notice confers on him. He can require the acquiring authority to purchase his land. That is the main provision. The acquiring authority cannot in those circumstances serve on him a counter notice

  383
  challenging the blight notice which the owner or occupier of the land has served.
  I am conscious of the fact that the Government reply will be as follows: that in Clauses 67 to 79 we have introduced a very large number of changes in the law relating to blight notices; we have brought into the scope of that law a number of people who were not within it before; we have made it possible to serve blight notices long before the seven years have expired; we have, in other words, conferred on a very large number of persons rights which did not exist before. Let all that be accepted. I welcome that. It nevertheless remains, that there are a number of people in this country who thought that they were entitled to exercise a right, seven years having elapsed, and who now will find, when this Bill is passed, that they have had that right taken away from them and that nothing has been put in its place. I would have thought that always in our legislation we very much dislike the idea of taking a right or material property from any citizen or non-citizen of this country unless we give compensation or put some corresponding advantage in its place. The Government are not doing this in the case of rights which have accrued after the expiry of seven years. I respectfully submit that that is a matter of regret. It should not be done. If that right is taken away, something should be put in its place.
  The provision in Clause 78(6) is expressed not to apply in relation to blight notices served before the Act comes into force; but one knows that many people do not follow the process of legislation as closely as all that. They do not realise that if they give in their notice before the Act comes into force it is valid, but, because they have not read the proceedings in the two Houses of Parliament, that if they wait until the Act is in force they will lose it; in particular among those people who do not know that are those who are more careless of their interests than others. I submit that that is wrong. That is the second point I should like to make, and I should be grateful if the Minister would consider it.
  The third point I should like to make is also one which has been argued. It was argued both in the other House and
  384
  also in your Lordships' House, and I simply repeat the basis of it in order to place on record that, in my submission, the matter is left in an unsatisfactory position. It relates to ecclesiastical property. Under the blight notice provisions ecclesiastical property which is excused from the obligation to have rates charged on it does not come within the scope of that property in relation to which blight notices can be served. I take the case of a church, and for the purpose of my argument the case of a particular one, a Methodist church at Thornaby, which was much discussed in the other place. The position with regard to that church is that it is on the edge of the A.66 development in Tees-side. The acquiring authority has acquired all the land surrounding that church and the church is left there in splendid isolation. Its congregation has either gone or, with the shift of population, is rapidly going, and the church is becoming derelict.
  Some three years ago those responsible for the church were advised by the local officers concerned that it would be unwise to expend much for the purpose of its upkeep or repair. Without a congregation, left as I say in isolation, the residential buildings having disappeared from around it, the church is becoming derelict. It is difficult to think that it would be wise to expend money on maintaining it; worse than that, it would become the prey of vandals who would go in and out of it and proceed to do the damage which, unfortunately, vandals frequently do in modern times. As I have said, the ecclesiastical authorities responsible cannot serve a blight notice under the blight provisions because the church does not qualify. If compensation is to be paid, it has to be paid under the provisions of Rule (5) of Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961.
  That rule provides that when you are assessing the value of property for which there is no ready market, because of the purpose for which it is used—and that really applies to this Methodist church—you have to take the reinstatement value; provided always that the Lands Tribunal is satisfied that there will be reinstatement in some other place. If that is not shown there is no reinstatement value paid. Years may go before the site of this church is actually required for the

