Sitting of 13 May 1976

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

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inland Revenue (Rights of Entry)
    Mr. William Clarkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many extra civil servants will be required to carry out the extra rights of entry into taxpayers' premises as intimated in the current Finance Bill.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said in the Second Reading debate on 3rd May, the proposed powers of entry would be used at the most in a handful of cases annually.
    Mr. Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this snoopers' charter is deeply resented throughout the country? Will he say whether calling for these powers is part of the preparation for the introduction of a wealth tax?
    Mr. Sheldon: No. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman trying to seek any connection of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he envisages the powers being used at most in a handful of the most serious cases each year.
    Mr. Jay: Am I right in thinking that any taxpayer who keeps within the law has nothing to fear from these proposals?
    Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend is correct. There are expected to be only a handful of cases. The measure is a means of achieving equity between taxpayers who pay their taxes each year and those who seek to evade their responsibilities.
    Mr. Rathbone: Can the Minister deny my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is a connection between these snoopers and the wealth tax?
    Mr. Sheldon: I have made it clear that the problem is that of increasing evasion of Inland Revenue taxation and that as a result we are taking the measures. required. It is the minimum that ought to be acceptable in view of the problems that are often raised with us.
    Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the enormous cost to the nation

    647
    of tax evasion is more widely resented by working people than are these powers? Does he agree that when one compares the handful of cases brought against those who evade taxation with the enormous number of proceedings because of abuses of the social security system, abuses which cost the nation less, greater vigilance is needed?
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is right. There is increasing resentment at the disparity of treatment between those who claim in excess of what they should receive in social security benefits and those who claim very large sums of money at other taxpayers' expense. Our measures are intended to rectify that wide difference.
    Mr. David Howell: Will the Minister bear in mind the vast army of moonlighters, to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) rightly drew attention the other day? Is he aware that we find this clause in the Finance Bill deeply objectionable? Will he ask his right hon. Friend about an incident the other day when his right hon. Friend read out a large chunk of a speech which turned out to be a verbatim report of the words of the General Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation? The right hon. Gentleman owes us an explanation. Please may we have one?
    Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend has commented on that in the House on previous occasions. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole clause is subject to debate in the House. Proposals have been put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and will be discussed in the debate. What we are concerned with here is trying to reduce the amount of erosion of taxpayers' normal responsibilities and I should have thought that in that we should have the support of the whole House.

    Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representatives he has received since 6th April on the proposed new method of life assurance tax relief.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: None until the past week, since when I have received about six.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not inevitable under the proposed new system that for a period at least there will be a substantial effect on the investment income and the cash flow of insurance companies? What consideration have the Government given to the effect that this will have on bonuses payable under endowment policies, particularly terminal bonuses, which are paid only in the year in which the policies mature?
    Mr. Sheldon: Consultations have been held with the Life Assurance Offices. They are quite content with the arrangements, and I confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. In the introduction of this system, considerable representations were made. There was a request for such representations. The consultations have been extraordinarily effective, and that will be seen, I hope, in the working of the arrangements.
    Mr. Ridley: Why does the Chancellor's meanness extend to the point of stopping people saving more than £ 1,500 a year in life premiums?
    Mr. Sheldon: The whole basis of the scheme was a simplified operation. A figure had to be selected. I should have thought that £ 1,500 was quite generous. It allows many people on an income of less than £ 9,000 a year to get considerable advantages as a result of the introduction of this new scheme. Those in excess of that income will have plenty of time to make arrangements, because the starting date is not until 1979–80.
    Mr. Nott: Many pensions in the public sector are based upon the final year's salary and employees' pension schemes certainly allow much greater contributions than would be allowed under the arrangements now proposed with the limit of £ 1,500. Why is this double standard being used? Surely it is right that there should be comparable arrangements in all fields of savings for pensions. Will the Government look at this matter again, or anyhow make some concessions during our debates?
    Mr. Sheldon: These matters will be subject to the scrutiny of debate. I would not for a moment dream of trying to impinge upon those rights of the Opposition. These arrangements are not only satisfactory but beneficial to the large majority of people who save through the life

    649
    assurance method. The advantage that we give, not only to those people but, in the simplicity of operation, to all those concerned with it, is very considerable.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point at all. Even with the present rate of inflation, civil servants have guaranteed pensions related to their final year's salary, but the whole of the private sector is grossly penalised. It is absolute gobbledegook for the hon. Gentleman to talk about its being to the benefit of the large majority. It is to the benefit of only civil servants, not to the private sector at all.
    Mr. Sheldon: No. The life assurance method is not the only method available for saving for the ordinary individual. There are other methods for which tax relief is available. The £1,500 limit is based on a comparison with what happened previously under the old scheme of particular allowances for life assurance. The person who gets £8,000 a year gains considerably as a result of these provisions. The person who has been saving at a higher rate will continue to get the benefit, during the next few years at any rate.
    Mr. Nott: I am sorry to come in again. Will the hon. Gentleman say what are those other methods by which the self-employed and others can set aside money with tax relief? Secondly, is not a permanent secretary on an income of, say, £12,000 to £15,000 a year able to set aside far greater sums in the public sector pension scheme than are allowed to ordinary people through life assurance policies?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman must surely have heard of self-employed annuity policies, the allowances for which are being substantially increased this year to meet the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

    Government Borrowing
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount that Her Majesty's Government borrowed in the year 1975–76, expressed in £ sterling per head of the population.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): About £157, based
    650
    on the central Government borrowing requirement of £ 8·8 billion.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people will consider that a horrifying figure? Will he confirm that it is now more expensive for the taxpayer to fund the interest on the total borrowed than it is to fund the whole of the National Health Service?
    Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that subject, I shall be happy to deal with it. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition generally that they have never yet made a single proposal that would seriously reduce the borrowing requirement. What we have had is a series of generalisations about public expenditure cuts to be offset by specific tax reductions. We have never had a serious suggestion that would reduce the borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not be able to rely for much longer on the revenues from Scottish oil as collateral for spendthrift borrowing?
    Mr. Barnett: I know about North Sea oil. We are not dependent on that for the borrowing requirement. The borrowing requirement will reduce in the coming years. That is our policy. In 1976–77 the Chancellor has deliberately left the borrowing requirement higher than we should like. But if we did what the Opposition have in mind—if they would spell it out—we should probably reduce the borrowing requirement but increase unemployment substantially.
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the borrowing requirement is perhaps higher than the Government would like it to be. Is he confident that in the upturn sufficient funds will be available, given the size of the borrowing requirement, to fund investment without recourse to printing money?
    Mr. Barnett: The answer is "Yes, certainly". This is precisely what we had in mind when we made the cuts in public expenditure programmes in the years after 1976–77. We are confident that there will be sufficient funds available for the crucial investment.
    Mr. Cormack: How can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that for every family of four £ 600 a year is the sum involved, or more than that, and then justify the Government's grandiose nationalisation plans?
    Mr. Barnett: I am not too sure how the two parts of that question are relevant. There is no question—and the present Government have no intention of doing so in 1976–77—of taking the kind of generalised action about which we have heard from the Opposition. That would do the maximum possible harm economically, financially and industrially.

    Inflation
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual rate of inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The Retail Price Index rose by 21·2 per cent. over the 12 months to March, the seventh successive month in which the year-on-year rate of inflation has fallen. The increase of 0·5 per cent. between February and March is the lowest monthly rise since August 1974. The figures for April will not be available until tomorrow, but I am confident that they will show that the year-on-year rate of inflation is continuing to decline.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: What figure for inflation was used as the basis of the Chancellor's talks with the TUC? Was it sufficiently flexible to allow him to use the same figure that he had in his Budget estimation, despite the fact that wage rises in 1976–77 have been allowed to increase from 3 per cent., as then envisaged, to 4½ per cent?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will know that the result of the agreement between the Government and the TUC will be to reduce the rate of inflation by half once again during 1977. This is an agreement that has been welcomed universally throughout the world. Indeed, so far as I know, the only area from which it has received a sour, sullen and equivocal reception is the Opposition Front Bench.
    As to how far the agreement with the TUC affects the sums that I announced in my Budget Statement, we were assuming in the Budget Statement a rate of
    652
    wage increase next year of between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman will now know, it is likely to be lower, at 4½ per cent., and the rate of wage inflation in Britain during the next wage round will be the lowest in the whole of the industrial world. That is why our achievement has been so widely welcomed, not only in this country but in Germany, the United States and throughout the industrial world.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate his view that the 4½ per cent. agreement with the TUC is designed to combat inflation? Will he also tell the House how the 25 per cent. dividend allowance to ICI will convince the TUC of the validity of its sacrifice? Will he say, for example, whether he has a copper-bottomed guarantee from ICI that the money raised in its rights issue resulting from the dividend allowance will be used and invested in this country, and not siphoned abroad by this large multinational company?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the support that I have received from my hon. Friend. It comes as a particular pleasure an hour or two after the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has voted for the new policy by a substantial majority. I hope that we shall have congratulations from the sour Front Bench opposite on this as well. The Opposition are concealing their enthusiasm quite successfully.
    The rights issue by ICI yesterday is further proof that there is no obstacle whatever to industry's raising new money if it wishes to do so.
    Mr. David Howell: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that when he talks about economic miracles we cannot help recalling the economic miracle he achieved in October 1974 of reducing inflation to 8·4 per cent.? This is bound to be taken into account when assessing his latest rather extravagant claims.
    Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer also noticed Mr. Len Murray calling today for even tighter price control, bearing in mind that that means more loss of jobs and lower investment? Will he say what instructions he has received from the TUC on that matter?
    Mr. Healey: The House and the country will have noticed the grumpy and

    653
    trivial way in which the hon. Gentleman responds to a great national achievement. [Interruption]. As hon. Gentlemen are addressing me from recumbent positions I am unable to hear what is said. No doubt they will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if they wish to make a substantial contribution.
    As I have said, the rate of inflation has been more than halved in the last year and it will be further halved in the coming year. I think that the British people would find it not amiss if Her Majesty's loyal Opposition were prepared to welcome this achievement, because this is an achievement by the British people as a whole and not just by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consultations he intends to have with the TUC about the level of wage increases necessary to bring down the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Healey: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 5th May.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied with the present ad hoc negotiating arrangements with the TUC and others, or does he feel that it would be in the long-term national interest for statutory machinery, such as an annual wage-salary budget, to be set up among the Government, the TUC and the CBI?
    Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friends and I have repeatedly made it clear that we do not believe that any statutory machinery is suitable for the regulation of wages. We believe that it is necessary for the Government, of whichever party, to discuss these problems with the leaders of the trade union movement and of the CBI to reach an agreement which is consonant with the nation's interest. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a great deal easier for us to reach an achievement such as we reached last week—an achievement which has been universally welcomed both outside and inside this country, apart from the Opposition Front Bench—because we treat trade union representatives in these discussions as representative of their members. We do not take the view expressed by the Shadow Chancellor of
    654
    the Exchequer two days ago in this House that the agreement represents an
    "onslaught upon their standard of living and freedom generated and forced down the throats"
    —of the British people—
    "by ageing doctrinaire, prejudiced, Socialist trade union leaders."—[Official Report, 11th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 375.]
    It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman asked his right hon. Friend how he reconciled those disgraceful remarks with the very different words he read out in a speech yesterday.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer too smug to be aware that at the launching of the £6 limit at a Press conference on 11th July last year he gave a firm assurance that the next round of the pay policy would allow a widening of differentials? Why has he gone back on his word?
    Mr. Healey: First, I regard the hon. Gentleman as perhaps the leading expert in this House on smugness. But I think that he will recognise that, whereas last year we had a flat £6 limit for all salaries up to £8,500, the new agreement, which has been universally welcomed, except by the Opposition Front Bench, provides for a spread between £ 2 and £4, and the £4 is available at all levels of income.

    VAT Payments
    Mr. John Huntasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the wording of letters sent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to small traders whose VAT payments are alleged to be overdue.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Yes, Sir. These letters are formal demands for payment of VAT which are by regulation required to be made before distress may be levied to recover the tax.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents received a peremptory and aggressive letter from the Orpington VAT office demanding immediate payment of £128 and threatening to levy distress upon his goods and chattels, when the tax had been paid in full five months earlier? Is this not another example of the way in which small traders are being needlessly harried? Will he remind these VAT

    655
    officials that they are public servants and that they ought to watch their language and their facts?
    Mr. Sheldon: Normally such a letter is sent after two and a half months beyond the time when the tax has become due, and usually when up to three reminders have been sent.>
    I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the house, when five months after the tax had been paid a letter was sent. This was, of course, an unfortunate error, and no one would seek to deny that for a moment. But I believe it to be an isolated occurrence, and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise has apologised to the hon. Member in the way clearly required.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the effects that VAT is having on certain areas of amateur sport? Will the Financial Secretary see what relief can be given for the work usefully done locally by those who organise this type of venture, particularly for young people?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of the problem that my hon. Friend has mentioned. There is a Question on the Order paper with which I hope to be dealing in due course.

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in the value of tthe £ sterling since 5th April 1976 in terms of the United States $.
    Mr. Healey: The sterling/dollar rate at the close last night was $1·8390 compared with $1·8675 at the close on 5th April.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain why the marvellous, superlative, miraculous, ecstatic deal which he has made with the TUC has resulted in a fall in the pound of 3 cents.? Could it be that the real problem is the borrowing requirement and that the deal is in fact irrelevant?
    Mr. Healey: The country will notice that the hon. Gentleman regards what has recently happened as a matter for a snigger, but I quote to him the words of the Deputy Governor of the German Bundesbank:
    656
    "The £ is now undervalued and Britain has an excellent chance for an export-led recovery … Over the last six to eight months the social consensus has been re-established in Great Britain between the Government and the trade unions. The social consensus is the decisive factor."
    As the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has just held up German ways of handling these matters as a model for the United Kingdom, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the decency and patriotism to recognise the importance of this statement by the Deputy Governor of the German Central Bank.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ordinary people, who have accepted the policies of the Government and have made massive sacrifices, are getting somewhat angry about these folk overseas, whoever they are, who seem to be able to influence and damage the pound and the nation, with the support of some members of the Conservative Opposition?
    Mr. Healey: I well understand the feeling of the British people about what is happening and their contempt for members of the Conservative Opposition who, in the hope of party political advantage, seek to damage our national interest.
    Mr. Nott: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets the parity of sterling and the rate of inflation back to the level at which they stood when he took office, he can begin to talk with some justification of a miracle and of being home and dry. So far the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only recovering the consequences of the social contract.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the way in which he deals with these queries at the Dispatch Box—in the manner of Mr. Brezhnev—and the bullying, hectoring attitude he adopts do not carrying any weight either in the House or in the country?
    Mr. Healey: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the minutiae of Soviet policies since his own party has been taken over by Conservative Trotskyites, but, since he mentioned sterling, I am bound to draw his attention to the fact that it was his own Government, when he was a Minister at the Treasury, who decided to float sterling in 1972, consequent upon which there was a heavy and rapid fall in its value.
    I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention further to the fact that, according to the

    657
    right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the inflation in the last two years was caused by the excessive increase in the money supply under the Treasury of which the hon. Member was a Minister in 1973, and that the attempt to make wages keep pace with prices, in spite of the change in import prices in 1974, was attributable wholly to the threshold agreements introduced by his right hon. Friend the then Conservative Prime Minister, under whom he was happy to serve.
    Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: After Questions, if the hon. Gentleman would be so kind.

    Public Sector Pay
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in income tax would finance a 1 per cent. pay increase in the public sector.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: If a 1 per cent. pay increase in the public sector was financed wholly from income tax, this would require an increase of about one quarter of one penny in all rates of tax. In practice, of course, central Government revenue does not bear the whole cost of increases in pay in the public sector.
    Mr. Bottomley: Given that the increase in public and private sector pay is likely to be four times 1 per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this extra taxation burden will go on so many people who would be better off if they did not work, and why he did not use the funds which appeared to be available to raise child and family allowances, as proposed by the Child Poverty Action Group?
    Mr. Barnett: I find that question quite remarkable. If we had taken the advice of the Opposition, the pay deal would not have been remotely like the one we have obtained, and public sector pay would have been hugely increased, as would the tax burden.

    VAT (Cesspit Sewage Disposal)
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was raised from the 8 per cent.
    658
    rate of VAT on cesspit sewage disposal during the financial year 1975–76.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever the figure may be, it is likely to be piffling in relation to the resentment felt at the bureaucratic incompetence that brings this particular charge to bear? Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of agreeing to bring in a zero-rating charge level, which would be a fair move and could be recouped by a 10 per cent. rate of VAT, which we have urged for services generally?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman talks about bureaucratic incompetence. This charge is an essential part of the 1972 Act, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It was they who imposed this tax and the charge is a direct consequence of their measure. Any bureaucratic incompetence can be directly attributable to their action on that occasion.
    Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Scrutiny Committee was told the other day by officials from the EEC that last November the Government gave an undertaking to the EEC not to extend zero-rating? Was that so? If so, why was a statement not made to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Sheldon: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no commitment on zero-rating has been made. If he is thinking about cesspool treatment in the EEC, I can tell him that in that context there is a wide range of variation.
    Mr. Madelasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has had asking him to zero rate VAT on the collection and disposal of sewage from properties unconnected to main drainage.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: About 15 since the beginning of the year.
    Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the recent House of Lords decision on this matter, the sewage rate was zero-rated because rates themselves are zero-rated? Therefore, the loss of revenue argument cannot be used

    659
    if we zero-rate sewage collection from unconnected properties. Bearing in mind that gas, electricity and water are zero-rated, essential services for the home, why cannot the Government make this extension and zero-rate as suggested in the Question?
    Mr. Sheldon: The problem, which the hon. Gentleman may well understand, is that when a local authority is in competition with the private sector, it has to be treated in exactly the same way, and the private sector has the standard rate of value added tax applied to it.

    Tax Evasion
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of revenue lost each year both to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue through evasion of tax.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is impossible to make precise estimates of revenue lost through evasion which escapes detection.
    Mr. MacGregor: I recognise that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue said in a recent interview that tax avoidance certainly and tax evasion probably were on the increase, and that it was the high marginal rates of tax—I would add high marginal rates for all taxpayers—that were causing it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for the Government to concentrate on reducing the marginal levels of tax and to spend rather less time on tax avoidance and evasion, which uses an enormous amount of unproductive labour on all sides which does not help the country?
    Mr. Sheldon: No one can dispute for a moment that high rates of tax are more profitable to the evader. That has always been so, and presumably it is always likely to be so. But that is no reason for our not being concerned with ensuring by appropriate measures that evasion is reduced to the minimum whenever the appropriate measures can be introduced.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of tax evasion each year must run to millions of pounds? Will he contrast the concern of Conservative
    660
    Members about tax evaders with their savage attacks on the tiny number of people who abuse the social security system, and their attempts to bring an excellent welfare system into disrepute by their constantly repeated attacks?
    Mr. Sheldon: I must say that I totally agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said. There is a need for a comparison between the ability of small limited sections of our community to evade their responsibility and the need, as my hon. Friend said, to get into perspective some of the abuses that take place on a smaller scale and involving much smaller amounts. I think that the need for balance should be recognised by the whole House.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The Minister's views on tax evasion are always of interest, but will he tell the House of his reaction to the practice of civil servants, or sabbatical civil servants, who express their own highly divisive opinions on this topic to the Press in interviews? I quote—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Clark: He refers to "our boys" being granted an opportunity which has been denied them for so long and says that people who squeal are doing so only because they have something to hide. What are the hon. Gentleman's comments on the propriety of that?
    Mr. Sheldon: I must confess that I find it difficult to understand the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, if he will kindly let me have a copy, or, more appropriately, supply a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, it will be looked at. The problem of evasion is one that the whole House must recognise. It is an obvious difficulty. We are faced with a need to reduce evasion and at the same time to maintain the liberties which we have held for so long. There is the problem of achieving the right sort of balance, bearing in mind the responsibilities that we all have.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Banksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of VAT applicable now to burglar alarm equipment and installations.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: They are 12½ per cent. in the case of burglar alarms which are of a kind suitable for domestic use: 8 per cent. in other cases.
    However, the professional installation of burglar alarm systems in the course of building construction or alteration is normally zero-rated.
    Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that this is a classic example of the stupidity of multi-rate VAT, which creates confusion, frustration and paperwork, and hinders the work of the police in their campaign to prevent crime?
    Mr. Sheldon: I do not see this as a particular problem of multi-rate VAT. After all, before multi-rate VAT was introduced, such domestic installations were chargeable at the standard rate. I understand that Conservative Members are prepared to accept a standard rate. Some have said that it should be 122 per cent. and others that it should be 15 per cent., which would have been an even greater increase on the rate of VAT for burglar alarms. The Opposition should sort out their own inconsistencies.
    Mr. Jay: Does my hon. Friend regret as heartily as I do the introduction of VAT by the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Sheldon: I remind my right hon. Friend that this was a tax that I inherited, with all its problems and complexities. My duty is to implement the tax. My work would have been very much easier if I had not inherited such a difficult tax. If it had not been introduced I should have had a much easier load, which I should willingly have been able to bear.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: More seriously, regardless of what the position was in the past, in view of the considerable increase in crime, which these installations are intended to combat, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider whether burglar alarms should be considered more luxurious than ice lollies?
    Mr. Sheldon: I must refute the impression that the higher rate of value added tax is for luxuries. Burglar alarms were always rated at the standard rate. When this batch of articles was looked at again, it naturally fell into the higher rate category. I am willing to receive representations from the hon. Gentleman on this matter, but I have looked at it before and
    662
    I find some of the problems rather more difficult than perhaps can be explained now. If the hon. Gentleman will agree to have further consultation by letter or by visit, I shall be happy to oblige him.

    Building Society Interest (Tax Assessments)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a person who has his tax deducted by a building society at the source for interest earned then receives two separate new assessments for the same interest in the current financial year, together with demands for respective payments and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Building society interest is treated as received after deduction of basic rate tax, and so an assessment is not generally necessary unless the investor is liable to higher rate tax or to the investment income surcharge. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I will, of course, be happy to look into it if he will let me have details.
    Mr. Spriggs: I thank my hon. Friend for that offer and assure him that I shall let him have the details.
    Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep frustration and loss of confidence in the Inland Revenue because of its new assessments on figures which it already has from year to year? What does he propose to do about that?
    Mr. Sheldon: These arrangements between the building societies and the Inland Revenue have not generally caused serious problems. I shall take the opportunity of having discussions with my hon. Friend. We may be able to clear up the point that he has in mind.

    Exchange Controls (Commodity Markets)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to strengthen exchange control rules especially in relation to dealings on commodity markets, including metals.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Certain aspects of exchange control, including dealings in the commodity markets, are currently under special scrutiny. If this should show that the rules need strengthening, the necessary changes will be made.
    Mr. Hooley: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about special scrutiny. Is he aware that certain specialist journals in the United States have pointed out that the evasion of currency regulations and tax evasion are technically possible because of the methods used on the London Metal Exchange? Will he go carefully into that matter?
    Mr. Sheldon: I assure my hon. Friend that these matters are closely watched. As he may know, participants in these schemes submit monthly returns to the Bank of England. These returns can be scrutinised and, on the basis of those returns, further action can be and often is taken.
    Mr. Hooson: What is the value to the balance of payments of having the Metal Exchange in this country?
    Mr. Sheldon: About £100 million.
    Mr. Lipton: By whom is this special scrutiny being conducted? Is it only the Bank of England, the Treasury, or the police, or any two or all three of them?
    Mr. Sheldon: This scrutiny is undertaken by the Investigation Department of the Treasury, which employs officers for that purpose.

    TUC
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister what was the outcome of his last discussions with the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): The agreement of the TUC General Council to make a recommendation to a special TUC conference next month about a further voluntary extension of incomes policy that will meet the Government's objective of ending next year with an inflation rate in line with our foreign competitors.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister recollect his assurances to foreign holders of sterling that he did not foresee any expansion in the public sector as a means of overcoming the dreadful unemployment position in this country? Is he aware that the same foreign holders of sterling are now saying that British manufacturing industry is still overmanned and that, therefore, investment should not take place without a further fall in the value of the pound? How does he reconcile Labour Party policy of doing
    664
    all that it can to overcome the unemployment situation with these threats from foreign holders of sterling?
    The Prime Minister: I was referring to the levels of public expenditure, which have been a source of controversy between some of my hon. Friends and the Government for some time, but which were decided a few weeks ago, and not to anything else. Overmanning obviously varies industry by industry. It may be true of some industries, but it is not true of others.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to meet the STUC in Scotland? Like most other people in Scotland, it is anxiously waiting to hear what real measures the Government will introduce to deal with the horrifying unemployment situation.
    The Prime Minister: The Scottish TUC will be able to address me directly if it wishes to give me an invitation. I look forward to meeting the STUC, the Scottish Labour Party and, indeed, any other organisation which has anything to offer on this serious matter of unemployment in Scotland. I was very glad to see, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact, that Govan Shipbuilders yesterday secured a very valuable order. That shows the competitiveness still of British shipbuilding.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grimond.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask whether the Prime Minister has registered this scene of enthusiasm for Liberal policy? Has he received any indications that productive investment may now increase?
    The Prime Minister: I should like, on behalf of a great many Members, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his bed of thorns. We recognise that he is taking on the leadership of the Liberal Party out of a sense of public responsibility and duty, but I hope that he will get some enjoyment out of it while he is doing it. [Interruption.] The House should not be so cynical. I really hope he does. As to Liberal policy, when I see the right hon. Gentleman leading the party, I think that the wrapping is very attractive, but I am not sure about the contents.

    665
    On the levels of public and private investment, I think that the CBI's most recent survey of intentions shows that there is a returning confidence in British industry about the need to invest. I hope that is true. Government policy must be to encourage it in every possible way.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Prime Minister recall that he has spoken a great deal about the need for increased profitability in order to obtain increased investment? But even when there were high levels of profit, this did not invariably mean that they went into increased investment, job creation, or to regions such as Merseyside. If we are to have higher profits in future, we need more public means of controlling them to ensure that they go into socially desirable objectives.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to a dilemma. Although high profits do not necessarily lead to high investment levels, the corollary is true also. Profitability in a number of industries at present is not sufficient, assuming the will is there, to enable proper reinvestment or investment at current prices to take place. Therefore, it is essential that there must be an improvement in the rate of profitability. We must go on working at this. In a nutshell the situation is this—today's profits must be tomorrow's jobs. If there are no profits, there will be no jobs.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Now that the Government have introduced a special incentive to encourage investment, as in the case of ICI, will the Prime Minister tell the TUC whether it would be appropriate also to consider introducing a special incentive in pay to encourage productivity and to deal with the difficult problem of differentials?
    The Prime Minister: The House is very good at pointing out some of the dilemmas of Government. The Leader of the Opposition has just touched on another. There is a general recognition that pay settlements of this year's nature or last year's nature will lead to difficulties later. The question of differentials will be very difficult to solve, as is the fact that the new rates have not been consolidated in the basic rates. But that is no reason for trying to destroy the
    666
    advances which are being made in this direction and which are having a substantial impact on our economy now.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not trying to destroy anything. I am trying to say that there will be very considerable difficulties with differentials. Already there has been a suggestion that there should be power cuts to enforce differentials, or so it was reported in the Press. Is the Prime Minister to continue to ignore this, or, as he has allowed a special case for investment, will he allow a special case in pay?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the right hon. Lady's enthusiasm for the TUC's recommendations. As far as I can see, she seems to be damning them with faint praise. If she is in favour of them, I welcome that. What is needed over the next 12 months—which will be difficult when working people find that their standard of living has been reduced—is a common understanding of the reasons which have led to this situation. I hope that the right hon. Lady will lend her authority in support of the Government on this matter.
    On the question of whether the trade unions should exercise their power in the way the right hon. Lady envisages, all I can say is that it would be totally against the national interest, and the long-term interests of the men themselves. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not at any time make it appear to these men that their grievance is of such a character that they are entitled to wreck the whole scheme. I do not believe that is her intention, and I hope that she will make it absolutely clear that it is not.

    BEXLEYHEATH
    Mr. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Bexleyheath.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister come and have a fatherly word with the Bexleyheath Labour Party? Having opposed Britain's entry into Europe and his election as leader of the Labour Party, the Bexleyheath Labour Party is now opposing the Government's belated expenditure restraints, claiming that they are contrary to the party manifesto.
    The Prime Minister: I would sooner hear the views of the Bexleyheath Labour Party direct than through the mouth of the hon. Gentleman. I fancy that he has plenty of troubles of his own without concerning himself with anyone else's.
    Mr. Madden: Whether the Prime Minister goes to Bexleyheath or anywhere else, he will find that many working people have a great resentment of golden handshakes, which are being paid by private companies to more and more directors. Private companies would have more profits to invest if they paid out less in golden handshakes to directors.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that this creates a great deal of resentment. On the matter of differentials, we must make sure that energy, enterprise and responsibility are properly rewarded—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite cheer, but I do not think that in matters of golden handshakes they have anything at all to cheer about. They and some of their followers have been some of the exemplars of golden handshakes. There is a difference between my hon. Friend's criticism and rewarding responsibility as it should be rewarded.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Prime Minister is not visiting Bexleyheath, will he pay an official visit to the House of Commons to answer Questions as First Lord of the Treasury on Treasury matters at a time when financial policy is crucial to this country, instead of leaving it to one of his junior Ministers—the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: The intellectual stature and stamina shown by the Chancellor in the recent negotiations deserve the praise of everyone.

    RABIES
    Miss Fookesasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office in moves to combat the spread of rabies to Great Britain.
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Agri-
    668
    culture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office in combating the threat of rabies spreading to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment in moves to control the entry of rabies into Great Britain.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. There is close co-ordination among all the Departments concerned in the campaign against rabies, and among central Government, local and port authorities, and the police.
    Miss Fookes: Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of introducing more severe legislation against those who smuggle animals, possibly the destruction of the pets concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Lady's concern about this matter. This country has been fortunate to be spared for so many years from this dreadful disease. It is a disease which the country is taking seriously. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would put Questions about legislation to the Minister of Agriculture, who is better informed about the details than I am.
    Mr. Faulds: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the promptitude and efficiency of the monitoring of this disease through Europe as it sweeps towards our coast?
    The Prime Minister: I shall draw that to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. While we have a group of such efficient Ministers, I do not master every detail of every Department.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware that a group of 12 hon. Members have been waiting for over a week while the Home Office and the Ministry of Agriculture decide between them who should receive a deputation on this matter? This is at a time when the nation faces the threat of this disease with a police force which does not have powers to arrest people who are suspected of illegally importing animals. It does not even have powers to seize such animals. Will the Prime Minister give that his urgent personal attention?
    The Prime Minister: I will inform the Minister of Agriculture and the Home Secretary of what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has said. I cannot have groups of efficient Ministers and then undertake to do all these things myself.
    That seems to be one of the disabilities of Prime Minister's Questions. They roam over a great many matters with which I am supposed to be dealing. [Interruption.] I ask the House to take this seriously, I want Prime Minister's Questions to be serious and I undertake to give serious answers, but I find time and again that I am asked questions which simply do not arise out of the original Question on the Order Paper. I admit that this one does, but I am talking about the generality of questions. If the House could find some way in which these Questions could be more accurately directed, I would undertake to give better answers.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Continental experience shows that foxes are the main instruments for distributing this disease? Since, for example, in Wales last year between 7,000 and 8,000 foxes were destroyed by fox destruction societies, will he satisfy himself that the Ministry of Agriculture has tied up the problem of the control of foxes and rabies in our areas?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for calling my attention to this matter. I shall see that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is directed towards it.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17th May—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 18th May—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on the sale of council and new town houses to tenants, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order.
WEDNESDAY 19th May—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: debate on an Opposition motion on nationalisation.
A debate on the procedures for handling EEC documents with particular reference to skimmed milk.
THURSDAY 20th May—Remaining stages of the Police Bill.
Motion on the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations.
FRIDAY 21st May—Bills.
MONDAY 24th May motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, it is expected that opposed Private Business will be named for consideration.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday 28th May until Monday 7th June.
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House consider the position of Thursday's business when we are to deal with the Police Bill and a motion on family income supplements? The Police Bill has been substantially changed and further changes are in prospect in amendments which have already been tabled. As the Bill is so different from that which went upstairs, may we not have a half-day's debate on the new Bill before proceeding to Report stage on the Floor of the House and take the rest of the day for a longer debate on family income supplements?
May I ask about the form of the motion for the skimmed milk debate and whether the Government will be making their position clear at the beginning of that debate?
Mr. Foot: On the second question, the Government will make a statement at the beginning of the debate. We were proposing that the debate should take place on an Adjournment motion. I think that that would be the most satisfactory way to cover all the different aspects of the problem.
On the suggested rearrangement of the business for Thursday, I doubt whether we could do what the right hon. Lady suggested. If she is concerned about the progress we may make on the family income supplements regulations, she should wait and see how we get on with the Police Bill. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with that Bill in the way I have suggested.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the House what is now likely to be the position of the Hare Coursing Bill in view of the decision of the Select Committee in another place against the Government's Bill? It suggests an alternative Bill. What is the Government's position now, and what can this House do about the matter?
Mr. Foot: I appreciate my hon. Friend's special concern on the matter. He has proposed this question on a number of occasions and he played a leading part when the Bill passed through the House of Commons. Although we have had a report from the other place, we have not seen the evidence, and we should look at that. I agree, however, that many of my hon. Friends will wish to see how we can return to this subject, and I am meeting some of them very soon to consider that.
Mr. Lawson: Will there be a White Paper on the second stage of the Government's rigid and inflexible pay policy? Whether there is or not, may we have an opportunity in Government time before the TUC special conference to debate this matter?
Mr. Foot: I do not accept the hon. Member's description of the policy. We have not yet decided whether there will be a White Paper, although that is a probability. As I indicated last week, there will be a number of occasions on which the House will be able to debate the various aspects of this policy.
Mr. Blenkinsop: When are we to get a White, Green or any other Paper on
672
devolution as it affects England, and when are we to have a debate on that?
Mr. Foot: I do not know about the colour of any kind of paper, but the Government will be seeking to make fresh statements on the progress with devolution. We wish that to be as speedy as possible, and I hope that we shall be making a statement on the subject in the fairly near future.
Mrs. Bain: In view of the rising disquiet and disillusionment among newly-qualified teachers from Scottish colleges who are joining the ever-increasing dole queues in Scotland, may we have a full debate on this subject before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise the hon. Lady a full debate on this subject. I appreciate her anxiety about it and I have no doubt that many other hon. Members will be wishing to raise it in various ways.
Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, irrespective of the views of hon. Members about the Community, there is grave dissatisfaction with the procedures adopted last September for scrutiny of EEC documents? Although the motion for next Wednesday's debate may be for the Adjournment, the House might proceed to suggest new Standing Orders related specifically to European legislation. Does my right hon. Friend suggest that this debate should take one and a half hours or three hours? I believe that the House would prefer to have three hours.
Mr. Foot: I suggest one and a half hours for the debate, but there will be an opportunity, as I have mentioned before, for a debate a little later on EEC matters generally. The Select Committee on this subject is issuing a report very soon with suggestions and comments on the way in which the procedure works. I know that there is concern in many parts of the House on this score and that we have to make improvements. The next stage of considering them could advantageously be discussed in the debate next week.
Mr. Sims: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about proceedings on the

673
Police Bill? Quite apart from the Opposition amendments, many Government and Labour Back Bench amendments have been tabled. The time allocated to this important Bill will be insufficient.
Mr. Foot: I do not minimise the importance of the Bill or the pressure from various parts of the House for amendments. I think, however, that a considerable amount of time will be available, and the House should see how it gets on next Thursday. I hope that we shall make good progress.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will the White Paper on the report of the Expenditure Committee on children in prison be published? Can my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on the Statutory Instrument on prison rules and the amendment of them as they apply to prisoners' mail?
Mr. Foot: I cannot say when the second matter can be debated, although I shall have a look at it. I shall try to let my hon. Friend know when the White Paper on the subject is to be published.
Mr. Aitken: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a number of consultative documents related to the Police Bill are to be published and that these will need a substantial amount of debate? This whole Bill is so completely altered in character and there have been so many Government amendments that the Leader of the House must understand the concern which exists, before we embark upon this momentous Bill, for much more time to be allocated to it.
Mr. Foot: I understand the concern being expressed in different parts of the House, but I believe that we have allotted a sensible amount of time. We shall have to see how the debate goes and to assess the position then. There has been considerable time in Committee devoted to discussing these matters.
Mr. Spriggs: A large majority of hon. Members have already taken the decision to abolish hare coursing in this country. What steps will my right hon. Friend take, at an early date, to see that the wishes of this House are respected by another place?
Mr. Foot: I understand fully the views expressed on this subject. I have under-
674
taken to look at the report from another place and the evidence on which it was based and to have discussions with some of those especially interested in the Bill to see what response we should make from this House. That is the best I can say at the moment, but I appreciate the concern of many hon. Members who voted for the Bill in this House and their desire to see it translated into action.
Mr. David Steel: When shall we hear more about the Government's plans for devolution to Scotland and Wales? Are we to get a White Paper, a Bill or two Bills and when?
Mr. Foot: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject at an early date, though I do not want to be tied down to a precise timing. I fully appreciate the desire of the hon. Member and others for a statement at the earliest possible moment. That is also the desire of the Government, and we are seeking to bring it forward in the best way we can.
Mr. Cryer: Following the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not just a question of the Hare Coursing Bill? Does he not recall that the House of Lords blocked the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill for a long time? Hon. Members have asked for a debate on the need, or lack of it, for the House of Lords on several occasions and have been told that a long cool look is being taken at the subject. Is it not time to stop looking and have a debate about abolishing the place?
Mr. Foot: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that we shall not be able to abolish the House of Lords next week. We shall have to look at this matter on a somewhat longer time scale.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As millions of families living in council houses long to own those houses and scarcely any care whether the Police Bill passes into law, will the Leader of the House ensure that a full day is given to the debate on tenants' ownership of council houses at the expense of the Police Bill, which matters nothing to the people of this country?
Mr. Foot: The length of time for discussing the sale of council houses was chosen by the Opposition. I cannot say that we should cut down the amount of time devoted to the Police Bill, particularly when so many of the hon. Member's hon. Friends are urging that I should give more time for it.
Mr. Molloy: This House quite properly has debates on the problems of Wales, Scotland and the regions of England, but, for some reason, debates on Greater London are excluded. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the problems of Greater London are given some consideration on the Floor of the House in the same way as the problems of Wales, Scotland and other regions?
Mr. Foot: There are pressures from all sides for various debates, but I do not think that it is the case that there are no debates on Greater London. If that were the case, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would be taking the lead in rectifying the situation. There are occasions when London matters are discussed as fully as any other subjects.
Mr. Peyton: When does the Leader of the House intend that we should have an opportunity to debate that rather odd and romantic document on transport which the Government have produced? We are all fascinated to discover what will be the next chapter in the Government's thinking on this subject. What are the Government's intentions on the motion in the name of the Liberal Chief Whip about the Committee of Selection? At present, the Government's intentions seem shrouded in mystery.
Mr. Foot: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I appreciate his eagerness to discuss Government policies at all times. I hope he will have the opportunity of discussing this policy fairly soon, though I cannot promise a debate immediately.
On his second question, I have had some correspondence with the Liberal Chief Whip and other hon. Members and I was hoping that these consultations would have been completed by now and that we could proceed in the way I had suggested with the matter being referred to the Committee on Procedure for a speedy report. This would deal
676
with the matter in the best way possible. I hope that this course will be agreeable to the House. If so, I am prepared to put down that motion immediately and to ask the Committee on Procedure to report urgently.
Mr. Peyton: Does not the Leader of the House agree that referring the matter to the Committee on Procedure when all the facts are clear might be more expensive in terms of time than revealing in terms of information?
Mr. Foot: I do not believe that the motion is the best way of dealing with the matter. It would involve some difficult problems. If we accepted the motion, the Government would be in a minority in Committees.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: They are in the House.
Mr. Foot: But that is not the proposition put by the Opposition in this matter. That may be the hon. Member's view on how we should proceed, but it is certainly not our view. There are some problems involved, and I think that it is better that the Committee on Procedure should prepare a report. I am not suggesting this as a delaying procedure but as the most satisfactory way of getting the swiftest answer for the House.
Mr. Beith: While I recognise the good will implicit in what the Leader of the House has said, does he not feel that the objections are so small that they could be dealt with in a short time in a debate in the House? Has he recognised that five minority parties are signatories to the motion?
Mr. Foot: I recognise the strength of feeling of minority parties on the subject, but I would like to get agreement in all quarters, and I believe that my suggestion offers the swiftest way of securing that. I am not excluding other ways, but I think that we shall get a speedy answer if we follow my suggestion.
Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the current widespread unease about the reliability of identification in certain recent cases, would my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the Devlin Report on identification evidence in criminal cases?
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the feelings expressed on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has answered questions on a previous occasion. I am not saying that we can have a separate debate on the subject, but my right hon. Friend is giving the fullest consideration to the report.
Mr. Stokes: Will the House have an early opportunity to discuss the immigration of Indians from East Africa into this country, which is causing increasing anxiety?
Mr. Foot: I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on this subject, but there are methods by which the matter can be raised in the House.
Mr. Sandelson: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for a debate on the Blennerhassett Report on drinking and driving?
Mr. Foot: I cannot make an immediate offer. We shall be rising for the Whitsun Recess at a fairly early stage and I cannot promise time for any major debates before the recess, beyond those that I have already indicated.
Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Home Secretary the possibility of making available to the House information on the number of animals sent abroad for vivisection and the countries to which they go? That information is not currently available, and I understand that this is a growing trade. Hon. Members and the public should know what is happening.
Mr. Foot: The information is certainly not available to me at the moment. However, I shall see whether it can be made available and the best way in which a report on the subject can be made to the House.
Mr. Kershaw: Will the Leader of the House say whether we shall have a debate on the Royal Air Force before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I hope to be able to arrange the debate on the Royal Air Force soon after the Whitsun Recess. I am afraid that I cannot promise it before.
Mr. Luce: In the light of the recent UNCTAD conference in Nairobi, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early
678
debate on relations between the developed and the underdeveloped world?
Mr. Foot: This is an extremely important subject. Once again, however, I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate in the period immediately ahead of us.
Mr. Wiggin: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has decided on the Whitsun Recess, presumably he will be considering the Government's programme for the summer. Will he bear in mind that not only hon. Members but peers, staff, civil servants and others have children whose school holidays no longer coincide with the Summer Recess and that, if the House rose in early July, many of us would be very glad to come back in September to make up the lost time and thus unite many families which now are unnecessarily divided?
Mr. Foot: There is a case along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. and it will he taken into account by the Government in trying to fix the programme. How far we can succeed depends not only on what the Government decide but on others and on how we proceed with our business. But it is a factor which the Government will take into account.
Dr. Glyn: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging for a debate on the Council of Europe and WEU, as distinct from a general debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. Foot.Again I cannot promise that in the near future, although associated subjects will arise on one of the EEC debates. But it is very difficult to arrange debates on all these subjects, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates.
Mr. Marten: Will the Leader of the House yield to the increasing demand from both sides of the House for a short debate and a vote so that we can eliminate this eviscerated chicken nonsense—and in Government time?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure that we could eviscerate the subject by a simple vote. That is one of the troubles. Part of the evisceration of this House took place earlier and, therefore, it is not an easy matter to deal with just by a vote. But I shall see whether an opportunity can be provided for a discussion, although I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that

679
we can rectify the position solely by a vote.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing time for a debate on the subject of the many millions of pounds going to Mozambique?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that that is a subject for which time can be found in the near future. The Government were carrying out an obligation of which the House had been already made fully aware. We have discussed on many occasions the action taken about Rhodesia, and what the Government did was to carry out faithfully the policy which we had described to the House on numerous occasions.