  385
  purpose of the A.66 development. By that time the church may be a derelict wreck, and its value for the purposes of reinstatement may be nil. The net result of that history would simply be that a church which has ministered to the needs of a full congregation is empty and goes to rack and ruin. No compensation is payable to the ecclesiastical authorities responsible in respect of it. If they wish to reinstate it in some other place they will get nothing by way of reinstatement value because the reinstatement value will be nil. To rebuild a wreck is not worth while.
  My Lords, that is a situation which, in my submission, is highly unsatisfactory. It was pressed on the Government in the other place and Ministers showed some sympathy for the position. They have since written explaining their views. I think that I can probably summarise the explanation they give by saying that there are other types of buildings which may be in like case. If that is the view of the Government, I submit that it is a very unsatisfactory answer. The mere fact that you do two or three injustices is not a reason why you should be excused for doing one major injustice.
  Those are the three points that I desire to raise. I hope that the Government will be able to give some thought to them and at least exercise their good offices with local authorities to see to it, in so far as an injustice of that sort can be prevented or lessened, that it will be, and that they will use all the influence they have in that regard to further that process.
  8.47 p.m.
  LORD SOPER: My Lords, I hesitate to delay your Lordships' House at this late hour, but I shall be brief. I shall be the briefer because the substance of what I have to say has already been laid before your Lordships by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill. But I am under commission from the Main Committee of the Church of England and from the Chapel Committee of the Methodist Church to express concern about the condition of the particular church of which the details have already been given, which indicate a process which is deplorable and a process which I would commend to your Lordships'
  386
  House as one that should at least receive very serious treatment.
  If I speak, I ought, I suppose, to declare an interest. As a Methodist Minister I am concerned with the Methodist Church. My interest is not commercial but ecclesiastical, though I suppose that if all the Methodist churches were closed I should be temporarily unemployed. The fact of the matter is that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill correctly pointed out, if you set a church as a kind of withering palm tree in the middle of an ever-increasing desert, then sooner or later you will reduce the value of that church to the point at which ultimately, as the Secretary of our Chapel Department says quite truly, the property will fall into the hands of the local authority for market value and not reinstatement. It is perfectly true that those who have entered upon this programme of delaying acquisition of church property in Thornaby have expressed the idea that the church is of some precious value and therefore should be maintained as long as possible. This is quite erroneous. There is no concept as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will know, of prevenient grace which protects the authority of the Church in conditions where it is almost isolated from the kind of physical and social contacts which would make it an effective instrument for the purposes for which it was built.
  I draw the attention of your Lordships to this matter, even at this late hour—and I have been sitting patiently in order to do so—because this seemed the appropriate moment at which I could ventilate my deep concern and express a certain umbrage at the assumption authoritatively given that if, for instance, special treatment were accorded to a Methodist church, similar treatment would have to be accorded to a bingo club. A bingo club forsooth! To equate the value of a church with a bingo club is a monstrosity of speech as well as of substance. I entirely repudiate it and take considerable umbrage at the very thought, as have my ecclesiastical friends. I do not know whether anything can be done at this late hour, but it is a simple fact that if you separate a palm tree from the oasis waters, sooner or later it will wither and die. If you take a church and leave it isolated within an area

  387
  which has already been desolated that church, inevitably, will die.
  Some of your Lordships may feel that the value of a church is perhaps exaggerated in the minds of some of us who are professionally associated with it. But I happen to know the circumstances of this particular church and I would not feel justified, even at this late hour, in leaving this matter without ventilating my sense of grievance and the hope that even now the Minister may give us some little assurance that in these matters a local authority will not proceed to demolish the value of a church by isolating it so that finally it will be dead and there will be no reinstatement value that can be attached to it. That, I am sure, is not an intention of the Government: it is the effect of a policy which is one that I deeply deplore.
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are dealing with the complexities of this complex Bill right up to the last moment. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Soper, is perfectly right in thinking that nothing can be done about any of these matters on this Bill, and indeed the last matter that he raised falls outside the scope of the Bill. I will deal with the matters in the order in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised them. In respect of licensees, I confirm that the Brewers' Society and the National Federation of Licensed Victuallers are in touch with each other and pursuing what I am sure is the most fruitful course of action; namely, that which the noble Lord outlined. As I am not party to the discussions, I cannot give the noble Lord any further information about it, but I will find out how they are getting on, and as soon as I am in a position to do so I will let him know what conclusion they have arrived at.
  With regard to the business of blight and the New Towns, I do not want to go over the ground again at this stage. All I will do is to repeat the assurance that I gave, I think on the Committee stage, that the Development Corporations will of course be expected to deal sympathetically with any reasonable cases of blight which fall outside the new statutory framework. We have already issued a circular to them, and there will be pamphlets available to the public making clear to them their rights. I will, however,
  388
  read the noble Lord's words carefully, and if I find that there is anything further I can add to what I have already said, I will write to him.
  My Lords, as to the churches, the blight provisions and the injurious affection of land acquisition provisions and powers in the Bill are all tied to the classes of individual most likely to suffer personal hardship from the effects of prospective public development. Institutions such as churches (and I am afraid, although I can see the distinction between churches and bingo halls, they might fall into the same class for this purpose), although they undoubtedly face difficulties, cannot be said to suffer hardship of the same kind as personal individuals. Nor are they in any worse posititon than other bodies outside these categories. I must confirm that to bring churches within the blight provisions would seriously damage the whole concept on which the provisions that we have been discussing are based. As to the particular case of the Thornaby Methodist Church, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development is dealing with this matter, and I will see whether the correspondence he is having both with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the Member of Parliament can be relayed in any form either to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, so that I can keep them both informed.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RATE REBATE BILL
8.54 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was introduced in another place on February 6, 1973, by the honourable Member for Derby, North, Mr. Phillip Whitehead. It had all-Party support. The Rate Rebate Bill is a short Bill, and therefore I do not want to spend much of your Lordiships' valuable time at this late hour: and it would not be fair to the badgers, of which I am very fond. Nevertheless, the Bill is important, as it is designed to eradicate an anomaly which now exists.
The Bill allows the disregarding for rate rebate purposes of a wide variety of