SERJEANT AT ARMS (RETIREMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the Serjeant at Arms in the following terms:
"Dear Mr. Speaker,
As discussed with your predecessor several months ago, and yourself more recently, I have the honour to make application that you will now be pleased to sanction my retirement on 1st August 1976 from my office by Patent of Her Majesty's Serjeant at Arms attending the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I am now over 65 years old and I feel that the time has arrived when it is appropriate that I should be relieved of my appointment, which I have had the honour to hold since 1962. I make this request with much regret.
I am deeply conscious not only of the great privilege I have had of serving here as Serjeant at Arms and Housekeeper but also of the friendliness and understanding which has been shown to me by Members in all quarters of the House, and which has greatly helped me in my job."
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I am sure that the whole House will have heard with regret of the decision of the Serjeant at Arms to offer his resignation. We shall have an opportunity to express our thanks as a House to Rear-Admiral Sir Alexander Gordon Lennox at a later date, when an appropriate motion will be tabled. I therefore propose that we should reserve our expressions of appreciation until that time.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am glad that we are to have an opportunity later to say "Thank you". But perhaps we might now express our appreciation of the years of devoted and distinguished service which the Serjeant at Arms has given to us in the House of Commons.
Mr. Mellish: I am sure that we all wish the Serjeant at Arms well. May I ask who gets his job?
Mr. Speaker: An announcement is being made from Buckingham Palace as I am addressing the House now—
Mr. Mellish: Oh!
Mr. Speaker: —and it will be the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Lieutenant-Colonel Thorne.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mellish: With respect, I thought that this had been discussed before and that it was decided to be a matter for the House of Commons. I am delighted to hear that at long last a deputy is to get the job. It is extremely rare for deputies to get any jobs. But I thought that we ourselves had a measure of control. It is about time that appointments of this kind came under the control of the House.
Mr. Speaker: May I say, first, on the subject of deputies getting jobs, that I am in favour of that system myself.
May I say, secondly, that there has been the consultation which was agreed on a previous occasion. There has been consultation with this House, and the Palace has acted on advice from this House.

RIDGEBACKS CRICKET CLUB (RHODESIA)
Mr. Gow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration. namely,
"the letter dated 11th May 1976 from the Minister for Sport to the Secretary of the Cricket Council received by the Secretary this morning requesting that he should use his influence to stop the forthcoming tour of the Ridgebacks Cricket Club from Rhodesia—a tour due to start on Saturday, 15th May."
This is a specific matter because this tour of Britain by a Rhodesian cricket team is due to begin on Saturday.

681
It is an important matter for two reasons. It is important because we need to establish whether we have government by request or government by the rule of law. It is important, too, because these cricketers are British subjects coming from a British Colony to Britain for a purpose which is not only lawful but also highly commendable, namely, to engage in the game of cricket.
There is the third element on which I have to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker. Is it an urgent matter? I submit that it is urgent, because the letter from the Minister for Sport was received by the secretary this morning, only 48 hours before this cricket tour, which has been arranged for months, is due to begin.
It is very important that the House should have an opportunity to debate now the request by the Minister to the supreme governing body of cricket in this country that the tour should be called off at such short notice.
For these reasons, I submit that this is a proper matter which should be discussed by this House and which should be given priority over this disreputable Finance Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the letter dated 11th March, 1976 from the Minister for Sport to the Secretary of the Cricket Council requesting him to use his influence to stop the forthcoming tour of Britain by a cricket team from Rhodesia."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  (Clauses 14, 21, 24, 26, 27, 48, 52 and 64; new clauses relating to capital gains tax)
  Considered in Committee [Progress 11th May].
  [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Clause 26

  ALTERATION OF PERSONAL RELIEFS
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Newton: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, page 15, line 8, leave out £1,555, £1,010' and insert £1,600, £1,060 '.
  The Deputy Chairman: With this we shall also take the following Amendments:
  No. 47, in page 15, line 8, leave out £1,555, £1,010 and £3,250' and insert £1,620, £1,040 and £3,375'.
  No. 91, in page 15, line 8, at end insert:
  'and £1,865, £1,210 and £3,600, respectively, in cases where the individual concerned is aged over 70'.
  Mr. Newton: I shall come to the details of the figures in a moment but perhaps I might first of all say that I think this is a very important amendment in justice to many of the older people in our country, and I am particularly pleased that the Front Bench on this side of the House have added their support to it.
  The amendment seeks to raise the age allowance for people over 65—the special fixed allowance which gives them an additional slice of income over and above the rest of us which is exempt from tax. This allowance was introduced last year and we on this side of the House welcomed it very much, having pressed very hard for it in the previous year.
  The figures I have put into the amendment were not just plucked out of thin air. Equally, they were not born out of any kind of general good will towards the older part of the population or out of soft-heartedness, although I for one would not mind being charged with either

  683
  in relation to the over-65s. Nor is this an inexation amendment of the kind with which we have become fairly familiar in our debates on the Finance Bill over the past year or two.
  What the figures seek to do is remedy what is a clear injustice in the Budget proposals in so far as they affect retired people. I should like to take a moment or two to comment that it seems to me that one of the least remarked features of the Government's actions and some of the Government's financial, economic and social policy is the extent to which they have involved a number of what I would call confidence tricks on many retired people. Some of those have been carried out by neglect—for example, the failure to raise the extra slice of retired people's income which is exempt from the full rate of investment income surcharge. The failure to do anything about that at a time when prices are rising so fast means that the real burden on many old people has been increased.
  But some of those confidence tricks have been carried out by who I can only call, for want of a better phrase and without being too rude, sleight of hand. In the Chancellor's Budget speech, in his remarks about pensioners and retired people, the pensions increase was announced in terms that implied that it was an act of wholly unparalleled generosity. It was only when people started to look at the small print that they found that the formula for the pensions increase, far from containing any element of generosity, succeeded in not compensating old people for the rise in prices in the past for which they had every reason to expect to be compensated. I hope that the Government will pay a proper political price for that piece of what can only be regarded as cheating.
  But the Budget and the Finance Bill themselves contain another piece of action, or inaction, which in my view is closely parallel to that, and that is the feature which this amendment concerns. I am referring to the failure to increase the old-age allowance, that slice which is exempt from tax, by the same amount as the pension itself has been increased, because the effect of that undoubtedly will be to increase the tax on many retired people.
  684
  In these two respects, what was done over the pensions increase and what is proposed over the tax allowance increase, the Chancellor seems to me to have presented us with a new and rather discreditable version of the iron fist in the velvet glove. Lest anyone think I am exaggerating, I should like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the age allowance in his Budget speech:
  "I propose to increase the age allowance for single people by £ 60 to £ 1,010 and for married people by £ 130 to £ 1,555 and also to raise the ceiling for the allowance by £ 250 to € 3,250. These increased allowances will be substantially above the rates of retirement pension which will be payable after the up-rating in November, and this will enable old people to continue to supplement their pension without paying tax."—[0fficill Report. 6th April, 1976; Vol. 909, c. 274.]
  The only normal interpretation of these words and that paragraph would be that something generous was being done in respect of retired people. But in fact, because the tax allowance is going up by significantly less than the pension increase, many old people will pay additional tax.
  Let me just spell out the figures. A married couple's pension is going up by £3·30 per week, which on my arithmetic is £171 per year, but the age allowance is going up by only £130 per year. This means that on any additional earnings, any additional pension or any additional savings income which these old people have, there will be tax now falling on £40 that was previously untaxed.
  In the case of single people the figures are an increase in pension of £2 per week, making £104 per year, with an increase of only £60 in the tax exempt allowance. Again there is a sum of additional earnings, additional pension or additional savings income which will fall to be taxed and which would not otherwise have been taxed.
  The only purpose of my amendment is to raise these new proposed figures for the tax allowances by an amount which would mean that at least there would be no additional tax payable as a result of the proposed increase in the pension. That is, if anything, a very modest proposal, because of course it would do nothing whatever to give retired people over 65 any additional help in respect of extra earnings, extra pensions or extra

  685
  savings income at a time when many of them have been hard hit by inflation.
  Let me make one other thing clear, having made clear the basic purpose and figures of the amendment. The consequence of my amendment not being accepted will be that many retired people, far from getting a benefit from the tax proposals in this Budget, will pay additional tax. If they have any significant amount of additional earnings, any significant amount of savings income, any significant amount of additional pension over and above the national insurance pension, they will find themselves paying additional tax. It will be tax on these additional things, but to many of them it will appear to be a direct tax clawback from the pension increase which they have allegedly been given. That will be seen—rightly, I believe—as an act of meanness and ungenerosity on the part of the Chancellor.
  As an aside, I might observe that this problem will be even worse because of what the Government are proposing to do about the earnings rule and the quite disgraceful way in which they have said that it is the intention to go back on proposals accepted by this House last year for phasing out the earnings rule. We can do nothing about the earnings rule in this Bill, and of course my amendment will not resolve that problem, but it will at least help to avoid the problem being even worse in respect of those elderly and retired people who have earnings over and above their pensions. This is a modest amendment. It does nothing to improve the position of retired people, except in the sense that it seeks to prevent the Chancellor from taking additional tax from them.
  Let me say a few words about the cost of the amendment. I have not been able to carry out a calculation in detail, and no doubt the Financial Secretary will give the House the actual cost, which must be fairly substantial. However, I deduce from the figures given in the Budget speech that the Government's own proposals will cost about £70 million. Any additional cost arising from my amendment must be a good deal less than that, but will certainly be more than a few million.
  If the Financial Secretary wishes to argue about the cost, I shall seek to put two matters to him. First, when the
  686
  Chancellor in the Budget speech spoke about negotiations with the TUC on a pay deal, the Chancellor was prepared to leave himself about £700 million as room for a manoeuvre. That may be right or wrong, but I am saying that since the Chancellor can allow £700 million worth of leeway to deal with the TUC, surely he can allow less than a tenth of that amount of leeway in doing justice to retired people.
  The second point I wish to emphasise is that my proposal does not mean a tax reduction for old people, but aims only at preventing any increase in the tax demanded of older people. We have surely not reached a stage, whatever the economic situation, where we have to seek to deal with our problems by increasing taxation for the retired section of the community.
  If the Financial Secretary wants to know where we would look for additional revenue, he has only to look at the debate on VAT in the House on Tuesday, when we gave a clear indication where the Government can obtain additional revenue if they feel they need it.
  Let me say a word or two about the general background—and let us leave aside the consideration whether the figure should be £1 or £2 per week, because this amendment seeks to go to the heart of the matter. A growing number of retired people feel that they are being victimised because of the fact that they continue to put something back into the community by the work they undertake, merely because they saved while they were at work and did not go in for some of the consumption which they could have enjoyed. In other words, because they practised the virtues and put something back into the community, the benefits are now being taken away from them in tax.
  The consequences of people's willingness to save, invest and to seek social justice is becoming increasingly damaging. Therefore, it is necessary for this House to respond to the situation. This amendment seeks to help us to respond. It is a simple straightforward amendment which would increase the amount of tax exemption for the retired person. I am sure that the amendment will command' the support of the Committee.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I wish to support the hon. Member for

  687
  Braintree (Mr. Newton) in his cogent arguments on this amendment. I appreciate that the provisions of the amendment will cost a certain amount of money. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend's argument must win accord on all sides of the Committee. It is obvious that elderly people feel hard done by following the increase in inflation. It now appears that if those people—an addition to their modest means from a pension from, say, employment on the railways, a nationalised industry, or whatever it may be—carry out a little extra work to help industry and the nation's productivity, they are to be made to suffer a claw-back of that income.
  The Government can change the situation merely by accepting a proposal along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend The Member for Braintree. That will be greatly to the benefit of the people concerned and will bring a sense of justice to the Government's dealings with elderly people. Elderly people take the view that because they live alone and do not combine, they are attacked on every hand by bureaucracy. They are attacked because they seek to practise the virtues which used to be encouraged, and indeed still are. Those virtues involve thrift, hard work and responsibility, but are being grievously undermined by the principles put forward by the Chancellor. Those deficiencies could be remedied if the Government decided to accept this simple amendment.
  I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is to reply to 'he debate, is an honourable man. Therefore, I believe that he will see to it that this injustice is put right for the benefit of the older people in the nation. That means that the Government should accept the amendment.
  4.15 p.m
  Mr. John MacGregor: I warmly support the amendment and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on moving it so eloquently. I feel extremely strongly about the elderly citizen and his difficulties in the current state of the nation. Members of that group have suffered most from the ravages of inflation in the past two years and certainly deserve more consideration than they have up to now enjoyed.
  688
  I detect a growing sense of unhappiness, bitterness and resentment among those groups as they see what is happening to them compared with other groups. They believe that inflation has hurt them most, particularly in the past year. Undoubtedly inflation and rising prices have hit the elderly with a vengeance. Many of them can no longer afford to run a car. Therefore, they are forced to use public transport, and the great increases in rail fares in the past year have hit them particularly hard.
  Elderly people are especially vulnerable to increases in fuel prices because of the need for extra heat in the home, and so on. It is in that very area that charges have been highest in the past year. I understand why elderly people feel more and more resentment. They resent the fact that although they have taken no part whatever in the discussions on wage policy, not merely in the past year but in the past two years, they suffered the most as a result of the ravages of the social contract because it was that contract which led to an increase in the cost of living in the last two years. They had no part in the consultative process whatever.
  Elderly people also resent the fact that other groups in the community are benefiting from the present events much more than are the elderly. Some groups in the community have been awarded enormous wage increases. Certain groups of immigrants—and I make no comment on the justice of this issue—have been able to obtain substantial benefits by way of social security payments and in other ways in recent months. Therefore, the groups of people for whom I wish to speak in this debate feel that the savings which they built up for their retirement are being eroded and that many people in society receive more in one week than some retired people receive in one year.
  I know that there are arguments on both sides of the problem. However, it is true to say that the sense of injustice among retired people is increased when they see what is happening in individual cases. The Minister will remember the debates on Tuesday evening about the investment income surcharge. It is difficult to justify the present situation to one's constituents, who complain that having worked hard for a lifetime to build up enough capital on which to retire—a sum which they originally thought would

  689
  see them through—they now see their income being considerably undermined and are losing out to younger groups of people. They have had appallingly shabby treatment over the past few years and it is right that we should try to do something for them.
  I recognise that in last year's Finance Bill the Chancellor introduced a new benefit which was greatly welcomed. I hope that he will go a little further. In my constituency, an association has just been formed covering the whole of Norfolk. It is one of those little groups of outraged citizens which is formed from time to time and it is called the Association for the Fair Treatment of Senior Citizens. This was an involuntary gesture by some of those who no doubt felt particularly badly done by. When they planned a meeting in Norwich recently they had such a response from all over the country that they had to move from the hall they had chosen to the largest hall in the city, and they have since been actively working.
  Recently they made certain points to me, one of which I am sure has been made to hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House, that there should be no taxation of the State pension. I had to explain why, in the current situation, I could not accept that proposal, though I entirely understand their feelings. It is not a practical proposition at this time. We then talked of another matter on which there is a case to be made, about which we could do something in this debate—the position of the senior citizens at the upper end of the age scale, those over 70, or over 75, or whatever band one takes.
  It was for that reason that I put down Amendment No. 91 to which I should like to speak in conclusion. That Amendment seeks to increase the age allowance for the senior citizen over the age of 70. I do not regard 70 as a particularly magic figure. If the cost were too great the age could be 75 or any gradation between. Secondly, the figures I have put in the amendment are not figures to which I would like to hold in all circumstances. I simply added 20 per cent. to the existing age allowance in the present Finance Bill. One could take any figure in between, or a greater figure.
  The reason for the amendment must be clear: older senior citizens have much
  690
  heavier costs in many respects than those who have only recently retired. Many of their belongings, particularly clothes. shoes and so on, which they were able to have during the latter part of their working life, will have become shabby or worn out over the period, and they face extra costs because the older one gets, the greater one's requirement for extra heating, and there has been an enormous increase in the cost of heating and fuel over the past 12 months. They have greater need for medical treatment and other aids which in many cases cost heavily of their own money where supplementary benefit and other assistance does not meet the full cost. All this means that these groups have extra requirements.
  It was for that reason that I put down Amendment No. 91. I imagine, taking perhaps not the figures here but certain other figures, that it would be a much less expensive amendment than one applying to all senior citizens. I believe that my hon. Friend was entirely right to propose his amendment which I will most warmly support in the Lobby. I do not expect that my own amendment will be pressed today but the arguments for it are strong and I hope that the Financial Secretary will give consideration to some special treatment for that group.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on this valuable amendment which, in justice, ought to be passed by the Committee this afternoon. He drew attention to the fact that the pensioner had been tricked three times in this Budget, and how very true that is. Scores of times we have had to endure being told by hon. Members opposite, and Ministers, that they intended fully to protect pensioners against the rising cost of living, but the first time it is inconvenient for the Government to do so, the first time they have to face up to the promises they have given over two elections, they renege on it and go back on their word which they have given over and over again. That is the first trick.
  The second trick to which attention has rightly been drawn is the investment income surcharge, and we have the third trick shown in this amendment—the failure to raise the age allowance. This

  691
  cuts right across the Government's own policy. It is their policy to encourage individuals while working to accept a lower rate of pay and to put more aside, to get later a better occupational pension, or what will be a second State pension. But if they are to do that, why make it harder for them to get the benefit by failing to raise the age allowance in line with the higher basic pension to come in the autumn? That does not make sense.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, all those who are in receipt of a very small occupational pension of any kind will be paying more tax in the autumn than they would have been paying before this Budget. I sincerely hope the Government will think hard on some of the promises they gave before those two elections in 1974 and have given scores of times since—promises to protect pensions against the ravages of their policies and the highest inflation we have ever had in this country.
  Mr. John Nott: On a point of order, Mr. Irvine. I do not want to delay the Committee but perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and I hope that it might be for the convenience of the Government, if in debating this group of amendments we could also discuss the two groups of amendments starting with Amendments No. 49 and 58, so that we can go straight on and debate the first three groups now. I have checked this with my hon. Friends, and if that would be for the convenience of the Committee we would carry the debate straight through those three groups of amendments. I do not know whether this is procedurally possible but it would suit my hon. Friends and myself.
  The Deputy Chairman: Before I ask the Government's view I should point out that it is Amendment No. 56 in the third list, not Amendment No. 58.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I accept that the amendment is No. 56. I will certainly accept what the hon. Gentleman has suggested and am prepared to discuss the first three groups of amendments together.
  Mr. Newton: I have no personal objection although several of the other amendments are in my name, which would mean my speaking again. I understand that there is no problem about that but I wonder whether there are any means of making this procedure clear to other hon. Members around the House who may have studied the selection list. Unless they keep a very keen eye on the annunciator they may find that subjects in which they are interested have been debated without their even being aware of this change.
  Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) has made a very valuable point. In view of what he has said perhaps I should withdraw my suggestion. It was intended to be helpful but perhaps it would be better if we were to continue as we are.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it perhaps be possible to ring a bell four or five times and have put on to the board a notice which would make the position clear to everyone in the building?
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Without wishing to comment on these new ideas, I am happy to accept the revised view of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott).
  The Deputy Chairman: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. It would appear that we go back to square one.
  4.30 p.m.
  Sir John Eden: I should like briefly to support what my hon. and right hon. Friends have been saying on these amendments. I am sure that every hon. Member would like to do so although perhaps, as we shall see towards the conclusion of this debate, some will be required not to do so. However, in the spirit of a debate of this kind it is fair to say that all hon. Members recognise the strength of the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) in moving this amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Hon. Members will know from their own personal experience the types of hardship and difficulty with which elderly people in particular have to contend in times of high inflation. Some of these

  693
  difficulties have been described by my hon. Friends in their speeches and I will not attempt to add to them for that would merely delay the progress of the debate. I would, however, underline one point which I think every hon. Member, particularly those who speak for, or act on behalf of, the Government should have in mind. All too often in this House we tend to respond to pressure groups. We react to effectively mounted and organised lobbies and, obviously, those who are engaged in finding a way through the conflicting, and often competing, claims presented to them tend to pay greater heed to those which appear to have the stronger voice outside.
  From time to time we respond to the mass lobbies organised on behalf of old-age pensioners' organisations of various kinds and, shortly afterwards, there is an increase in the basic rate or some allowance. However, in this case, it is essential to bear in mind the needs and circumstances of the individual. The individual is more difficult to categorise in terms of a Finance Bill.
  I am thinking now of the large numbers of people who have made representations to me in my own constituency, which, as hon. Members know, rejoices in the fact that large numbers of people go there to retire. I have seen the way these people have been adversely affected by the advance of inflation and the persistent rise in prices of all the essential commodities on which they depend for their sustenance and livelihood. I have also seen the dispiriting effect on them of the fall in the purchasing power of their money. As my hon. Friends have said, those who put something aside to serve them in their old age find that it can no longer adequately meet their needs because the value of the currency has fallen to the point at which it is worth much less than it was when they saved it.
  This is having a damaging effect on the morale and even the health of the individual. This, in its turn, puts pressures on other public services which are ill equipped to meet such pressures. We have a national problem here, made up of a multiplicity of individual cases of hardship and distress, accentuated by the increase in inflation, which in turn has been precipitated and aggravated by the policies of this Government. Those people
  694
  who so often try to avoid having to turn to the State for help deserve some genuine and effective response from the Government. I see no benefit coming to the nation from continually making it more difficult for the individual to look after himself and then taking more from the taxpayer in order that the State can provide for the individual.
  This is an absurd and destructive policy, the pursuit of which has been the particular hallmark of Socialism, but which, I regret to say, has been practised by Governments of all complexions since the war. We must now seek to reverse that trend. The amendment gives us a chance to do so by making it possible for the individual to keep more of his own earnings and savings and to spend more of his own money in his own way, for his own needs, as he chooses. I hope that will be the result of the amendment.
  Obviously, an amendment of this kind involves further expenditure. It costs money in the sense that revenue is forgone. I do not know the order of magnitude of the proposal by my hon. Friend but no doubt the Minister will say what it would be. Perhaps it is about £50 million or £70 million but I do not know. In terms of one's own individual spending that may seem a large sum of money but, as my hon. Friend has said, there are obviously ways and means in which the Government can protect the revenue in a case such as this, particularly by following some of our advice on taxation, especially on indirect taxation and VAT.
  The cost in terms of revenue forgone is not a convincing argument for turning down this proposition. There is a case in equity here which well merits a sympathetic reception. I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication that he understands why we are putting it forward. I hope that he understands how disheartening and deeply worrying it is for individuals to go on seeing their hard-earned savings continually eroded by inflation. I hope that the Government will agree to take this practical, modest but realistic step, which would be of great benefit and encouragement to those we have in mind. For these reasons I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: I support Amendments Nos. 46 and 91. As an industrial journalist, I used to cover the annual conferences of the TUC and the Scottish TUC. A hardy annual on the agenda was a resolution about the need to increase old-age pensions in real terms. I hope that the Chancellor will discuss this subject with the TUC and the Scottish TUC. He seems to have discussed other things with them, and I hope that he will discuss this.
  We all have many retired constituents who write to us about this matter. Many people come to my lovely constituency to retire, as they do in that of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). We all know how inflation eats into increased pensions. We are not just talking about figures in this respect, but about real people. We are talking about human beings, not mindless statistics. We are talking about people who have saved and forgone consumption, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) has said. We are not talking about speculators and vast amounts of money.
  If I briefly refer to Scotland, I am not making a political point. However, it is well known that people in Scotland save a little more per capita and per pound earned than people south of the border. For this reason people in my country will be penalised relatively more heavily than their counterparts in England. This is another example of the poverty trap for old people.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the best things the Government could do to help elderly people is to abolish the earnings rule?
  Mr. Crawford: I agree entirely. That point makes it all the more important for the Minister to give us some figures. I doubt whether they will convince me that the amendment should be withdrawn, however. I doubt whether any figures could convince me or my party that the Treasury has a case for not accepting it.
  Mr. John Wakeham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on moving the amendment. Old people are still a minority group but a large and increas-
  696
  ing minority group and any proposal to give them further relief should be carefully considered, because it will cost money—and an increasing amount. Not only must we do justice; it must be seen to be done.
  In my constituency, there is a growing feeling that we are not treating our old people as well as we should. People recognise that this Government have increased pensions and given additional relief, but these measures have been substantially eroded by inflation. There is genuine concern. I notice that concern in the concessionary arrangements drawn up by those who are concerned about the welfare of old people. I see growing numbers of such arrangements and they are commendable, but I would much prefer schemes which allowed old people to retain more of their own savings. A further relief from tax is much the better answer.
  It is not only helping old people which is important but the way in which we help them. Many of them have enormous pride and wish to maintain their independence. It is perfectly acceptable to assist old people of limited means by giving them tax relief. There is no suggestion of charity about allowing someone to keep what he considers to be the income from his hard-earned savings during his lifetime.
  As this feeling of injustice grows, so the demands for more relief of this kind should be encouraged. If we do not do it today, the Committee will soon have to do something about this problem.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) said that he doubted whether any figures I gave would convince him that the amendment was not desirable. I know that the irresponsibility of Opposition shows itself occasionally, but the irresponsibility of the Scottish National Party, which is prepared to accept an amendment almost irrespective of the figures, goes further. Perhaps I could give the figures, nevertheless. Hon. Members may not think that they are very large—that depends on how they view these matters. The cost is £28 million.
  As the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir J. Eden) said, Governments are always responsive to pressure groups and prepared to learn from their

  697
  arguments. But that means that there is a further responsibility on the Government to achieve equity among the demands placed upon the resources that they must control.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Crawford: I am grateful for the figure of £28 million. That is less than the equivalent of four days' revenue from Scottish oil, or almost nothing.
  Mr. Sheldon: I know that the hon. Member thinks of North Sea oil as an endless gusher which will fill our pockets with liquid gold for ever and ever. But that is not an opinion I share. When the oil becomes attenuated through use, he may share my opinion. A country's wealth increases in geometric proportion year by year. The wealth from oil is a steady flow; it will reach its maximum and thereafter diminish. If the hon. Member compares the one with the other, he may learn that it is unwise to stake all one's future on that argument.
  As always, I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) with great interest, because I know the amount of work that he puts into them, but I was sorry to hear him use excessive language about "confidence tricks" and velvet fists in iron gloves. At a time of economic difficulty, the Chancellor raised the age allowance in a way which could not have been taken for granted. I am sure that some Chancellors, faced with the problems of this year, would have been less forthcoming.
  I would take issue with the hon. Member on his statement that the purpose of the amendment is to raise the age allowance so that no additional tax becomes payable. So far as we are all anxious to assist old people with the problems that the hon. Gentleman outlined so well, we would all have the same end in view, if it could be achieved. But part of the problem is the increase in the retirement pension.
  It is precisely because one increases the retirement pension that one frequently increases the tax payable on a person's total income. That should never be used as an argument for not increasing the pension when it is clearly right to do so. If it were to become possible to increase the pension at some stage by much more than the amount by which in fact it has been increased, the argument could be
  698
  used against that proposal that the amount of tax payable would be even greater. That is a modest, and for those affected an acceptable, price to pay for trying to help them as best we can.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out the possible leeway in the agreement with the TUC for making money available for tax allowances in other ways. But there are many claims on Government resources. The hon. Member himself has put down amendments suggesting alternative uses for any such money. I welcome his interest and the information he gives, but I am taken by the argument of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), which was also used by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West—that the severest problems facing the old have arisen in dealing with inflation.
  Inflation for those with little opportunity for increasing their income in the years to come in the ways open to younger people present particular problems—not just in financing their requirements but in the increasing uncertainties and anxieties which this must cause them. We all know of many such people who have made sensible provision, in some cases generous provision, for their old age and who have found their resources inadequate because of inflation.
  That brings me back to the main argument. The best way to assist not only the economy but those people particularly is by reducing the rate of inflation to the levels which we regarded as acceptable and for which such prudent people made their arrangements. It was laid down unconditionally in the legislation that the age allowance should be increased from £950 to £1,010 for a single person and from £1,425 to £1,555 for the married couple—an increase of £60 for the single person and £130 for the married couple. The incomes ceiling has been increased from £3,000 to £3,250 and the benefit of the age allowance is now to be fully withdrawn only at levels of £3,662 for the single person and £3,955 for the married couple. Those increases are unconditional. Those changes, together with the increase in the retirement pension, have shown that our commitment to assist old people remains undiluted.
  Whereas the retirement pensions help all pensioners, including those with substantial investment incomes, the age

  699
  allowance affects only certain people. They all obtain benefit from the retirement pension and we have continued our commitment to improve pensions in line with earnings.
  I do not want to repeat the argument that there have been three increases while the Labour Government have been in office, or to state the percentage increases since February 1975. But as a result, an increase in funds has rightly gone to these people. The threshold for the elderly, as a result of unconditional tax changes, now stands at 37 per cent. higher than that of the single person of working age and 43 per cent. higher than that for a married couple. That shows how matters which have been brought to the attention of the House have been understood. Changes have not gone as far as some hon. Members wish, but I reckon to learn something from such debates. They are not the least valuable of our debates and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's actions show that he listens to arguments, even if they are not fully accepted.
  Mr. MacGregor: Can the Minister explain the principle behind the proposition that pensioners above a certain age should not get extra relief for the reasons which I have suggested? I am not suggesting that the actual figures in the amendment should be accepted because I accept that they might be too costly.
  Mr. Sheldon: I was about to come to that issue but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) for reminding me about it. He dealt with the case for a variety of gradations based on age. It is an interesting proposition which is aired from time to time but it is rarely explained so adequately. I listened to his speech with interest. I had to master a new idea when I first saw the amendment on the Order Paper. Perhaps I gave it more reflection after seeing his name attached to it. But I could not help thinking of the wide variety of the circumstances of the people concerned. There are a number of other instances where gradation might be thought necessary but the tax system is not a sufficiently precise instrument to use in this way. That is a personal view.
  700
  If we are to refine much more the ways in which certain sections of our population are accorded an income greater than they would otherwise receive, it would be better to use the greater precision available to the Department of Health and Social Security rather than the tax system. The tax system can never deal with the multiplicity of cases that are dealt with by the Department of Health and Social Security. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels doubt about that argument. But he will recall the tax credit system, which is relevant. It confuses the need of the person and the means of the person. It is difficult to achieve the right relationship between the two.
  If graduation proved to be desirable, although I am not even certain about that despite the arguments, it would be better to use Social Security. There are many instances of fit and active 75-year-olds and sick and ailing 68-year-olds. The subject has been given a useful airing and perhaps we can return to it again.
  Mr. David Howell: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has returned to the arguments which both he and his predecessors have used before. The are, broadly, that they do not think that the tax system is useful for meeting the needs and problems about which we have been hearing so eloquently from my hon. Friend's. The Financial Secretary said that the "greater precision" of the Department of Health and Social Security was required.
  That view, which never had any validity, is now completely out of date. It has been made out of date by the interaction of high taxation policies followed by high public expenditure combined with the high inflation rates of the last 18 months. The net effect is that we are now faced with such a preposterous overlapping between income tax and social security benefits that no amount of emphasis on the Department of Health and Social Security and appeals about the greater precision of that Department will begin to untangle the mess.
  We have reached the stage—and it does not arise directly in the case of the elderly although they receive the backwash—where a man on about £32 a week has to pay over £2 a week in national insurance contributions and over £2 a week in

  701
  income tax. That shows more clearly than any statistics—and we have heard some bizarre statistics—how far the tangle between income tax and benefits has gone.
  There has been a modest increase in the age allowance but it has not kept pace with pensions. That means that anyone with a small savings income which takes him into the levels over the age allowance is paying a tax which results from the deeply prejudiced and old-fashioned attitude of the Treasury to investment income. The income from savings takes them into the surcharge level as well, the additional level of 10 per cent. above £30 a week of investment income, raising the marginal rate to 45 per cent., and the level of 20 per cent., raising the marginal rate to 50p in every pound above the £40 a week of investment income for the elderly person. When one considers the bands with which we are dealing, one finds it extraordinary that these levels of tax should be permitted to bite on such people with these levels of income.
  5.0 p.m.
  One often feels that Treasury Ministers and many Labour Members below the Gangway are still living in a world in which £2,000 a year and this even comes over sometimes in the way in which "£2,000 a year" is said by Labour Members—is a lot of money. It is £40 a week. That is considered a very modest wage indeed. It is well below two-thirds of the average weekly wage. Here the Government are proposing these very high levels of tax, and because of the failure of the age allowance to rise by the full amount to compensate for inflation or to keep pace with pensions, levels of tax are beginning to bite only a little above pension level. This situation must be corrected.
  Treasury Ministers have said—we shall hear much more of this in the coming debates—that to correct this requires such a vast lifting of the tax thresholds all along the line that it cannot be done. They do not go on specifically to say why it cannot be done, but there are two reasons in their minds. The first—which is a very proper reason in a sense—is that they already owe all the money elsewhere. There are not the funds available to make the colossal increase in tax thresholds that is required. We are talk-
  702
  ing not merely about the £700 million for the TUC deal. We are talking about much more substantial sums.
  The Government do not have the money because they have spent it or owe it elsewhere. Why do they owe it elsewhere? It is because public expenditure is still being kept at astronomically high levels, with large increases being built into the system for the coming year. It is part of the Government's general balance, attitude and posture towards the deal with the trade unions.
  The other line of thought in their minds is also a cul-de-sac, ending in the same place. They cannot raise thresholds because they cannot shift tax on to indirect taxation. Why can they not do that? They cannot do that because they are nervous of raising VAT, as they said in the debates on VAT. Why can they not raise VAT? They cannot do that because they would upset the Retail Price Index, which would upset the General Council of the TUC, and that, in turn, would imperil the delicate balance that has been achieved on the deal.
  Therefore, one way and another, the Government, by their decision not to cut public expenditure, their reluctance to make major shifts in the tax system necessary to raise the thresholds, and the whole attitude to the place of the deal in the counter-inflation strategy, have locked themselves into a strongly built room, turned the key in the door and thrown away that key. This leaves them in a situation in which they cannot even compensate with the necessary amount for the aged and lift the allowances in the way that we suggest. Also, as we learned on Tuesday, they are still prepared to countenance a situation in which—it is hardly credible—they will administer a 50 per cent. tax rate on an elderly lady with £40 a week of investment income on top of her pension.
  That is an incredible situation. It is a very heavy price to pay for the posture that the Government have taken up on their broad economic strategy. It is, of course, only one of the many prices which are now beginning to appear on the invoice as it rolls out of the machine and we see more and more items as being necessary to throw into the balance to secure the deal.

  703
  For that reason, I suggest to my hon. Friends that, as in other areas in which we think that the price is unfair, too heavy and unnecessary, we should express our view on this matter by pressing the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Newton: It is always tempting not to reply to the Financial Secretary's endearing flatteries with which he tries to disguise the fact that he has said "No" to what we are proposing. However, I want to make one or two comments as the Member who moved the amendment.
  First, the Financial Secretary suggested that I had used rather strong language. That is a matter of judgment. I can only say that in the autumn, when some of those who will be affected by this proposal discover what is happening to them, the language used in the country will be a great deal stronger than any that I have used here today.
  Secondly, I had made a private guess that the cost would be about £30 million. I was not confident of that guess even to put it forward publicly. However, I am interested to see that the cost turns out to be £28 million. I do not want to spend much time arguing about that, but I have two observations to make. First, that sum is significantly less than the sum that the Government are proposing to spend on abolishing paybeds. Secondly, it is significantly less than what has been tossed away since the Budget on going back on the proposals for school meal charges.
  We need not talk about the £700 million in the Budget leeway for dealing with the trade unions, or the £35 million that has suddenly been plucked out of the desperately tight financial situation in the few weeks since the Budget, to find that when it came to doing a deal with the TUC the Government were in no difficulty about finding another £30 million or £40 million. However, when it comes to fundamental fairness to the retired population, we are told that the country's finances would sink through the floor if something were done.
  704
  Whatever may be said about the tax position of pensions, which we all know are taxable, it has been understood for many years that in practice the tax allowances have invariably—if not invariably, almost invariably been increased in a way that ensures that pensions increases do not necessitate an increase of tax. There has now been a departure from that policy, which is wrong. It will cause great resentment in the country that there has been this departure.
  I pick up something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). We have heard from the Financial Secretary, in debate after debate, about the extent to which he believes that it is better to do these things through the social security system rather than the tax system. Let me tell the Government that people do not regard social security benefits as being the same thing as tax reliefs. They regard a tax relief as allowing them to keep more of their own money, which they have in some way earned or for which they have qualified by their own efforts.
  Believe it or not, and rightly or wrongly, there are still large numbers of people who think that they are entitled to keep more of their own money through the tax system and who feel almost affronted—I am not arguing about whether they are right, but many feel like this—if they are told that what they should do is to claim money in the form of supplementary benefit or social security benefit. They resent that—especially when they feel that if only they were allowed to keep more of their own money they would not need to do that.
  I do not want to argue the morality of this, but that is the social reality of how people feel. The Government should take full account of that. I hope that we shall not hear much more of the Government's argument on the subject, because it does not correspond with people's feelings.
  I am delighted with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. I hope that my right hon. and

  705
  hon. Friends, other Opposition Members and, indeed, Labour Members will come into the Lobby with me to vote for the amendment.
  Question put, That the amemdment be made:—
  The committee divided: Ayes 148, Noes 153.

  Division No. 135.

  AYES

  5.10 p.m.

  Arnold, Tom.

  Hampson, Dr. Keith.

  Penhaligon, David.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret.

  Hastings, Stephen.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Baker, Kenneth.

  Henderson, Douglas.

  Raison, Timothy.

  Banks, Robert.

  Hooson, Emyln.

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hordern, Peter.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey.

  Reid, George.

  Benyon, W.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Berry, Hon Anthony.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas.

  Biffen, John.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Biggs-Davison, John.

  Hurd, Douglas.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Body, Richard.

  Jessel, Toby.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Peter.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith.

  Sainsbury, Tim.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Kilfedder, James.

  Scott, Nicholas.

  Braine, Sir Bernard.

  Knight, Mrs Jill.

  Shersby, Michael.

  Brittan, Leon.

  Knox, David.

  Silvester, Fred.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Lamont, Norman.

  Sims, Roger.

  Budges, Nick.

  Lane, David.

  Sinclair, Sir George.

  Burden, F. A.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Speed, Keith.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lawrence, Ivan.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Lawson, Nigel.

  Stanbrook, Ivor.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Clegg, Walter.

  Loveridge, John.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Cockcroft, John.

  Loyden, Eddie.

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Cope, John.

  Luce, Richard.

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John.

  Costain, A. P.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Crawford, Douglas.

  MacCormick, Iain.

  Tapsell, Peter.

  Crowder, F. P.

  MacGregor, John.

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Thompson, George.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey.

  Mates, Michael.

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John.

  Maude, Angus.

  Tugendhat, Christopher.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Emery, Peter.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony.

  Wakeham, John.

  Farr, John.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fell, Anthony.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey.

  Moate, Roger.

  Walters, Dennis.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Weatherill, Bernard.

  Fookes, Miss Janet.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Welsh, Andrew.

  Forman, Nigel.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wiggin, Jerry.

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Neave, Airey.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Freud, Clement.

  Nelson, Anthony.

  Winterton, Nicholas.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Newton, Tony.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Nott. John.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Onslow, Cranley.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grylls, Michael.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Hall, Sir John.

  Pardoe, John.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Parkinson, Cecil.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo.

  Cronin, John.

  Flannery, Martin.

  Anderson, Donald.

  Cryer,Bob.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Armstrong, Ernest.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael.

  Atkinson, Norman.

  Davidson, Arthur.

  Ford, Ben.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davies, Derzil (Llanelli)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  George, Bruce.

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood.

  Deakins, Eric.

  Gilbert, Dr John.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Ginsburg, David.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Golding, John.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce.

  Gould, Bryan.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Graham, Ted.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Dunn, James A.

  Grocott, Bruce.

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunnett, Jack.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Cartwright, John.

  Edge, Geoff.

  Hardy, Peter.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Harper, Joseph.

  Clemitson, Ivor.

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.

  English, Michael.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis.

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen.

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Hooley, Frank.

  Corbett, Robin.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Horam, John.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Faulds, Andrew.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Marquand, David.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Maynard, Miss Joan.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Janner, Greville.

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert.

  Silverman, Julius.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas.

  Mendelson, John.

  Small, William.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Snape, Peter.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Spearing, Nigel.

  John, Brynmor.

  Molloy, William.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Moonman, Eric.

  Stoddart, David.

  Judd, Frank.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Kelley, Richard.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert.

  Newens, Stanley.

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Kinnock, Neil.

  Noble, Mike.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lamborn, Harry.

  O'Halloran, Michael.

  Tinn, James.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ovenden, John.

  Tomney, Frank.

  Leadbitter, Ted.

  Owen, Dr David.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lever, Flt Hon Harold.

  Palmer, Arthur.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lipton, Marcus.

  Park, George.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Litterick, Tom.

  Pavitt, Laurie.

  Ward, Michael.

  Loyden, Eddie.

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred.

  Weitzman, David.

  Luard, Evan.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Radice, Giles.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Richardson, Miss Jo.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  McCartney, Hugh.

  Robinson, Geoffrey.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Macfarquhar, Roderick.

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rooker, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McNamara, Kevin.

  Roper, John.

  Madden, Max.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Magee, Bryan.

  Sandelson, Neville.