389
attendance allowances for the disabled. I can assure your Lordships that only the very severely disabled qualify for the attendance allowance. Every disabled person, whoever he or she may be, has many extra expenses, and life in general is always harder. Central Government are giving the most severely disabled people the attendance allowance to provide much needed help in the home, and local government are taking some of the desperately needed money away because the law, as it stands, says that they must. Attendance allowances payable under the scheme introduced in December, 1971, are regarded as income for rate rebate purposes. Rate rebates are payable as of right to ratepayers in England, Wales and Scotland, provided the gross incomes do not exceed certain prescribed limits. If this Bill becomes an Act, it will exclude payments of attendance allowances from calculations of gross income when assessing eligibility for rate rebates under the General Rate Act 1967, and, as regards Scotland, the Rating Act 1966.
My Lords, certain Amendments were made to the Bill during its passage in another place. The Bill did not include ratepayers in Scotland, which it now does. Being a Scot, I welcome this, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who lives in Scotland, will also agree that Scotland could not be left out. The Bill originally covered only attendance allowances payable since 1971. Clause 1 has now been amended to cover, for example, those war pensioners and industrial injury pensioners who receive constant attendance allowances. The Bill's treatment of attendance allowances for rate rebate purposes is now in line with their treatment for the purposes of rent rebate and allowances under the Housing Finance Act 1972. Benefit under the Bill would have been available from the date of Royal Assent. Under the terms of Clause 2, introduced as a new clause during the Committee stage in another place, attendance allowance will be disregarded for rate rebate purposes from the beginning of any rebate period starting on or after April 1, 1973, or May 16, 1973, in the case of Scotland.
Although the total number of persons receiving attendance allowances is known, the number of those people who are ratepayers and who may benefit under the Bill is not known. This will be one
390
more way of finding out some more information about the disabled in this country, which is proving to be a difficult task for local authorities. Seventy-five per cent. of the total cost will be met from national taxation, and the balance will be provided by the general body of ratepayers. I hope your Lordships will welcome this Bill, which is only a very minor concession so far as disabled people are concerned, but nevertheless very vital and welcome to some: it tidies up a nagging legal irregularity and therefore I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
8.59 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be very appreciative of the action of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, in sponsoring this Bill, and particularly so for the extremely understanding manner in which she has moved its Second Reading. From this side of the House, I should like to give it the warmest of welcomes. It is, as the noble Baroness has said, a measure which was introduced in the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Phillip Whitehead, the Member for Derby, North, and was supported by Members on both sides in that House. So in no sense can it be regarded as a Party measure, and one hopes that it will enjoy the same range of support in this House as it had in the other place.
We all rejoiced when the principle of constant attendance allowances was agreed upon to assist those for whom my honourable friend Mr. Alfred Morris fought for so long and so successfully. The Act which resulted from his efforts and the efforts of so many of us who were alerted to the needs of the disabled who depend on the constant attendance and attention of others, was a milestone in the progress we are making towards a truly neighbourhood society. We appreciate the improvements that have subsequently been effected to that Act; but all of us will be aware that those allowances are not too easy to obtain and we shall not feel that at any point are they over-generous. When these constant attendance allowances are given in circumstances where the income is so low that there is entitlement to rate rebate, we can surely be satisfied that