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Sedgemore, Brian.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Marks, Kenneth.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  The Deputy Chairman: Before I call the next amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I mention that Amendment No. 88 will be grouped with Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 93.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 15, line 11, leave out '£365' and insert '£395'.
  The Deputy Chairman: With this it is proposed to take the following amendments:
  No. 50, in page 15, line 11, leave out '£365' and insert '£433'
  No. 51, in page 15, line 13, leave out '£335' and insert '£365'
  No. 52, in page 15, line 13, leave out '£335' and insert '£384'
  No. 53, in page 15, line 15, leave out '£300' and insert '£330'
  No. 54, in page 15, line 15, leave out '£300' and insert £327'.
  Mr. Dodsworth: The amendment refers to the child allowance and seeks to increase the increased figure contained in Clause 26(2)(a). The associated amendments have a similar effect.
  I draw to the Committee's attention an important section of the community, namely, the families who have been incurring particular expense and suffering from
  708
  inflation and from the problems of incomes policies. As an individual, I felt that the proposal for some agreement on incomes was a desirable move and of benefit to the community, but I notice that there has been a change in the terms of the deal that was proposed at the time of the Budget Statement. If there can be a change of one sort there can be a change of another.
  The proposals contained in the clause would increase the child allowances in the three different categories by £60. My proposal is for a further increase of £30, making a total increase of £90. That seems to be entirely consistent with a pay proposal of 3 per cent., which in the event, is likely to be 4½ per cent. We were assured that the pay proposal was a conditional arrangement. That meant that it is open to change. The amendment proposes a change that we should make in the interests of all wage and salary earners.
  The change in differentials that the Minister was kind enough to draw to our attention in the debate earlier this week illustrates the point very well. He referred to the differential between average earnings net and top earners net as a ratio of 3·88:1. We should seize the opportunity to improve some of the differentials, in the interests of all taxpayers and especially in the interests of those who were not included in the pay negotiations. At least half the wage and salary earners

  709
  were not included. Their interests should be taken into account. That can usefully he done by improving their net tax situation.
  We do not have a very happy child allowance record. In 1963–64 the allowance for a child under the age of 11 was £115. It has been increased slowly and reluctantly, in steps of £40. It remained static for eight years under various forms of Labour tutelage until it was increased in 1971–72, to £155. It was increased again in 1973–74, to £200. The last increase was to £240. That in no way reflects the increased costs that the ordinary family has had to bear in bringing up young children at a time of income difficulties.
  The amendment proposes a form of justice that we should propose and maintain. It also assists me in drawing attention to another anomaly that has not been rectified and which, I believe, is much worse. We find that there has been no change—and no change is proposed—since 1963–64, to the income limits which are applied to child allowances. The income limit is £115.
  This is a ludicrous situation. In these inflationary times it is a simple matter for young people over the age of 16 to earn over £115 when they take on temporary jobs. They can be in full-time education beyond the age of 18 and in command of their own affairs and existence, earning money outside parental authority and control, but there is a limitation on the tax allowance that is made available to the parent because of the incomes limit. In these inflationary times there is a need to review the incomes limits on a number of fronts.
  Sir George Young: The Financial Secretary may be alarmed to see members of the Opposition social security team poaching on the Finance Committee, but we have a vital interest in Clause 26, because it relates to child tax allowances. Next year the allowances are to be phased out and replaced by child benefit.
  I shall speak particularly to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, which deal with the tax allowances for a child not over the age of 11. We understand that these allowances are to be phased out entirely in April of next year, to be replaced by the new child benefit, whereas the other allow-
  710
  ances may be retained as residual allowances to reflect the extra costs of children over 11.
  I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth). The value of the allowances has been eroded over the past 10 years. Next year we shall establish a base level for future debates on family poverty. If the base level established next year is merely the level of the child allowances that are fixed this year, we shall be starting off on entirely the wrong footing. If that is done we shall not have restored the value of the tax allowances for children which were established about 10 years ago.
  This debate is taking place in a vacuum, because neither the Treasury nor the Department of Health and Social Security will tell us what is to be the level of child benefits next year. This is a matter of enormous concern to families throughout the country, because the benefit will replace not only the tax allowances but family allowances. There has been recent Press speculation that the child benefit will be fixed at the level of £2·50, which will involve the Treasury in a small extra cost. If that is to be the level, it appears that many families with children will be. substantially worse off, £2·50 in no way restoring the value of the existing tax allowance and the family allowance combined.
  5.30 p.m.
  We should like an assurance from the Treasury that if the child benefit scheme is to be the means for tackling family poverty, the burden will be borne equally by all taxpayers, not just those who have children. This is an important matter of principle on which we should like some reassurance.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will assure us that the erosion in the value of the tax allowances, to which my hon. Friend referred will be restored—if not this year, at least next year—so that families which have been discriminated against over the past 10 years may receive the justice to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I entirely support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I hope that in his reply the Financial Secretary will put his explanations of the level of child

  711
  allowances fixed by this year's Finance Bill in the context of the changeover to Child Benefits expected from the Government in April next year.
  The Government have committed themselves to phasing out child tax allowances by April 1977 and replacing both tax allowances and family allowances by the new system of child benefit. That declaration by the Government might indicate some clear policy on their part about the financial problems of families and the future of assistance to working families. But the lack of information and clarity on how they propose to set about introducing the new system indicates to me that they have no such clear policy. I suspect that this year's changes in the tax allowances are a small holding operation, as it were, while they contemplate how to get the new child benefit scheme into action by April 1977.
  The Child Benefit Act is outside the scope of this debate. When the Bill went through the House, we expected it to be followed by changes in this year's Finance Bill which would make clear the future of child tax allowances—whether child tax allowances for children under 11 were to be phased out entirely and what residual tax allowances would remain for older children. We hoped to have some important policy decision on the future of child benefits or tax allowances, whatever we have after April next year, for instance, in the case of a child living abroad whose parents are resident in this country.
  I base what I say about the expectation that this year's Finance Bill would shed some light on the Government's policy and intentions after April next year on what was said by the then Minister of State in proceedings on the Child Benefit Bill. The Minister tried to reassure the Opposition that there was plenty of time for full information to be given about the details of the new scheme regarding future support for families. He said:
  "It is nearly two years before the child benefit scheme comes into operation in April 1977. Therefore, there is ample time for this matter to be examined in detail. The Bill is not a rigid instrument and there is considerable flexibility to operate through regulations. The legislation affecting child tax allowances will not come before the House until next year's Finance Bill."—[Official Report, 7th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 262.]
  712
  The Minister of State was referring to this Bill. It was expected that features in this Bill would make clear the future of child tax allowances. But there are no such provisions in the Bill, and the Government do not seem disposed to take matters much further now.
  I have raised this matter today because my attempts to get it clarified by Questions to the Department of Health and Social Security have got me nowhere. I received a Written Answer today from the Secretary of State in reply to a Question asking when these legislative changes might come, in view of previous assurances that they would come in this year's Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have nothing to add to earlier statements."
  There have been no earlier statements to which I understand that to have any reference. The only statement was by the Minister of State who said that there would be provisions in this year's Finance Bill. There are no provisions. Decisions are delayed. There has been no announcement about the future of child tax allowances or the position of child benefits.
  There have been leaks—probably well-informed leaks—in the Press. Certainly the social services correspondent of The Times seems consistently to know more about the Government's intentions than Members of Parliament do. The leaks indicate that the Government are locked in conflict about what to do regarding the future of child tax allowances and child benefits.
  If, following this Finance Bill, next year's child benefits are introduced at nil cost to the Treasury—that is, using the same level of public expenditure as on the present family allowances and the present child tax allowances—the level of child benefits next year will have to be set at £ 2·34 for each child, including the first. The Times indicates that £2·50 is being contemplated, and that has been supported by a later leak in The Guardian.
  As the Minister will know—I hope that he will acknowledge this in reply—such a figure would be totally inadequate if that were the only change that the Government proposed to make. I say that for two reasons. First, such a figure

  713
  would mean that standard rate taxpayers with more than two children would be worse off than they are under present arrangements. Secondly, standard rate taxpayers with families would have to bear the entire cost of giving additional support to lower income families and to families with fewer than two children. That is clearly unsatisfactory. Leaks are the best information that we have so far. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to dispel those leaks or to make clearer what the Government have in mind.
  These are important matters. It is pointless having a short debate on child tax allowances without some indication where they fit into the Government's strategy. If, as I suspect, the Government have no strategy regarding family poverty and do not know what to do about child benefits, I hope that the Financial Secretary will acknowledge that situation. This debate will then have served as a suitable vehicle to make the Government get a move on and to reach clear decisions which must be reached in a short space of time.
  Mrs. Bain: Like the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I served on the Child Benefit Bill Committee. I am greatly concerned that the Government have not clarified their overall policy and attitude towards a major question—the poverty trap.
  The Scottish National Party is deeply concerned because of the high level of poverty in Scotland. We want the poverty trap to be eradicated. The West of Scotland has 97·5 per cent. of the worst areas of multiple deprivation. We are keen to support measures which will give people there a reasonable standard of living and rid us of the heritage that we have had for so long.
  The amendment goes part of the way to achieving that aim, because it offsets rising costs and inflation. We should bear in mind that children are now staying on at school after the statutory school-leaving age. We support the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the amendment. I should declare that I am perhaps slightly in advance of the Conservative Party in arguing that the child tax allowance should be raised by
  714
  not just £60 or £90, but £430. Doing that for the first child would have the effect of bringing all families with working parents up to the level of the FIS allowance.
  In the pamphlet "The New Corporate Interest" issued by the Child Poverty Action Group, using pre-Budget figures, we see how the tax threshold for families with a member of the household at work compares with the FIS entitlement. If the Government take seriously the problem of child benefit and child poverty and the balance between people on supplementary and State benefits and income from work, they must tell us why they are not taking this form of action now.
  Earlier today I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the relationship between the cost to the Government of a rise in State sector pay, which does not take account of a person's family responsibilities. I received an answer that showed that the Government appear not to have acknowledged this matter in public. If they acknowledged in public what the situation now is. they would no doubt fear an uprising or a division in the country which would make it difficult for them ever to be elected again. If any political party had stood up two years ago and said that it was going to reduce the value of the child tax allowance and the age-related allowance in pensions, certainly it would not have been elected.
  In the last General Election all the major political parties, including the five or six represented in the House at the moment, talked about raising the level of child benefits, tax credits, child benefits, or interim benefits. This has not happened. The Government have a great deal of explaining to do. Just to have inflationary pay increases, without any regard to family responsibilities is continuing a system, which we have had for the past six years, of re-distributing resources away from people with children to those without them.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I thought that the debate started off on a very good note when the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) said he welcomed the incomes deal. In view of the reluctance of so many right hon. Members on his Front Bench to give that degree of welcome to the deal, I thought

  715
  that the debate had started well. However, my agreement with the hon. Member did not last long.
  The hon. Member then pointed out that there could be some change in the terms, and one of the changes he wanted to see was in child tax allowances. He went on about the income limit of the child, but as there is an amendment on this matter later, I shall wait until then to deal with it.
  The hon. Member for Ealing. Acton (Sir George Young) pointed out that we have one or two Members of the social security team of the Opposition present, and this is not unnatural in such a debate.
  I was asked about the general intention of the Government for future tax allowances and the child benefit scheme. Clearly I am not able to assess these tax allowances, which will not be decided on until next year and will not be coming into force next year, so I must be excused from making any estimates. The allowances will depend on a whole number of factors, many of which will not be known for some time yet. I urge the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to curb his impatience.
  Mrs. Bain: I am a member of the social security team of my party. There are many of us who are concerned that there should not be a repetition of the situation which we had on interim family benefit with one-parent families when the parents were not, in fact, benefiting.
  Mr. Sheldon: I urge the hon. Lady to be patient. Her patience will be rewarded. However, I note that she and her party have insatiable appetites, and I do not believe that any Government, even one formed by her party, would be able to satisfy them.
  Mr. Crawford: A Scottish one would.
  Mr. Sheldon: I note the dreams of the hon. Gentleman. They are always refreshing, particularly in a Committee which consists of a fair but limited number of realists. I take note of his observation.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the Financial Secretary appears to be saying that the timetable has slipped somewhat compared with last year and therefore he cannot help us today, would he confirm
  716
  that there is still adequate time to legislate in next year's Finance Bill about the future of child tax allowances to enable the Government to bring in child benefits by April 1977? Will the delay lead to the introduction of child benefits being put back?
  Mr. Sheldon: There is no question of child tax allowances not coming into force in the Finance Bill. This timing is a common feature of our Finance Bills when we legislate for the introduction or changes of child tax allowances.
  In these child tax allowances there has been a substantial increase of £60 on all the rates. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), did not speak to his amendment, which had a consequence of varying the relationship between the various age groups, and the tax relief of the age groups of such children.
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: Since the Financial Secretary has mentioned my amendment, I point out that his Government have changed the relationship. The Minister will see it he does his calculations that this amendment increases the various child allowances by the rate of inflation which has occurred since April 1973, when we had the last Conservative Budget. The amount by which child allowances in this year's Budget fall short is the amount by which the Government have cheated—perhaps that is too strong a word—or deprived the children as a result of inflation.
  Mr. Sheldon: That surely begs the question why it was an ideal arrangement in April 1973. Since the hon. Member has put a date of this kind on it, one must infer that he believes that there was a state of, if not perfection, something much more in accordance with his taste in the relationships between the rates.
  Mr. MacGregor: Will the Financial Secretary acknowledge that one of the reasons for doing this is that older children are rather more expensive to keep and look after than younger children? The same applies to older senior citizens.
  Mr. Sheldon: That is what I thought was the intention of the amendment. The arbitrary date is a rather less important reason than the more fundamental one

  717
  put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)
  In these matters I find it very difficult to lay certain guidelines as to why these children at certain ages should receive more in the way outlined in the amendment. Social conditions have changed very considerably in the past dozen or so years. One big change has been the increase in the number of women working, even those who have quite young children.
  It seems to me—and I am not an expert in social security matters—that the biggest drop in income arises when the mother leaves her employment and not only loses her income but increases her responsibility and expense on the birth of her first child. For a long time this has not been considered as a matter worthy of support in any way. Those parents who both work—and when the children are older, both work full time—are not necessarily the most difficult cases. There is less justification in some of these cases for an increase because of their parental circumstances and the advantages in having two incomes.
  I certainly do not have enough knowledge of this problem to attempt to say what should be done with any degree of finality. When we are talking about tax allowances, we must bear in mind that we are looking at these problems in a very superficial way. This is one of the arguments which can be made about the problem of tax allowances—so many of the changes appear to be hit and miss affairs.
  Mr. David Price: Does the Financial Secretary admit that one of the great advantages of the tax credit scheme is that it gets nearer than the present system to being less hit and miss and to solving some of the difficulties bothering him?
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member makes a point about tax credits, but that system has disadvantages. The social security system in general—and I am constantly being upbraided by Conservatives about it—is able to produce the much greater precision which is required and which is missing from the hit and miss affair which is involved in income tax allowances.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister is deploying a very difficult argument when he appeals to the assumed
  718
  higher family income when the children are older. Here we are considering the admittedly rough and ready flat-rate tax allowance which theoretically takes account in the broadest possible way of costs and which is based on the assumption of rising costs. It seems to me illogical to invoke into that argument an assumption of rising income, for the essence of a tax allowance is that it is to meet, however crudely, the expenditure which the taxpayer must surmount before he can enjoy his income. We shall be in great confusion in considering the tax system if whenever we are talking about tax allowances we start invoking considerations relating to income itself.
  Mr. Sheldon: I understand the purist nature of that argument perfectly well, but ultimately what matters is not the purity of the argument but how much money people have in their pockets and how that sum accords with justice. If the right hon. Member is seeking to import into this discussion fundamental differences of principle, so be it. My arguments relate to the amount of money which finds its way into people's pockets, and how that money relates to their needs.
  Mr. Lawson: It is the Financial Secretary who is importing a whole new principle into the argument. What does he believe, on the basis of his principle, should he the allowances for these three age groups? Clearly, the allowances which the Government are proposing—£365 for the child over 16, £335 for the child aged 11 to 16, and £300 for the child under 11—cannot possibly follow from the principles he has enunciated.
  Mr. Sheldon: Our present child allowances do not take into account the problems which would arise if we were to go along the way suggested by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South. The hon. Member for Blaby put his name to the same amendment, but for entirely different reasons. His reasons are that there existed at some time in the past a basis which was right and proper and from which everything else must follow. That is not much of a principle. The principle advanced by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South had something to commend it, and I have tried to point out some of the difficulties and obstacles.
  In these child tax allowances we have tried to concentrate help on the families

  719
  with children by including them in the non-conditional part of the Budget package. That, together with the increases in the family allowances undertaken last year, has brought about an improvement in their position over what it would otherwise have been. It should be accepted in these difficult circumstances as showing that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has undertaken

  Division No.136.1

  AYES

  [5.57p.m.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Kilfedder, James.

  Thompson, George.

  Fell. Anthony.

  MacCormick, Iain.

  Welsh, Andrew.

  Fookes, Miss Janet.

  Pardoe, John.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Freud, Clement.

  Penhaligon, David.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Reid, George.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henderson, Douglas.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mrs. Margaret Bain

  Hooson, Emyln.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  and Mr. Douglas Crawford.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo.

  Golding, John.

  Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Anderson, Donald.

  Gould, Bryan.

  MuIley, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Armstrong, Ernest.

  Graham, Ted.

  Newens, Stanley.

  Atkinson, Norman.

  Grocott, Bruce.

  Noble, Mike.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hardy, Peter.

  O'Halloran, Michael.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ovenden, John.

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene.

  Palmer, Arthur.

  Bates, Alf.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis.

  Park, George.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur.

  Hooley, Frank.

  Pavitt, Laurie.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert.

  Horam, John.

  Pearl. Rt Hon Fred.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Radice, Giles.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Richardson, Miss Jo.

  Cant, R. B.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Robinson, Geoffrey.

  Cartwright, John.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara.

  Janner, Greville.

  Roper. John.

  Clemitson, Ivor.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sandelson, Neville.

  Coleman, Donald.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Sedgemore, Brian.

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen.

  John, Brynmor.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Corbett, Robin.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Judd, Frank.

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Cryer,Bob.

  Kelley, Richard.

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davidson, Arthur.

  Kinnock, Neil.

  Silverman, Julius.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamborn, Harry.

  Small, William.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Snape, Peter.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted.

  Spearing, Nigel.

  Deakins, Eric.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Litterlck, Tom.

  Stoddart, David.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Luard, Evan.

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dunn, James A.

  McCartney, Hugh.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunnett, Jack.

  Macfarquhar, Roderick.

  Tinn, James.

  Edge, Geoff.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomlinson, John.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McNamara, Kevin.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Madden, Max.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  English, Michael.

  Magee, Bryan.

  Ward, Michael.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Weitzman, David.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marks, Kenneth.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Faulds, Andrew.

  Marquand, David.

  Whitehead, Phillip.

  Flannery, Martin.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael.

  Maynard, Miss Joan.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mendelson, John.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey.

  George, Bruce.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Gilbert, Dr John.

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ginsburg, David.

  Molloy, William.