391
there is a pretty constant threat of hardship: at least we know that in those homes there will never be too much.
It seems that taking into consideration these constant attendance allowances in assessing entitlement to rate rebates goes a long way, as the noble Baroness has indicated, to defeat the very purpose for which the allowances were introduced. I am told that the recipient may lose as much as £35 to £40 of the £200 attendance allowance which may be given. This is the sort of thing we seldom, if ever, take into account when we consider original legislation and scales of benefit, and so we find presently that the value of what we have sought to do has been eroded.
It may be argued that there are many other allowances which may be disregarded in computing entitlement to rate rebates. My Lords, I would not question that. From that it may be stated that if this Bill becomes an Act it could create in some people's minds an anomalous situation. If that is so, I think it ought to be said on the other side that there are many of us who feel that this Bill goes a very long way to clear up what seems to us to be in itself an anomalous situation. If there is need to look at other allowances in the same sort of way in which we look at these. I feel that the very promotion of this Bill has given us the opportunity of giving some thought to an extension of what the Bill aims to do for other people who are in dire need. In the meantime, these particular allowances, being so very special, not easy to get, not over-generous and given only where need (and "need" spelt in capital letters at that) is proved, ought to be excluded from calculations of gross incomes in assessing the entitlement to rate rebates. On this side, we shall do everything we can to expedite the passing of this measure.
9.4 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I wish on behalf of the Government to welcome this Bill whose Second Reading has just been moved by my noble friend Lady Masham. Government support has already been signified in another place in the Money Resolution in the name of my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
392
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whose interest in this subject is very well known, for his welcome to this measure. It is a small but very worthwhile measure, which I should like to commend to your Lordships. Rate rebates are payable as of right to ratepayers in England, Wales and Scotland, provided their gross incomes do not exceed certain prescribed limits. I would thank my noble friend Lady Masham for her reference to Scotland and to myself. I believe the other place did a great deal to bring this measure within that scope. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, nodding agreement.
Under the present arrangements, attendance allowances which are paid to the most severely disabled members of our society count as income for rate rebate purposes. This has meant that some ratepayers receiving attendance allowance under the scheme introduced in December, 1971, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services have lost or had reduced their entitlement to rate rebate. The purpose of the Bill, as my noble friend has just explained, is to disregard attendance allowances as income for rate rebate purposes.
It is difficult to estimate the number of ratepayers who will benefit under this Bill. Although we know the total number of persons receiving attendance allowances, we do not know how many of those people are ratepayers and who therefore will benefit. However, we estimate—and I would emphasise that this is only an estimate—that some 6,500 people will benefit and that the total cost of the relief granted could be of the order of £170,000 in the financial year 1973/74. Seventy-five per cent. of the total cost (some £130,000) will be met from national taxation and the balance of about £40,000 will be borne by the general body of ratepayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, referred in very light vein to anomalous situations and to certain other allowances which he personally would like to see made. As a war pensioner myself, and knowing many people who have suffered much more grievously than I and who have war pensions, I know what the noble Lord was referring to. I realise that these pensions at present count as income for rate rebate purposes. We

393
have introduced a Green Paper on Local Government Finance (Cmnd. No. 4741) which discusses the possibility of a new rate rebate scheme which would exclude as income the first £2 per week of disablement pension and payments of the kind I have just mentioned.
The Government's proposals for the reform of local government finance, including the introduction of a new rent rebate scheme, will be announced in due course. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, expect me to say more to-night. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government have very much in mind the treatment of war pensioners which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, hinted at in connection with rate rebates. If, as the Government hope, this Bill receives the Royal Assent, steps will be taken to publicise its benefits. Indeed, the Department has already written to rating authorities drawing their attention to the terms of the Bill at present before your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for their support. All those who have taken an interest, and will take an interest, in this Bill will be very pleased to have the support of the Government and the Opposition. I am also pleased to hear that the Government will give the Bill as much publicity as possible. It is often those who most need support and help financially who are least likely to come forward and ask for it. Therefore publicity is needed in this respect. I should again like to thank both noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BADGERS BILL [H.L.]
9.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 10 [Enforcement, penalties, etc.]:
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("arrest") in line 6 and insert—
("(1) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person is committing an offence under this Act, or has committed an offence under this Act and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found on that person or any vehicle or article he may have with him, the constable may—