  Mr. James Hamilton

  and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Question accordingly negative.
  to put money where he feels it to be of greatest use. We have been striving to get a kind of balance of advantages between those with children and others, and I believe that we have struck a pretty reasonable balance.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 147.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Newton: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 15, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) In paragraph (b) of Section 8(IA) of the Taxes Act, after "upwards", there shall be added "or by a person who proves that she was at any time in the year of assessment a widow"'
  The Deputy Chairman (Sir Thomas Williams): With this we are to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 57 in page 15, line 15, at end insert—
  '(3) In section 8(1) of the Taxes Act, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
  "(aa) in the case of a claimant who is a widow and an employed or self-employed earner, to a deduction from the income tax with which she is chargeable equal to income tax at the basic rate on £860 ".'
  No. 60, in page 15, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) In section 16 of that Act (dependent relative), for the reference to £ 145 there shall be substituted a reference to £250'
  No. 83, in page 15, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) In section 16 of the Act (Dependent relatives) for "£100" there shall be substituted "£145" throughout'.
  No. 84, in page 15, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) After subsection (2) of section 12 of that Act (Widower's or widow's housekeeper) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  "(3) This section shall also apply to any other person entitled to relief under section 14 below".'
  No. 92, in page 15, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) In paragraph (b) of section 8(IA) of the Taxes Act, after "upwards", insert "or in the case of a woman that she was at any time within the year of assessment of the age of sixty or upwards."'.
  Mr. Newton: This group of amendments is essentially concerned with the position of women within the tax system in one guise or another—as widows, single women over 60, or single women caring for dependent relatives.
  I refer first, as it is particularly relevant to these amendments, to what the Financial Secretary said in reply to the last debate about the general problem of tax allowances. I took it that he was accepting the proposition which I would
  722
  support—that the situation regarding personal tax allowances of all kinds within our tax system is on the verge of becoming a complete and utter shambles.
  This is not simply because of the interaction of child tax allowances and the proposed child benefits, or the situation with the main personal allowances, but also because so many of the small personal allowances, some of which are included in the amendments and others, such as the allowance for the blind and the housekeeper allowance, which are not even covered by amendments on the Order Paper, have been amended ad hoc over the last few years in a way which bears no relation to a coherent approach to helping people through the tax system or to a balance between one kind of allowance and another. They seem rather to have been decided by a bias for the groups we are concerned about, or other groups, or by pressure leading to something being done on one of the allowances as, for example, with the allowance for the blind last year.
  Whatever else may be said about our tax system and whether we go along with the argument of the Financial Secretary that we should look to the social security system rather than to the tax system to solve these difficulties, it cannot be sensible to allow this muddle to continue without seeking a coherent look at this set of tax allowances and deciding whether some of them might be scrapped and replaced by social security benefits, as the Financial Secretary believes, or, alternatively, bringing them up to date, putting them into coherent balance and trying to keep them in line with inflation. But we should not allow the present muddle to continue.
  Over the period since becoming a Member of this House early in 1974, I have spoken many times during the passage of three successive Finance Bills on each of the issues raised in these amendments. For that reason, I shall not take up a great deal of the Committee's time today.
  The issues on which I wish to comment are four in number. The first arises in Amendment No. 56, which would extend the existing age allowance which we were discussing just now to widows. The second arises in Amendment No. 57, which again concerns widows and would have the effect of extending to widows

  723
  with earnings over and above their pensions a personal allowance which is in effect half way between the single personal allowance and the married personal allowance after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has implemented his conditional tax allowances later in the passage of the Bill.
  The third issue concerns Amendment No. 60, which would raise from £145 to £250 the allowance for single women caring for dependent relatives. The fourth issue arises on Amendment No. 92, which would extend the age allowance which at present goes only to taxpayers, whether male or female, over 65, to women between the ages of 60 and 65 who are past the normal retirement age for women but who have not yet reached the age of 65 and do not at present qualify for the allowance.
  There are two strands in the argument in respect of widows. One is the broad argument about the social position of widows. This is a matter which divides me and the Financial Secretary, though I suspect that most other hon. Members are of my view. It is that, although widows technically are single people, they are not for any realistic, practical social purposes in the same position as single people.
  They have been married and have acquired a pattern of married life with the housing which has probably gone with married life and with the social commitments and other aspects of their pattern of life related to their status of being married. When they become widowed, they are not back in the situation of a single person.
  That is not recognised by our tax system, and it should be because, especially in terms of housing, many widows will have larger financial commitments arising from their former married state than if they had always been single. It is arguable whether the tax system should recognise this, and it is not a matter which can be proved. But I believe that the tax system should recognise it, and I should like to see it go down this path.
  That brings me to Amendment No. 56, which is the broadest and certainly the most expensive of the amendments. It would extend to widows as a class the
  724
  same benefits at present going to people over the age of 65 as a class. There are strong arguments for this, and they were advanced powerfully on Second Reading by a Government supporter, the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). I thought that he put the case very well, and this amendment would implement his suggestion.
  6.15 p.m.
  But I can appreciate, if it is expensive and because it is so broad, that the Financial Secretary may feel that the worries of the country's financial position preclude him from being generous in this respect. That being so, I press on him even harder Amendment No. 57, which is directed to the second strand in the argument about widows. It is not a broad one about their position as widows. It is a narrow and specific argument about their tax position as soon as they earn any additional income.
  What happens is that, if they earn additional income, they go straight into the full standard rate of tax. On every £1 that they earn, they lose the full 35 per cent. Their tax position appears to be markedly worse because of the operation of the tax system than that, for example, of married women or other single people alongside whom they work. It is a situation which causes great bitterness amongst many widows. There is no doubt that it discourages many of them from bothering to work. It leads to many of them feeling that it is virtually pointless to work, and they feel extremely bitter about the way that the system treats them if they decide to work and help themselves rather than rely on social security benefits or whatever else the Financial Secretary sees as an alternative.
  At the risk of being accused again by the Financial Secretary of using excessively strong language, I wish to make a very strong comment about the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this matter in his Budget Statement. I apologise in advance for reading a rather lengthy extract from it.
  The right hon. Gentleman was obviously aware of the kind of argument which I have been advancing, and he sought to meet it. He said:
  "The single allowance is given to widows as well as to single women pensioners under the age of 65 and, if I am able to increase it as I hope, it will be sufficient to cover the

  725
  standard rate of national insurance pension payable in 1976–77. If not, when these women have only the standard pension and no other income, they will still be kept out of tax liability. This is because the Inland Revenue does not in these cases assess small amounts of tax, and to save administrative costs it is now proposing to increase the limit of this assessing tolerance from £10 to £30. The new limit will be sufficient to cover the difference between the standard pension and the single allowance.
  This will mean in practice that, even if I am unable to make the proposed increase in the single allowance, assessments will not be made on this class of pensioners if they have no other income. So these widows and single women pensioners under the age of 65 with no other income will have their tax anxieties relieved."—[Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 275–6.]
  The only word for that is "rubbish", and there are three comments to be made about it. The first is that those words bring out more clearly than any other part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said or done the extent to which the TUC, as a result of this pay deal, has been handed power to determine tax allowances which should have been decided on their own merits because they affect people who have no part in the negotiations with the TUC. That their position in this matter should be left dependent on the outcome of these negotiations is one of the more deplorable aspects of the way that this matter has been handled.
  Having put it in that form, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, if the TUC does not allow widows and single women under the age of 65 to have the necessary tax reliefs to cover the increase in their pensions, as an act of administrative charity by the Inland Revenue the Government will let them off small amounts of tax is to add insult to injury. It is not the kind of approach to which any Chancellor of the Exchequer should lend himself.
  To suppose that this will resolve the tax anxieties of many widows and single women aged between 60 and 65 is sheer nonsense. It will still mean that they will be facing an extremely discouraging burden of tax as soon as they begin to earn a penny over and above their pensions.
  For those reasons and many others, which I will not touch upon, I believe that this amendment, which would extend specifically to widows an additional per-
  726
  sonal tax allowance calculated to be half way between the normal single allowance and the married allowance, should be considered seriously. I hope that it will be received sympathetically by the Government.
  I want to say a word about the other groups covered by my amendment—women with dependent relatives, that group of people in our community who have made great sacrifices, very often over many years, to look after a relative who may be very ill or very elderly, who have forgone many advantages they should have had as a result, and whose position has been recognised in the tax system by the special allowance which is at present £145
  That allowance has not been altered for many years. I have not attempted to calculate my own figure on the basis of inflation. It is simply an increase designed to mark the fact that it has been a long time since there was a change. This group deserves special consideration from this House. It has had it in the past, but not often enough in recent years, and I put forward my view that this allowance should now be increased to mark the passage of time and the erosion of inflation. It is a very modest increase I am proposing. It would by no means solve the problem, but there is a very strong case to be made for it.
  Finally, there is the position of women over 60. Amendment No. 92 relates to the same issue that I discussed when we were talking about the investment income surcharge on Tuesday evening. The Financial Secretary and most people present in the Committee know my view that there is no justification for withholding from women over 60, the normal retirement age for women, the benefits which go to other retired taxpayers at the age of 65. The more I think about this, although the Financial Secretary has resisted it in the past, the more convinced I am that it is right.
  There can be no other justification for this age allowance than the fact of retirement. There is no point in a tax allowance solely related to age. If one argued that, one could say that the problems of young married couples with children are greater than the problems of those reaching the age of 65. It is the fact of retirement, not the age of 65, which justifies an additional tax allowance. Once

  727
  one accepts that the concept of retirement and not the fact of the age of 65 as the retirement age is one of the crucial factors in this, it is impossible to justify a situation in which we are not paying this same benefit to women at their present retirement age of 60
  I am not convinced by the argument that this is something which is wrong with the social security system and that we ought to change the retirement ages. That may be right and I think that we should move towards a common retirement age in time. The biggest piece of discrimination in the whole tax and social security system is the discrimination in favour of women by earlier retirement, but this will not be changed this year or next; it will be some time before we can decide the right way to solve this problem.
  Meanwhile, what we do between the social security system and the tax system is drop single women between the age of 60 and 65 into a sort of hole in the tax system in which they are neglected and forgotten in terms of their real needs until they reach the magic age of 65. I do not believe that this is satisfactory or right, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will find it possible to say something sympathetic about it today.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have added my name to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 60 and 92. As he so ably and effectively said in presenting them, the first thing which they have in common is that they all concern categories of women taxpayers—widows, single women with aged dependants, and women pensioners over the age of 60 but below the age of 65. These people also have a further feature in common other than their sex. That is that they have been chosen because they are hit acutely, more than the generality of taxpayers, by the low threshold for tax and the high standard rate of tax from which the whole taxpaying public is suffering to a considerable extent at the moment.
  Another feature which they have in common is that most of the taxpayers within these three female categories are also single, and I should like to relate my remarks first to the choice which the Chancellor and the Government have made in their present Finance Bill between
  728
  the married taxpayer on the one hand and the single taxpayer on the other.
  As I acknowledged in the brief debate we had a few moments ago, I feel there is a very good case to be made for helping further the family taxpayer. One could make a compelling case that in recent years the position of the taxpayer with family responsibilities and children has been changed disadvantageously compared with that of single taxpayers, who have got away comparatively lightly in very difficult times. Therefore I accept that in looking for tax changes and concessions it is right at the moment to seek to give priority to families, but if the whole Committee, or substantial parts of it, agrees with that judgment, that priority is on the whole to go to families and not so much to the single taxpayer, that choice can only be applied in practice if one discriminates very carefully among those who are now treated as single taxpayers, and tries to do something for that minority of them who would be unfairly affected.
  Those single taxpayers who can still take a greater share of the burden than married taxpayers are the young, the unmarried, often living at home with their parents, with smaller commitments, and who on the whole have been less affected than many others by rising economic difficulties and the increasing burden of taxes.
  These three categories—widows, single women with aged dependants, often parents for whom they are caring, and women pensioners over the age of 60 and below the age of 65—are not people to whom to look to take a greater share of the burden. If we are to remove part of the tax burden to the single and young from the family, then that seems to me to make the case for special and careful treatment for these categories of people, who are single taxpayers at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree made the point about widows, a case he has urged before, indicating why he feels that these people should perhaps not be treated as single taxpayers at all, certainly if the single are not to be favourably treated in the next Budget or two. It seems to me that, in addition to the general case which he has already made, the position of widows does highlight the problem that is arising with the increase in national insurance pensions and benefits now bringing many benefits up to and

  729
  beyond the level of tax thresholds at which people start paying income tax.
  The gap between national insurance benefits and tax thresholds has narrowed very rapidly, and it is among widows and women over 60 that the gap has almost, if not completely, closed. That means that a widow receiving a national insurance widow's pension finds that the pension exhausts almost her entire tax allowance, so that every penny she earns above her pension, or every penny that comes from savings which may have been set aside, is immediately charged the full standard rate of tax, 35 per cent.; and if she is working she is also subject to earnings-related national insurance contributions, which take the level well over 40 per cent. That is felt as a special injustice by widows.
  The Chancellor tried to deal with the possibility that this Budget would, for the first time, take widows' pensions above the tax threshold. He did so in the absolutely nonsensical passage which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree has just read and which I had marked as quite the silliest passage in the very long Budget Statement. It is no consolation at all to those who find their national insurance benefit is at the tax threshold or above it to say "If you have no other earnings we will not bother to collect the small amount of tax that your pension has now made you liable for". The pension for widows would have exceeded the tax threshold if the trade union negotiations had broken down completely, and this approach to that situation will not succeed because the problem will recur.
  National insurance benefits are inflation proof; they are related to prices automatically each year by statute; and every Budget includes an announcement that these national insurance benefits are being raised by certain amounts to compensate for inflation. Tax allowances are not similarly inflation-proofed.
  6.30 p.m.
  The result is that widows and women pensioners over 60 are the first of the national insurance beneficiaries who will go through the tax threshold if this process continues. Apart from the punitive effect on widows, since every penny of their earnings above the pension is subject to the standard rate of tax, it is also nonsense because it leads to the State giving with one hand in terms of national
  730
  insurance pension, and with the other hand taking away in tax. They are treated as single people when, in reality, they require special treatment. Since the tax credit scheme is not now to come into operation something must be done to make sure that widows are given special tax allowances to create a gap between the allowance and national insurance benefits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree has made the general case for special treatment for widows. Widows inherit certain commitments from their spouses and are in no way similar to single people. It must also be remembered that widows of 40 or 50 have been off the labour market for a considerable period of time. If they are suddenly faced with the prospect of having to go back to work following bereavement it is difficult for them to obtain employment and they tend to drift into lower-paid employment. This is the case for paying national insurance widows' pensions. It is not possible to say in logic that there is a case for paying them a pension but no case for giving any special treatment to them on tax. I emphasise that widows are not on all fours with other single people, and the case for special treatment is acute.
  I should like to give one illustration as it affects a widow living in my constituency. Problems of this nature are brought home to me week by week and involve widows who do not understand the tax situation and who are enraged by their treatment. The widow of whom I speak has a widow's pension and a small occupational pension arising from her former husband's previous earnings. That gives her a certain amount of additional income. In 1972, in addition to her national insurance pension, her occupational pension brought her in a sum of £370 each year. In 1972 she paid no income tax whatever because in 1972 she was below the tax threshold. That annuity has now been raised to £591 per year, but she now pays on it income tax of £160 per annum. The result is that in the last four years her occupational pension has been raised by £221, but only £61 has been left to her after tax. The increase in occupational pension is supposedly inflation proof, but the effect of tax thresholds and tax increases has been such that, in reality, she receives no

  731
  benefit from that inflation proofing. I submit that that case, which is not an isolated one, creates great resentment among such widows.
  I do not want to dwell on the case of the single woman and her dependants whose allowance has not risen in line with inflation and who has been badly hit because the case has been so well made and amply illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. Obviously, people whose tax allowances are not keeping in line with inflation find themselves hard hit by the present standard rate of taxation.
  Let us also consider the situation of the pensioner who is over 60. Such pensioners do not receive the age allowance till they are 65. Obviously, the age of 65 is chosen because it is the retirement age for pension purposes. One is saddled with the situation that in this respect difficulties arise because the age of 65 is not the retirement age for women but only for men, so that women below the age of 65 feel themselves quite unfairly taxed on any savings that might supplement their pensions.
  I accept that in all these debates it is possible to single out a category of taxpayer and to emphasise how hard those taxpayers are being hit by taxation. Indeed, the generality of taxpayers at present are being badly affected, and it is easy to pick upon individual cases. Surely, however, in the categories that we are now discussing, particular problems are being experienced and the Government should face them and do all they can to help. The Government surely should seek to help widows as opposed to the single taxpayer in general.
  The truth is that widows are now being forced into that growing number who feel that it is pointless to carry on working in order to provide for themselves or to try to be thrifty. Therefore, I hope that the Government will try to give special help to them and to the other limited categories of people specified in the amendments.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) have spoken cogently on these amendments. I should like to deal briefly with one or two points
  732
  to which they have not addressed themselves.
  I wish to draw attention to Amendment No. 83 which, in turn, bears on Amendment No. 60. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree suggested that dependent relatives should be assisted by raising the figure from £145 to £250. My amendment seeks to underline the needs of men who support dependent relatives.
  I wish to draw attention to certain anomalies in the present system. I have before me the case of a constituent who happens to be a servant of this House and who is now maintaining his elderly widower father. He feels that it is wrong that he should be given an allowance of only £100 when a woman who maintains an elderly dependent relative receives £45
  It will be remembered that the present Prime Minister in 1967, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the differential rate between men and women who supported dependent relatives. The right hon. Gentleman then said that most of the people who found themselves in this situation were women. That is true to a large extent, but it is a little unfair that no attention is paid to those men in our community who have the task of looking after dependent relatives.
  The other argument deployed at that time was that women's wages were generally less than men's and therefore it was said that women needed the extra allowance. I believe that it is a somewhat odd principle in these days of the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Commission, that there should be a differential between the situation of men and women in caring for dependent relatives. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my modest amendment.
  The other amendment to which I should like to draw attention is Amendment No. 84, which the Minister may feel is a trifle obscure. I must reassure the Minister that, if the amendment were to be accepted, on Report we should need to table a consequential amendment to delete Section 12(1)(iv) of the Taxes Act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about.
  Amendment No. 84 is of a probing nature, but its purpose is to extend the

  733
  housekeeper relief to a hard-hit category of people. It includes not merely widows but also single-parent families, divorced parents with children, and so on. I must tell the Minister that the situation in the United States in this respect is very much more generous than is the situation in this country. I understand that in the United States the single-parent family, in cases where the parent is in full-time work, is allowed to deduct from tax the cost of child care. Will the Minister comment on the possibility of such a process being introduced into our taxation system?
  There seems to be a curious anomaly between Section 12 and Section 14 of the Taxes Act, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it. Section 14 contains reliefs for widows and widowers with children, parents with an incapacitated spouse, divorced parents with children, and single parents in full-time work. Section 12 relief applies only to widows and widowers and is not extended to these other categories, so there is an inconsistency and an anomaly on which I hope the Minister can shed light.
  Finally, on the general point lying behind the amendments in the group, first, we suggest relief for particular categories of people. A good case has been made out for the hardship they suffer, and there should be an improvement for them in money terms, at least in the relief they get, merely to keep pace with inflation. Within our tax system we have a whole range of reliefs for different sorts and conditions of men and women and at the present time, with inflation, in each Budget the Government picks on one or two categories. One year there will be an increased allowance for the blind and another year one for widows, or the age allowance may be increased a little.
  In the Finance Bill we tend to concentrate on those things which have been increased, but, in real terms, in each Finance Bill that comes along a whole group of allowances is cut. We should be focusing on those, because unless they were really necessary they would not be in the tax system. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that this is a very good reason for having a system under which everything is automatically index-linked, with all reliefs, allowances
  734
  and discretionary changes above this being justified by the Chancellor.
  On a general point, the Minister has said that he is in favour of dealing with all these problems through the social security system and not through the tax system because, he says, the tax system is a hit-or-miss affair, whereas the social security system has greater precision. I am not sure what he means. In our taxation system we have a considerable array—a battery—of reliefs for different sorts and conditions of men and women, and this is no less precise than the social security system. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about the supplementary benefit system, in which an attempt is certainly made to tailor everything precisely. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. There is no reason why the tax relief for, say, the blind should be any less precise than a social security benefit other than supplementary benefit.
  The difficulty over precision under the supplementary benefit system has been well set out by the present Chairman of the Supplementary Benefit Commission, Professor Donnison, who said recently:
  "Though supplementary benefits account for only 13 per cent. of all social security payments, the staff allocated to dealing with it at local level accounted for about half of those administering the entire social security system."
  It is not merely the public expenditure involved in the highly complex, very detailed and tailored social security, which we have to bear in mind we cannot afford; there comes a certain point beyond which the more precise and tailored a system is, the more people believe it to be unfair. Few people consider that the tax allowance system for children is unfair, but when they see a system in which everything seems to be very precisely detailed and tailored to a particular instance, and find there are very arbitrary dividing lines, on one side of which benefit is secured under social security while on the other it is not, they feel that the system is thoroughly unfair. There is a great deal of resentment and feeling against the social security system in this country today, much of it justified. The hon. Gentleman and the Government he represents ought to take that on board before considering that the right way to proceed is to have more done through

  735
  the social security system and less through taxation.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I want briefly to support my hon. Friends who have moved amendments seeking to improve the position of widows. The main burden of the argument so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is that when a husband dies the widow maintains exactly the same commitments—particularly if there are children—as a married woman, without having the benefit of her husband's salary. In all likelihood she is going to have to maintain a larger house than the ordinary single woman. She is in all likelihood going to have to pay the mortgage, rent or rates of a married woman, electricity and gas bills, insurance for the house, the cost of running a car, and the expenses of a child—which a single woman does not have to undertake. This is really the key part of the argument. It is true that on top of her personal allowance she will get an additional allowance designed for single parents, and if she has a child she will get the child allowance, but then one has to look at the tax threshhold—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree has said, the moment she starts to work, part-time or otherwise—if she can manage to do so—she is penalised in terms of taxation.
  6.45 p.m.
  The evidence shows that the widow's position in relation to, for example, the working married woman is an extremely unfair one. This is the key part of the argument put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), because, looking at the position of an earning married woman, we find, first, that the married man's allowance is based on an allowance for two people. We also find—I do not argue against it—that if a married woman wishes to go out to work, she gets an earnings allowance for doing so. Therefore, the widow, particularly if she wishes to go out to work, is unfairly treated compared with the married woman. In all likelihood, she has the same commitments, particularly if there are children, and yet she is penalised in relation to a married woman. For that reason the very powerful argument put forward by
  736
  my hon. Friend should be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to add to the general argument that has been so admirably put by my hon. Friend, except to say that on this point, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I very much agree that one of the difficulties with which we are increasingly faced is that of the widow trying to stand on her own feet and to earn her own income by going out to work and then wondering why she bothers. Many widows write to me pointing out that they could as easily get from social security almost as much as the net income they get from working. They cannot see the point of a system that brings about such a situation. These women go to work because they have pride and wish to stand on their own feet, but theirs is certainly a problem to which we should address ourselves more and I am glad that the amendments raise this point.
  On Amendment No. 84, the point I wish to make follows one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), because it is in the context of an age in which equality of sex treatment is to be admired and sex discrimination is to be deplored. I do not expect the Financial Secretary to be able to say much about it at this time, but I hope he will take it on board and think about it. My point relates to widows and widowers, and the housekeeper allowance. Last year I discovered for the first time that a widower's allowance is given if the housekeeper is female but not if the housekeeper is male. In other words, it is not given if a widow has a man living in the home doing the kind of work that the husband had previously done.
  The position was put rather well by one of my constituents, who said a male widow receives preferential treatment in that he gets an allowance for a woman around the house, but a woman does not get an allowance for having a man about the house; she can have only another woman. She adds:
  "You must agree that having two women in a kitchen never works."
  I had not appreciated this. I took the matter up with the Chairman of the Inland Revenue, who explained the historical situation. The housekeeper