(a) without warrant stop and search that person and search any vehicle or article he may have with him;

(aa) without warrant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. I raised an Amendment with the same intent on the Committee stage but the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was not satisfied with the wording. At that time he said that I should not think of saying what was the correct legal terminology for any Act of Parliament. He was quite right; I should not, any more than he would think of suggesting the correct registration for any organ work. But thanks to the great kindness of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this Amendment comes from the Home Office and therefore I hope your Lordships will accept it. It merely implies that a constable may have grounds for suspicion rather than actually seeing the man committing an offence. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, he moved similar Amendments at the Committee stage. I said that although the Government had no objection to the principle of the Amendments, the drafting was not satisfactory. The Amendments have now been redrafted, and the Government have no objection to them.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, naturally I approve this Amendment. It has proper purposes which have been

395
drafted by the Home Office. I am glad to support it.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 34, after ("occupier") insert ("shown to have been authorised by the owner or occupier,")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment embodies a point on which I touched at the Report stage. It is intended to narrow the application of paragraph (a) relating to "the owner or occupier, or any servant". The phrase, "any servant of the owner or occupier" is, I submit, drawing the matter a good deal too wide. It is easy to think of an owner or occupier as one person living in a small place. He may be a very large landowner indeed with a large number of undefined servants. This is not necessarily the case of a landowner with a gamekeeper to whom he can say "Deal with the badgers". He might be a man with a place in the country containing woods and badger sets which was let to a tenant while he lived in London. His nursemaid, butler or anybody else could be authorised under certain circumstances in this Bill to kill badgers on that ground. The only defence against that situation would be a possible action for trespass brought on the part of the tenant. That is poor protection for the badger.
The matter could be a great deal more widespread than that; very large corporations and insurance companies are landlords and landowners. An enormous number of employees could be classified as "servants" and all would become authorised persons, if their employer was himself an authorised person. I think it is even conceivable that on Crown lands every member of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, and perhaps the Civil Service, in certain circumstances, would become an authorised person. Obviously this is ridiculous, but none the less it is theoretically possible under this Bill. We do not wish to draft a ridiculous Bill and therefore this Amendment has been drafted in order to narrow the field. The words "owner or occupier" will occur three times in
396
the same short clause, or subsection, thereby possibly conveying the effect, if anybody reads it aloud, that he is reciting a kind of part song or catch. None the less Bills are not read aloud. It will I submit, meet the case. It is logical; it is sensible, and it strengthens the case en behalf of the badgers. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment meets a point that was raised at the Report stage in the course of debate on Amendments which introduced the definition of an authorised person. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has said, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "authorised person" as at present drafted a servant of an owner or occupier of any land would be an authorised person for the purposes of the Bill, whether or not he was acting with the permission of his employer. In effect, that would mean that if a servant killed a badger on his employer's land in defiance of his employer's wish, the servant would not be guilty of an offence under Clause 1. The effect of this Amendment would be to make the servant an authorised person only when acting with the permission of the owner or occupier; that is, he would need to show that he had been authorised by the owner or occupier. Such permission need not be in writing, and the amended definition would not therefore impose an additional burden on the owner or ocupier. The Government have no objection to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I too, my Lords, am fully in agreement.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4.
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
(""local authority" means—

(a) as respects England and Wales up to and including 31st March 1974, the council of a county borough, a London borough or a county district or the Common Council of the City of London;

(b) as respects England and Wales on and after 1st April 1974, the council of a district or a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and

(c) as respects Scotland, the council of a county or the town council of a burgh.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, under paragraph (c) in the definition of an authorised person there comes a local

397
authority. This is intended to meet the case not of a local authority owning land but of an authority which controls certain commons and the like, where there is no lord of the manor, or waste ground where there is no owner, and I am told by the Home Office that in fact this definition would meet both the case which exists to-day and the case which will exist after April next year when the new local authorities are established. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, this Amendment of course is, as the noble Earl has made clear, consequential on the use of the expression "local authority" in the interpretation clause. Naturally I support it.
9.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. When I introduced the Bill I said that it had two main purposes: to conserve the species and to protect the badger from cruelty. My main supporter was the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to whom I find myself deeply indebted. He has achieved 90 per cent. of what he wanted, I perhaps 40 per cent., but I had hoped for little better. What the future of the Bill in the other House may be I cannot forecast—there are procedural difficulties—but I think your Lordships may feel proud of having passed this humane and conservationist measure.
To the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, again many congratulations. To many other noble Lords, many thanks. I think of my noble friend, Lord Foot, of the noble Lords, Lord Somers, Lord Hoy and Lord Coleridge, of my noble kinsman Lady Ruthven and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I will not go on; there are others of course. Strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I also thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, whom I am not sorry not to see here to-day. I do not think he is well. There is a famous story of a candidate who was being visaed for a First in Greats. All the examiners gave him an easy ride except one who kept on asking difficult questions. The candidate got a Second and he blamed it on the one examiner. He was wrong. That examiner thought well of the candidate and prodded him
398
in the hope of getting the best out of him. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is my prodder and I like to think that he is trying to make me do better. I have tried.
As to the future, that is of course for the other place. Your Lordships may recall that I had to pass the Sexual Offences Bill through this House three times, but it now stands on the Statute Book under its correct name of the Abse Act. If I am unlucky this Session I shall persevere. I believe that what the country wants is protection from cruelty to the badger as an individual and his conservation as a species.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Arran.)
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, at this late hour I do not like keeping your Lordships, but I would say one thing. We have discussed this Bill thoroughly in this House and I greatly dislike to think that it would be guillotined or chopped off in another place at one stroke. Therefore I am going to ask the Government, who have been very sympathetic to this Bill all the way through, to make their best endeavours so that the Bill has a fair hearing in the House of Commons.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it was not my intention to say anything, but I could not allow this Bill to pass without acknowledging with thanks the reference that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has made to me. From the beginning I decided to associate myself with the Bill, and despite all its trials I think we have now reached the stage, in agreement with the Government, of having a Bill which has unanimous support. That is a considerable achievement. Also, I think there is a sense of relief to many of your Lordships, because even if some of you were not altogether persuaded that this was a Bill of first moment, we have a great loyalty to the noble Earl; and the very fact that this Bill is about to leave your Lordshrips' House will at least give us a sense of relief, because we shall rot be tied to the House for much longer this evening.
Amendments have been made, and we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for the constructive part he has played concerning the Bill. We are

399
indebted also to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the way she has taken the Bill through on the part of the Government. That gives us a little confidence that when the Bill reaches another place (which is not unknown to me) it will have a reception which may make it possible for this Bill to go through that other Chamber much more quickly than it has gone through your Lordships' House. So I want to thank all those noble Lords who have helped, and certainly not least Lady Young.
9.22 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for successfully steering this Bill through your Lordships' House, and my thanks to those noble Lords who have expressed appreciation of anything I have been able to do. During the debate on Second Reading I told the House that the attitude of the Government was one of neutrality towards this basic issue, but I had to say that the Bill we then had before us was not acceptable to the Government, and I suggested that if it went forward the noble Earl might be prepared to look again at some of its provisions.
At Committee and Report stages your Lordships have made a considerable number of Amendments and have even added a few more this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has shown himself ready to consider all the various suggestions that have been made, and as a result we have produced a Bill which is much more comprehensive and better fitted for the job it is intended to do. At the same time, its original purposes of conserving the badger and protecting it from cruel methods of destruction have been kept. I am happy to say that all the Government's objections to the original Bill have been met. The Government's attitude towards the Bill remains one of neutrality, though I personally am very pleased to see the Bill pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RHONDDA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
  MID-KENT TOWN MAPS
  MID-KENT TOWN MAPS
  HOUSING APPEALS
  HOUSING APPEALS
  HOUSING: COST YARDSTICKS AND FIXED TENDERS
  HOUSING: COST YARDSTICKS AND FIXED TENDERS