  737
  allowance was originally meant for men with families where there was no mother—where a housekeeper was needed to look after the children.
  In this day and age, when there is supposed to be no sex discrimination, this is an anomaly that ought to be put right. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not put it right by withdrawing the housekeeper allowance for widows or widowers. I understand that the Royal Commission on Taxation advocated this in 1955. In an age when many widows and widowers find that they need such help, the allowance enables them to continue to afford it.
  Will the Minister address himself to the point that widows are surely entitled to have a housekeeper, too, and if they choose to have a male one it is reasonable to give an allowance for this? I am sure that such a concession would cost only a minimal amount.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: We have had a wide-ranging debate and have discussed many amendments. Perhaps I may start by referring to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who pointed out a number of problems that followed from the interaction between benefits and tax thresholds. I could not agree with him more. This is a problem that the House has to face when, particularly at times of Finance Bills, it asks for further allowances to meet individual specific cases.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is guilty of this when he asks in Amendment No. 84 for a housekeeping relief to everyone with single-handed responsibility for a child. He wants the additional personal allowance to be augmented by a household allowance, which was essentially for domestic service. I understand this argument, but the Government have to face the problem that if we were to proceed along this path we could end up having two social security systems side by side, one of which was precise and more exact, because of the greater information that the social security people have on the problems in this area, and the other which was inexact and was concerned only with the tax allowance aspect.
  Mr. Lawson: Not on the general point, but on the narrow point that the Minister raised in regard to Amendment No. 84, he said that there was a danger of
  738
  having two different social security systems side by side. Does he agree that, in a sense, there are two different tax systems side by side, because the coverage of Section 12 reliefs is different from the coverage of Section 14 reliefs? Can he explain why this is so?
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is trying to obtain both reliefs for the same individuals. That is the problem.
  Mr. Lawson: Why is it a problem?
  Mr. Sheldon: The additional personal allowance was given for precisely the kind of problems covered by the hon. Gentleman—that is, single people with children and responsibility for children. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to provide extra money for such people. If that is his intention there are two simple ways of meeting his objective. He could either do something about the child tax allowance or table amendments concerned with additional personal allowance. These are open to him, but he has chosen not to do so on this occasion.
  This proposal would lead to an incredible increase in complexity. In view of the other kind of amendments that are frequently put forward, we could, if we were not careful, have two parallel social security systems, one of which was extremely imperfect, arbitrary and imprecise in its impact, and the other which was tailor-made.
  When I talked about precision in social security the hon. Member for Blaby said that there was precision only in supplementary benefits. He went on to say that precision is bad and that this is the trouble at the moment, whereas previously he was arguing that there was no precision at all in supplementary benefits. I leave it to the hon. Member to sort out his differences with himself. What I am concerned about is to make sure that we have one social security system which provides for the special needs of these people and, also, a tax system that is organised on the basis of ability to pay tax.
  Mr. Lawsonrose—
  Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman will let me get a little further I shall gladly give way. I am always happy to give way to him, but not every two minutes.
  Mr. Lawson: The Minister is attacking me.
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am attacking him. I am only pointing out the inadequacy of his arguments. He has had plenty of time to put them to the Committee this afternoon.
  If I could make some progress, I would turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). The hon. Gentleman made a particular point about the historical bases for some of these allowances. I agree with him that many of them are historical, and that some are not quite so relevant today as they were when first introduced. I understand perfectly clearly the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but a number of the allowances that we have been discussing have to do with the element of domestic service, and this was something that was extremely important and relevant in the years when those allowances were first introduced. Their importance and impact have declined during the passage of the years and, as a result, a number of these allowances have not been increased for this very reason.
  Amendment No. 56 calls for the age allowance to be made available to the widow under 65 years of age. The anomaly is cited of the widow who, at the age of 60, gets her retirement pension but is not eligible for the age allowance until she reaches the age of 65, whereas a man is eligible for both the age allowance and the retirement pension at the same time. I know the problem that this causes. However compassionate we may wish to be, there is a difficulty about discussing matters concerning widows. We all know of extremely difficult and heartrending cases and yet, at the same time, we know full well of the inability of the tax system, as we have it, to meet these precise problems.
  One of the first aspects of this problem arises in making the comparison between widows and widowers. This is the sex discrimination aspect, mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South. We have all had experience of men who have recently lost their wives and who find it difficut, sometimes impossible, to continue their way of life and to look after themselves. The comparison between the widow and the widower is one that has to be made. There are
  740
  those who say that the final solution must be the narrowing of the gap between the treatment accorded to one and the treatment accorded to the other. We must also consider the problems of divorced, separated and single women and of those whose husbands have left them, sometimes in harrowing circumstances. Our sympathy and understanding for widows is undiminished, but I find it impossible to accept the amendment.
  7.0 p.m.
  Amendment No. 60 would cost only £4 million, but the case for increasing the dependent relative allowance has not been accepted for a long time. There has been no increase for the past nine years, and this allowance is not generally regarded as quite so relevant as it once was. First, the State pension occupies a more prominent part in the income of those concerned. Second, there are more opportunities for work for those concerned. The change in the social scene has had its impact on this allowance. This has impressed upon the present Government and previous Governments the smaller degree of importance that should be attached to it. So there has been no increase during this period.
  Amendment No. 83 refers again to the problem of men being treated the same as women. I referred to this in what I said about the hon. Member for Norfolk, South. There is not much more that I can add. The dependent relative allowance for a claimant other than a single woman who supports a dependent relative will, if the amendment is accepted, increase from £100 to £145 and will be the same as that for the single woman. There is a little more to commend this, because there would be equality of treatment, but the cost would be £12 million, which is rather higher than the arguments for the amendment might have suggested. For that reason, and the general reasons that I have given, it cannot be accepted. I hope that the House will reject all these amendments.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister has not dealt with the case of women pensioners under 65 and their inability to have the age allowance. He began on that subject but immediately changed to talking about widows and widowers—a subject that seemed to relate to a separate amendment.
  Mr. Lawson: The Minister seemed to think that there was confusion in my mind because I said that there was a sense of great unfairness about certain parts of the social security system and that the reason was greater precision. If he is not aware that the greatest sense of unfairness concerns the workings of the supplementary benefits system, which is where the attempt at precision is greatest, he is aware of nothing in the whole area of social security payments.
  Amendment negatived.

  Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair
  Mr. Lawson: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 15, line 15, at end add£
  '(3) In section 10 of that Act (children), for any reference to £115 there shall be substituted a reference to £300'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
  No. 62, in page 15, line 15, at end insert:
  '(3) In section 10(5) of that Act (children) for "£115" there shall be substituted "£365"'
  No. 93, in page 15, line 15, at end insert:
  '(3) In section 10 of that Act (Children) for any reference to £115 there shall be substituted a reference to £320'
  No. 88, in page 15, line 15, at end insert:
  '(3) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 14 of that Act, subsection (5) of section 10 of that Act shall be interpreted as if "the appropriate amount" were the sum of the appropriate amount and the amount on which the deduction under subsection (2) of section 14 of that Act is calculated'.
  Mr. Lawson: I am delighted that we now have the Chief Secretary in the Chamber. I assume that he will answer this debate. I am delighted not merely because of my affection for him, which I am sure is reciprocated, but also because this is a particular point that was raised by myself at this stage of our proceedings on last year's Finance Bill and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) in the debates on the Finance Bill of the year before that.
  When my hon. Friend raised the matter, the Chief Secretary replied in a most
  742
  encouraging way. Last year, when the Financial Secretary replied, he was very curmudgeonly. Now, we have the Chief Secretary again, and we can hope that this amendment, for which there is an overwhelming case, will receive the sympathetic welcome that it thoroughly deserves from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) brought this point into play when speaking on another amendment earlier. As I am sure the Committee will be aware, the fact of the matter is that at the present time, if a child has an income, earned or unearned—I will go into the distinction between the two a little later—of more than £115, which is less than what can be earned in a paper round these days, the parent's allowance for that child is reduced by £1 for every £1 over £115 that that child earns in his earned income.
  This is a most distressing anomaly. Front 1952 to 1963, this amount—the maximum that a child could have in income before the child allowance was reduced—had been exactly the same each year as the allowance for a child under 11. Then it was frozen where it was in 1963–64 for year after year, presumably because we had a Labour Government in for the first six of those years—although I readily concede that the Conservative Government who followed did nothing about this, and now, so far, the Labour Government who followed them have done nothing.
  The child allowance for a child under 11 has risen to as much as £300 in this latest Finance Bill, whereas the amount a child can earn before there is a reduction in allowance is still set at £115. The amendment cannot cost very much—the Chief Secretary will probably tell us that it will cost about £15 million—and it will bring the £115 limit up to £300, in line with the child allowance for children under 11. Had the allowance been increased from 1963–64 in relation to the declining purchasing power of the pound, it would be more than this. It would be £335. But the amendment is modest and seeks to fix it at £300
  The Chief Secretary must be aware—I am talking now particularly of earned income—of the great sense of injustice and hardship that exist in many cases. particularly among those parents whose children are students who try to earn some money during the vaca-

  743
  tion. It is not difficult to earn more than £115 and, as a result, the parent's child allowance is reduced and considerable hardship results. The child feels that he is doing the parents an injustice, or, if he is prepared to reimburse the parent—there would be problems, no doubt, about the capital transfer tax if he did that now—he is being taxed so highly, in effect, on the extra earnings, that it is not worth his doing it.
  It is curious that the whole direction of this Government's policies is to assist those who do not work or do not wish to work, and to hit those who do. In the case of students, those who do not wish to work get looked after very well, in many cases, but those who try to earn a little in the vacation are hard hit, and their parents are. This is thoroughly inequitable and it is something which the Chief Secretary himself has conceded is inequitable. One of the grossest forms of injustice is the student on a sandwich course, because, as part of the course, the student is obliged to work. As a result, hardship follows. The cost and the number of people affected may be small, but for those involved it is a monstrous injustice.
  In earlier debates the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary have sought to resist this. They argue that it applies not merely to a child's earned income but to a child's unearned income. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell us how much of the total cost occurs as a result of earned income and how much as a result of unearned income. We asked for that breakdown last year but did not get it. I am sure that the Treasury must have come up with the answer by now. Even if they are not prepared to accept it for unearned income, I hope that the Government will move an amendment of their own, accepting it for earned income.
  In the case of earned income, one other objection was given last year by the Financial Secretary, when he said that we were just about to go away from child allowances and move to a whole new system of child benefits. That is not an argument for not acting now. Something needs to be done this year. There is no excuse for having an injustice for the whole of this coming year just because something may be introduced in future years.
  744
  The new system of child benefits will be based on the levels of the old system. We know how these things work. If we do not get it right this year, the new system will come in on the wrong basis. The Chief Secretary may wish to separate earned income and unearned income and bring in an amendment of his own, because we know of the loathing for any investment income that is felt on the Government side of the House.
  On unearned income the Government have argued that they are just about to aggregate children's investment income and that therefore they do not want to do anything in the opposite direction now. They said that they were going to do that in the second Budget of 1974, but they did not do it. They then said that they were going to do it in 1975, but did not do it. Last year they said they were going to do it in this Budget, but they still have not done it. It is no good going on saying that. Of course they are not going to aggregate children's investment income, because it would be too iniquitous even for them.
  It would be iniquitous because under the capital transfer tax children are separated from parents. Capital passing from parents to child is a chargeable transfer. It would be illogical and unfair for it to be held that parents and children are two for the purposes of capital but one for the purposes of the income that flows from that capital. The Government can have it only one way or the other, but not both. That is why aggregation is not on.
  The Chief Secretary has been extremely sympathetic to the amendment in the past. I hope that this time, at long last, he will show an even greater sympathy, because of the persistence of the Opposition in raising the matter on each successive Finance Bill.
  In 1974, the Chief Secretary said:
  "I should like to see the allowance increased because it has been well overtaken by inflation over the years."—[Official Report, 10th June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 1287.]
  There has been quite a bit more inflation since June 1974 as the Chief Secretary must be aware. I am sure that he is well aware of our case and that he will see fit to accept the amendment so that we do not have to put it to the vote.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I warmly support the amendment in the name of

  745
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). It is anomalous that the figure of £115 above which it is to be taken into account in the "appropriate amount" has remained for so long. It is significant that the "appropriate amount" for a child not over 10 was fixed at £115 and has gone up over the years. I cannot understand why the figure for earned income has not gone up.
  I shall address my remarks to Amendment No. 88, which is related to the points raised by my hon. Friend but has a specific purpose. It relates not to the ordinary child allowance under Section 10, but to the additional allowance under Section 14. The present entitlement to the additional allowance lies with the person who has care of a child, who is a widow or widower, or any other person not in receipt of the married person's allowance—ple, a divorced or separated spouse or a married man with an incapacitated wife.
  In addition to coming within one of those groups the person has to prove other things. Before such persons receive the benefit of an allowance they must prove that neither they nor anyone else is entitled to any relief under Section 13—that is, for taking care of unmarried persons, such as a brother or sister. They must also prove that they are entitled to child allowance under Section 10. The rub is that if they are entitled to child allowance under Section 10 they must prove that they have living with them a dependant child under 16 or taking full time instruction, and that the child's income does not exceed £115
  If we assume an example of a person not entitled to a married person's allowance, having charge of a child whose income is such that there is no entitlement to the ordinary allowance under Section 10, that person is not entitled to the additional relief.
  What is the figure of the child's income that deprives that person or the person in loco parentis of child allowance? It is calculated by reference to the amount of the child allowances under Section 10 of the 1970 Act. Under the Bill the figures will be—over 16, £365; over 11 and under 16, £335, and in other cases, £300. Section 10(5) of the 1970 Act reads:
  746
  "If the child's income exceeds that £115 the excess is deducted from the appropriate amount".
  Let us take the example of an income of £200 per year for a 10-year-old child. The child allowance would be £200 minus £115, which leaves £85, and £300 minus £85, which leaves £215. If the 10-year-old child's income is £115 plus £300—£415 per annum—the entitlement to the ordinary child allowance has gone. So also, strangely enough, has the entitlement to the additional allowance. This is where the anomaly arises. By losing entitlement to the ordinary child allowance, the person in loco parentis also loses the entitlement to the additional relief. If there is merit in giving the additional relief at all, it should not be cut off just because the child's income comes up to the ordinary child allowance figure plus the small margin of £115
  What the amendment seeks to do is to provide that in such a case, instead of taking that ordinary child allowance as the cut-off figure one should add to it the additional relief figure. Additional relief allowance for 1975–76 is £280. Therefore, taking my previous example and putting it into figures, the cut-off figure should be the £280, plus the £300, plus the £115—making a total of £695. At present, if the child's income is £414 a year, the divorced wife, for example, looking after the child, will get the £280 additional relief. If the child's income is £415, she gets nothing—neither the ordinary child allowance nor the additional allowance.
  If it is right that there should be an additional allowance, it should be taken at a higher cut-off figure than the ordinary allowance.
  Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said, two years ago I moved an amendment similar to that before us at present, and I supported my hon. Friend last year. I am bound to say, however, that my amendment of two years ago was in the days before Labour inflation, and that the figure that we were looking at then was much more reasonable. I hope that our persistence will gradually win over the Chief Secretary, and not only our persistence but our reasoned and reasonable arguments.
  I want to put three points in favour of the main amendment. As to the figure,

  747
  it may look like a big jump up, but not only is it more nearly indexed to the old figure of £115 as it was in 1963–64; it is a very reasonable figure in relation to the earnings that a child can have. Taking the figure of £115, which is the only figure allowed, it takes only about three weeks' earnings for students in university education to go over the top. When I was at university and working my way through by vacation earnings, perhaps £115 was a figure that one did not very often reach during the six weeks that one was working; but today it is reached.
  My second point is related to the position of parents with children at university. This point is particularly important, because while parents who privately educate their children and make a parental contribution at school level can be said to do so voluntarily, that cannot be said when they get to university level. Then all parents above certain income must make the parental contribution if they want their children to attend university at all. There is no other way out.
  From looking at the figures one begins to see the scale of the problem facing many parents. On Tuesday we were talking of the tremendous difficulties that middle to senior managers were finding because their net income was failing to keep pace, by a long way, with inflation, and beyond that, as compared with those with lower incomes, they very often had to make hidden taxation contributions, as they do with the hidden contribution to university education.
  Taking the first group that the Chancellor has been saying he wants to do so much to help—the £4,500 to £8,500 a year men—many in that position will have children at university and will have to make a parental contribution, which is, in effect, a tax. If one takes what is described under the parental contribution rules as the "residual" income, that adds some £1,000, so one is talking about earnings between £5,000 and £9,000. At a residual parental income level of £4,000, or some £5,000 gross, a person is compelled to pay a contribution of £330 towards the cost of his child's education at university, and if his income level is £8,000 he is compelled to contribute £730. The sum of £730, taken
  748
  out of income that has fallen already because of inflation, is a very large slice. So the money that the child can earn—if it is right to call him a child at the age of 18—is very welcome. It is quite appalling that once they reach a limit of £115, the parents cease to benefit at all.
  The third argument makes the matter so much worse. That is the university student decides not to earn himself but, instead, to go on social security. The difference between our argument two years ago and our argument today is that many more university students, because of the National Union of Students campaign, know the benefits of going on social security. There is additional benefit to the parent, because if the child earns more than £115 the parent immediately loses, but if the child goes on social security above £115 there is no loss to the parent, because social security benefits, being untaxed, are not subject to this clause.
  We are now in a ridiculous situation in which there is positive encouragement to all parents, especially high earning parents, to tell their children not to work during the vacations because the parents' income will be badly affected, and to tell them, instead, to go on to social security. This seems to be absolute nonsense. It is an example of the tax system encouraging people in precisely the wrong direction. This is a further argument, that was not too apparent two years ago, for a change of the sort proposed in the amendment.
  Mr. Dodsworth: I want to refer to the record of the income limit over the last few years. For 10 years the income limit that related to the child allowance was exactly the same sum as the child allowance itself. It was an income limit of £60 in 1947–48. It remained the same as the child allowance until 1957–58, when it was increased to £100. In 1963–64 the income limit was increased to £115, and since then it has remained static. Child allowances have continued to increase. The logic of the original arrangement would be that we had an allowance of at least £300 now. We have slipped behind.
  I very much support the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) about the anomaly that he illustrated. I hope that

  749
  we get some sense from the Treasury on this occasion about this long outstanding problem.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: On this occasion the case has been put rather more briefly than it has in the past, because of the intervention of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. I suppose that all of us should be obliged. He has not asked me to make my contribution briefly, but I note his actions over the last few moments.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) opened this brief debate on what was for him an unusually modest note. Amendment No. 61 seeks to increase the limit from £115 to £250. Other amendments seek to increase it to a larger figure.
  Mr. Lawson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misread the Notice Paper. Amendment No. 61 would raise it from £115 to £300. That is the amendment to which I spoke.
  Mr. Barnett: I am sorry. I should have realised the position and never expected the hon. Gentleman to be quite as modest as I imagined. I apologise to him.
  The hon. Gentleman presented his case, as ever, so charmingly that I find it very difficult to resist it. The case was supported by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). I shall come shortly to the case presented by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)
  The hon. Member for Blaby fairly pointed out that on previous occasions I had indicated that in my view there was some justification for the case for increasing this limit, because it had not been increased for so many years—not only during the course of Labour Governments but under a Conservative Government as well. However, it is important that we should understand the reason why successive Governments have kept this limit as low as it is. The case was made by one of my predecessors—the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). He argued that the existence of a child's income limit of £115 for child allowance purposes provided a defence against the abuse of covenants in favour of children. We all know the kind of abuse to which the right hon. Member was referring, with the grandparents making covenants to grandchildren. This meant, when there was no aggregation, a substantial saving of tax.
  750
  7.30 p.m.
  The reason it was felt necessary to have the child income limit at a low level was to remove at that time the provisions for aggregation. I agree that that is very important, because a comparatively small number of wealthy families were able to contrive to put investment income into the hands of children solely for tax saving purposes.
  Mr. Lawson: Not since the capital transfer tax.
  Mr. Barnett: Hon. Members did not realise the foresight of the Government in introducing the capital transfer tax. [Interruption.] I do not know how the hon. Member for Blaby would feel if he sat on these Benches as a Minister and had to put up with the sort of comment we have to accept from him. If he had to deal with them I cannot imagine how long it would take. The Deputy Chief Whip would be at him constantly.
  I accept, nevertheless, that in current circumstances there is a case for some increase in child income limit, but there is the problem of the difference between investment income and earned income of the child. The hon. Member who was asking about the difference in cost between the two, will realise that the reason it is not possible to answer is that we do not have the information. At the moment there is no need to have information as to how the income is divided between investment income and earned income.
  I shall return shortly to the question how it might be possible to deal with the problem raised in this brief debate, but first I want to deal with the point raised by Amendment No. 88, in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby. It is impossible to state what would be the cost of his amendment, because of the kind of taper arrangement he suggested in the case of the single-parent family, for which we all have the greatest sympathy. His point is a very good one, concerning the way in which the single parent—it is frequently a widow, but it can also be a widower—loses the child tax allowance in the kind of situation he described.
  I cannot say what the cost would be. I recognise that it would not be very costly, but there are practical problems. I am not suggesting that they are insuperable, but I should like to explain them

  751
  briefly so that the Committee will realise the situation.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the single-parent family as if we were dealing with the single-parent family with one child. Where there is more than one child there is a considerable difficulty in working out a tapering system on the amount of income. There is a substantial problem here, which I want to examine. I do not believe it is insuperable, and I hope it will be possible to find a way of dealing with it.
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, although I cannot give a firm commitment, I shall look very closely at the point he has made in the debate, particularly about the practical problems. If it is possible to do something in this direction I shall see that it is done on Report.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to the Chief Secretary for what he has said. Will he be good enough to write to my right hon. Friends and myself a sufficient time before Report? I quite appreciate the difficulties in devising anything, but I should be very grateful if we could have a look at it in time, whatever he decides.
  Mr. Barnett: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, I shall see that that is done.
  I return to the point that I was making earlier on the main amendments, and again I should like to consider some way of helping. I think there is a case for some increase. The point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South is perfectly valid. There has been a massive increase in the claims made by students for supplementary benefits during the long vacation, but I hope that the House will be prepared to consider—as we are always having to consider to a greater and greater extent these days—the staff costs as well as the revenue costs involved in any amendment. Particularly in this area the staff costs tend to be comparatively large in relation to the amounts involved.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing that there is a more powerful case far raising the limit for earned income only, because then the question of covenant and investment income would not apply. In that case there would be a requirement for an additional 100 staff in 1976–77. I am not suggesting that that is a massive
  752
  figure, but it is for a quite modest scheme. On the other hand, if we were to restrict it in the way that both hon. Gentlemen argued, there would be an additional 55 staff required. In the case of students over 18, which is the strongest case, frequently the students working in the long vacation have an earned income in excess of £115. The hon. Member for Blaby felt, as did other hon. Members, that the strongest case of all was in this area. I agree that that is the strongest case.
  Although I do not wish to give a firm commitment, I would want to consider whether it is possible to deal with this case of the over-18s in this year. It would be a smaller revenue cost and a smaller staff cost. I will, if at all possible, introduce an amendment on Report. With that, I hope it will be possible for the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. David Howell: The Chief Secretary has made helpful noises over both the main amendment and the amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred. I think the Chief Secretary's words were, "I promise as far as it is possible", so there was some qualification in it. Even so, I think it is fair to us to take this as a fairly firm commitment that he will bring back an amendment designed to ease the situation for students.
  This still leaves the absurdity of the situation in which a young child can easily generate an income of more than £115 per year by doing a newspaper round. That situation is unsatisfactory, and we shall be pressing the matter again. But the Chief Secretary seems prepared to move in the direction that we have sought in the debate. For that reason I suggest that my hon. Friend should not necessarily press the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Lawson: I heard a few moments ago from the Chief Secretary's lips the magic words "bring forward an amendment on Report", and that makes a great deal of difference. We know the right hon. Gentleman and can accept it as an undertaking. He would not have given it otherwise. He said that it might be difficult to confine it to students over the age of 18. I hope that, if he find it is too complicated, he will bring forward an amendment which covers a wider category of children and will certainly not rule it out altogether.

  753
  In the light of the Chief Secretary's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move Amendment No. 90 in, page 15, line 15, at end add:
  '(3) In section 10(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 after the words "or other similar education endowment" shall be added "or of a mobility allowance awarded under section 37A of the Social Security Act 1975"
  (4) After section 16(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 shall be added the following subsection:—
  "(6) In calculating the income of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, no account shall be taken of a mobility allowance awarded under section 37A of the Social Security Act"'.
  The previous debate related, to some extent, to the amendment. If the Chief Secretary had intimated that the £115 disregard was to be lifted for all age groups of children to a figure above the level of the mobility allowance, I should have had some difficulty in supporting the amendment. However, a point of principle arises, regardless of the level to which the disregard is adjusted, that relates to the mobility allowance. The objective of the amendment is to correct what seems to be an apparent error on the part of the Government.
  When the Government decided to provide the mobility allowance for disabled people, be they drivers or passengers, the decision was given a general welcome throughout the country. The Government obviously intended to provide enough cash to enable dependence upon Government issued vehicles to be phased out. Without going into all the pros and cons of the subsequent restrictions placed upon the mobility allowance, it is generally agreed that the amount payable of £5 per week is insufficient to provide for the purchase of a vehicle or its upkeep. It is also generally agreed that its removal at pensionable age is harsh and cruel to people whose disabilities are becoming worse at that age.
  The fact that the allowance is taxable means that the worthwhile objective of encouraging the disabled to get out to work will be defeated, the taxation being applied to the small allowance itself. However, those are all arguments for another time and another day.
  The argument employed by the Government in defending the taxation of the mobility allowance was that if any taxation was to be applied it would be applied only to the income of the recipient child or adult, and only if that disabled young person's income exceeded the usual level of personal allowances. But that is not the case, for unless the amendment is accepted all that part of the mobility allowance which exceeds the £115 childs disregard—that means £145 of the £260—will be deducted from the parent's child allowance of £300 as proposed in the Bill.
  The exact amount of tax payable depends on the father's or parent's tax status, but the present state of affairs makes nonsense of any statement that the £260 mobility allowance is being given each year to help with the needs of a disabled child.
  As an example, I shall describe the effect of taxation on the low-income parent earning £40 a week when the mother is not earning. If the father has an income of £2,000 a year, and there is a child under the age of 11 in receipt of the mobility allowance, with no other taxable income, there is a salary of £2,000 plus the mobility allowance, making a total of £2,260. The married man's allowance and the child's allowance is £1,195. The married man's allowance plus the child's allowance produced by the mobility allowance is £1,050. The net family income without the mobility allowance is £1,718·25, and the net family income with the mobility allowance is £1,83650, a difference of £118·25. That is because of the application of taxation to the mobility allowance.
  The Central Council for the Disabled is receiving a flood of complaints from the parents of disabled children who are receiving their tax forms with a requirement that they must state any mobility allowance that is paid to their child. That is the requirement, regardless of the statement on the Government's own leaflet on the mobility allowance—Leaflet 211—which states:
  "children will qualify in their own right"
  A specific case was referred to me only a few moments before the debate started—a case involving a self-employed man living in Hounslow with a severely disabled dependent adult of 25 who is eligible for the £260-a-year mobility

  755
  allowance. He finds that his son's income from the allowance is being included in his own parental assessment, resulting in £65 being lopped off the mobility allowance. That reduces the minimal £5 a week allowance to under £4 a week, despite the fact that his son is unable to work and is not earning any taxable earnings. The effect is a very high rate of tax both on unemployable disabled adults and on disabled children.
  7.45 p.m.
  I could quote many other cases, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will concede the inequality of the present situation and accept the principle of the amendment, which would ensure that the mobility allowance is taken into account in assessing the income of a child or adult dependent relative for the purposes of calculating the tax allowances of the supporting relative.
  I know that my final argument does not seem to carry much weight in these bureaucratic days, but when we consider the cost of administering the complex mobility allowance, making it taxable and bringing in all the disregards, surely those costs far outweigh the cost of relieving the allowance from taxation. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that he is creating an anomaly with the allowance by making it taxable, and I hope that he will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Newton: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend's amendment. It seems that there is a scandalous situation on the facts that he has put before us. Surely it cannot have been the intention of anyone concerned that a family which has a child receiving the mobility allowance should be subject, assuming it is paying tax, to a marginal tax rate of over 50 per cent. on the child's mobility allowance. I do not see how anyone can defend the present situation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will undertake to look at this matter again.
  It is a pity that the Chief Secretary has left the Chamber because it is clear that this problem arises partly from the self-same cause that we discussed in the previous debate—namely, the low limit on the income of children. If that limit was set, for example, at the same level
  756
  as the mobility allowance, the problem would vanish and we would have done something. The Chief Secretary went half-way towards accepting the argument put forward on the income limit, which would eliminate the problem altogether as the mobility allowance would be within the new limit.
  The more I have listened to these debates the stronger the case seems to be for resolving the problem by taking the action that the Chief Secretary was talking about in the previous debate—namely, by creating a general increase in the child income limit and, perhaps, taking the mobility allowance as the new reference level.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I express support from the Government side of the Committee for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I know that Oppositions always move amendments of this sort and that Governments always say that they are terribly sorry but they do not have the money, or that there are other ways of dealing with the problem. They always take that approach in opposing this sort of amendment.
  The amendment is important for the disabled. In my view the hon. Member for Exeter has made a powerful case. I hope that the Government will be a little more sympathetic towards this matter than Governments generally are, and will not put forward the usual excuses.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am always happy to listen to a plea from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), especially when he points out the nature of Government and Opposition. They are frequently changing sides on a number of provisions in the social security sphere that are covered by tax allowances.
  It was decided by the House of Commons that the mobility allowance should be taxable. The net cash benefit has been fixed at £5 a week for providing greater mobility. That is taxable. That was the decision of the House of Commons. The problem is that if the amendment were accepted it would provide that the mobility allowance remains taxable in the hands of the recipient. But if the person for whom the mobility allowance was paid happened to be a child, and it

  757
  was paid into the hands of the parent, that would be taken into account in assessing the child's tax allowance.
  Perhaps I should mention the cost to parents. We know from the debate on an earlier amendment that the child tax allowance starts off at £115. Up to £115 the child tax allowance is payable in full. It is only when the child's income, from whatever source, increases to about £450 a year that the child tax allowance is withdrawn by stages on the basis of £1 for each £1. It runs out at £450. At that level the benefit of the child tax allowance is extinguished. Unless the child's income is above that sum, there is still some benefit. It is sometimes large—sometimes less large—depending on the child's income.
  It would be a mistake, without further investigation, to say that the child tax allowance should take account of the taxable features of the mobility allowance and at the same time maintain that the mobility allowance should remain taxable. We could be in danger of setting at cross-purposes the two features. That might be the intention of the House of Commons.
  I believe that most of these allowances, if they are not taxable, will meet problems of the kind that we discussed previously concerning the differences between social security payments, on the one hand, and tax allowances, on the other.
  I believe that it would be wrong to make that change. However, this is an amendment of a kind which has not previously been considered. I should be happy to receive further representations on this matter. For reasons known to the Committee, we are under pressure of time. I understand that the Opposition want to make some progress. If, because of that, the debate has been shortened rather more than it would otherwise have been, and has not, therefore, allowed sufficient time for all the points which hon. Members would have made, I am prepared to consider further representations on the matter. With those comments, perhaps we might make further progress.
  Mr. Hannam: This is an important matter, which should be looked at again by the Government. I do not think that they are fully aware of the implications of taxation on the child mobility allow-
  758
  ance. I have not been arguing the principle of taxation on the adult allowance, but purely of applying it to the child recipient. The tax should be applied to the income of the recipient, not the parent. We feel strongly about this matter. Exemption is already given under the 1970 Act for education endowments, for example. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter and enable us to pursue it on another occasion.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. Friend leaves this matter, I want to put one point to the Financial Secretary. Earlier we discussed the one-parent family. The one-parent family that is receiving a mobility allowance for a child is in an extremely difficult position. I hope that the Minister will include that matter in his further consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. Hannam: I should certainly like to take the opportunity of bringing the full details of this matter to the Minister's notice. In view of his assurance that he will consider this matter carefully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

  RETIREMENT ANNUITIES.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 15, line 23, leave out "£2,250" and insert "£3,000".
  The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we will take Amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 23, leave out "£2,250" and insert "£5,000".
  Mr. Mitchell: This amendment concerns the amount which a self-employed man may spend on an annuity for his retirement. I shall not detain the Committee very long, but this is an important matter for the self-employed. Therefore, we must have a fuller reply from the Financial Secretary than we had in the previous debate. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he felt under some constraints due to pressure of time. I do not think that he need worry about that.
  Until this year a self-employed person was permitted to spend a maximum of

  759
  £1,500 a year or 15 per cent., if the lesser amount, which was allowed for tax. That figure was fixed in 1971
  Why, in 1976, do the Government propose to increase that figure by only 50 per cent. when since 1971 prices have gone up by 89–9 per cent.? I think that my figures are probably two to three weeks out of date and the percentage will now be greater. No doubt it can now be rounded up to 90 per cent. When prices have gone up so much, why do not the Government increase the allowance for those who are contributing to their pensions by at least as much?
  We are dealing with pensions which will be drawn many years hence. A man may be contributing over perhaps 10 or 15 years of his working life, starting possibly at the age of 48 or 50 until he retires at 65. Therefore, we are considering contributions paid now for a pension to be drawn in 10 or 15 years.
  I believe that the Government ought, at least in part, to take a much longer view of the effects of inflation on the self-employed and the money that they can contribute to their pensions. I suggest that the allowance ought to be increased by more than the increase in the cost of living. Old-age pensions and other national insurance benefits over which the Government have control have moved broadly in line with inflation. It seems wholly unfair and unjustifiable that the self-employed should be put in a different position. Indeed, since this Government came into office the self-employed have been hammered on every possible occasion and in every direction..
  Only yesterday the economic progress report from the Treasury indicated that average disposable income rose by 22 per cent., but by only 12¼ per cent. for the self-employed. That is one indication of how the self-employed are falling behind.
  As a group, the self-employed—whether it he the man running a plumbing or wood sawing business, those engaged in country crafts, doctors, artists, musicians and a whole host of other people who supply ancillary services to industry through their various skills—are suffering from the effects of inflation. They find that they have to put more money into their businesses. Yet, the Government are always taking more away from them.
  760
  We cannot fail to consider the very unhappy position of the self-employed in relation to the national insurance contribution. For a man on the higher limits of earnings this contribution has gone up by £104 this year. He has to pay £104 more. In order to have that net extra £104 in his pocket, it would take three-quarters of the permitted increase of £6 a week which is allowed under the restraint of wages and salaries.
  8.0 p.m.
  Sir John Hall: The increase in the wage related contribution of £104 more than swallows up the maximum tax concession given by the Chancellor for a married man with two children. That amount is about £86.
  Mr. Mitchell: I think the amount is £87.50, but my hon. Friend is right—whichever way one looks at it, the self-employed have to find this extra amount of money. They are being ill-treated. This is part of a pattern in which the self-employed are constantly overlooked or damaged.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Member referred to the limit on the increase of income. In what possible sense could this limit be applied to or be binding on the self-employed? There is no contract or agreement made on their behalf by the TUC, and there is no legislation whatsoever which controls or limits the increase in remuneration available to them.
  Mr. Mitchell: While it may be true that some sections of the self-employed are free to some extent, there are many areas of self-employed people who are not only adjured to conform to the Government's prices and wages control legislation, but whose net income is fixed by the Government in one form or another. Doctors are a good example.
  We are dealing in this amendment with someone who is self-employed and whose increase in earnings has been limited by the Government. Such a self-employed person gets very little in the way of additional benefit from the substantial increase in national insurance contributions which he has had to find out of his post-tax income. There are 13 benefits given to the ordinary employed man which do not go to the self-employed, and this fact is generally overlooked. There are other benefits to which a self-employed man is

  761
  entitled but which he does not claim or from which he does not get value for money. I refer to sickness benefit.
  A self-employed person is entitled to sickness benefit in the same way as an employed person, but a self-employed person with backache or a cold does not go to the doctor and lay up for a week. He carries on working and does not make a claim. In any estimation of the relative merits of the benefits to which he is entitled, he does much worse than the ordinary employed man.
  This strengthens the case for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something to help such a person by making the national insurance contributions of the self-employed, at least in part, allowable for tax. The employer's contribution to the national insurance stamp is allowed for tax, so it is quite wrong that a proportion of the self-employed contribution should not be allowed for tax as well.
  The figures in the amendment of permitted contribution to a self-employed person's annuity go up to £2,250, and some people might think that is a large sum. But a typically self-employed small business man is someone who through many years of his life has been unable to afford to contribute to a pension fund because he has been ploughing all his spare money into his business in order to try to build it up. Only when he is in his 50s is he able to say "I have to do something about my old age"
  In order to do something which will give him a relative retention of living standards in his old age, he then starts to contribute to a self-employed person's annuity. In order to get a reasonable return, he needs to be able to make a large contribution, as he will be starting in the later days of his working life.
  We are dealing here with small business men who have been harmed by the Government, who have actively discouraged the older man from building up his business by introducing their capital transfer tax. With the death grip of capital gains tax and capital transfer tax as well, it is virtually impossible for the older business man to make it worth while to build up a business to transfer to the next generation.
  Automatically he is going to think "I will safeguard my future by paying into a pension fund". But the Government
  762
  have limited the increased contribution he can pay into that pension fund to the point where it does not keep pace with inflation. In the name of logic and justice the Government should allow this amendment.
  Mr. Wakeham: I support this amendment because it is a move in the right direction. But even the amendment is wholly inadequate for dealing with the problems of the self-employed. I say that not necessarily because I believe that the figure in the amendment is wrong, but because I think this is a wrong way of looking at the problem. It is a misconception of the problem of the self-employed.
  That misconception arises because we look at this problem of a self-employed person's income on an annual basis. It is reasonable for most people on salaries to look at their income on an annual basis. For the self-employed man, while for purposes of taxation it is practical to look at it on an annual basis, his income is what is left over after he has paid the expenses of running a business.
  Most self-employed professional people, builders, shop-caterers and traders, have good years and bad years. Some years their profits are up, other years they are down; so provision for retirement arrangements for the self-employed need to be more flexible than they are.
  While I accept that the amendment is a move in the right direction, even that is not sufficiently flexible. It is not necessarily correct to say that when a self-employed person has had a particularly good year, has had a high income and is able to go up to the maximum on the arrangements made, this is the year he is best able to make provision for his retirement. In fact, it is probably the year in which his cash flow problems are worst. He has his debtors to pay and his stocks are up. While on paper he has made a good profit and may seem able to take the maximum advantage of it, in fact this is probably the most inconvenient year for him to do so.
  It may well be a year in which things have not gone so well and his cash resources are under pressure so that he is unable to put quite so much into a self-employed retirement premium. The

  763
  whole system of considering self-employment on an annual basis, while it might be convenient in some respects, is not therefore necessarily the best way of dealing with the situation. It would be better to take an average of the income of three years in order to determine what a self-employed person earns.
  Perhaps in future we should look at this matter by fixing a limit on a percentage basis to allow the taxpayer to carry forward any relief that he has been unable to use in a given year, so that he can use it against his income for a subsequent year. There is an argument for reversing that process, but tonight I restrict myself to carrying the reliefs forward.
  That would be more flexible and would give greater justice to the self-employed. It would show a greater understanding of the realities facing this group of people.
  Sir John Hall: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's amendment. As he pointed out, one of the problems facing the self-employed is that in the early days of their careers they are probably putting all their spare money into developing and furthering their business and they have very little to spare to put by for the future. It is probably not until they reach middle age that they begin to think about making some provision outside the normal provision which they make through building up the value of their business which they hope to sell on retirement, thus realising a reasonable capital sum for investment on which they hope to live.
  The changes in the tax structure have made that difficult. Capital transfer tax and the investment surcharge make it difficult for the self-employed man to safeguard his future and his pension period in that way.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend will not overlook the enormous importance of the capital gains tax in this respect. It levies heavily on a man who has spent his lifetime building up a business. The Government have so far done nothing to offset the effects of inflation here. Not only is he taxed at 30 per cent. on the increase in the real value of what he has built up, but he is taxed
  764
  on the paper increase in that value, so that he ends up with very little for so much hard work.
  Sir J. Hall: I apologise to my hon. Friend for having overlooked the capital gains tax among the many additional taxation burdens imposed upon the self-employed.
  Let me compare the position of the self-employed with that of other groups. We have heard a great deal in recent debates about the pension arrangements for civil servants. I do not object to those arrangements. I have always favoured indexing, although I should warn the Government that to index only some things will impose great strains on the economy. For indexing to be successful it must be applied across the board. The pension arrangements for the Civil Service give protection, so far as it can be given. against inflation.
  Many private enterprise employees participate in their employers' pension schemes and generally find that their retirement pension is related to the last two, three, or five years of service, depending on the conditions of the scheme. That in itself safeguards them against inflation, because their pension is related to their retirement salary.
  It is not, however, a complete safeguard. Those in the higher income bracket are not safeguarded, because their increases have been curtailed by the Government's pay policies and their pay has not maintained its true value. To a large extent employees are safeguarded against inflation. Many large companies have over recent months put large sums into their pension schemes in order to make sure that their cover is maintained.
  8.15 p.m.
  However, that is not so with the self-employed. I share the amazement expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) that the increases proposed by the Government should be so out of line with the trend of inflation over the period. I do not understand why the Government have been prepared to go a little way towards compensating the self-employed for the fall in the value of money but have not been sufficiently courageous to go the full way towards complete indexation.

  765
  That is in complete contrast to the way in which we as Members of Parliament have treated our pension scheme. Our system is that, although it has been decided that Members of Parliament should not receive the £8,000 plus as recommended by the Boyle Committee because that is too big an increase, our pension is to be calculated on the basis that it has been paid. I know of no other case in this country where a pension scheme is calculated on the basis of a mythical higher salary. I do not object to the system because I could be one of the beneficiaries in the course of time. But our behaviour there contrasts with the way in which we are prepared to treat thousands of self-employed people who make such an enormous contribution to our economy.
  I hope that the Minister will take our argument seriously. I know that he normally does, but he is hamstrung by the brief that he has been given. I beg him to depart from that brief—to tear it up. I ask him to respond as the intelligent and warm-hearted man I know him to be. Let him give the concession which I know is in his heart to give. He should forget what he is told by his Department—the representatives of which are watching him from the Box.
  This is a very modest amendment. With the present rate of inflation it does not go far enough. That is especially so in view of the inflation we are likely to experience over the next 12 months.
  Mr. David Mitchell: There are other more generous amendments on the Order Paper. I chose the figure in my amendment because I was anxious not to make it difficult for the Minister to say "Yes". My figure involves the Government in no extra expenditure. This is an occasion when we can encourage a deserving sector of the community. I think that the Financial Secretary could accept such a moderate amendment. I hope that he will take my hon. Friend's advice, tear up his brief and speak from the heart.
  Sir J. Hall: I am grateful for that explanation. I hope that the Minister will accept one of the more generous amendments, though I have no great hopes of that. No doubt we shall get the usual sort of answer with the old threadbare arguments against accepting the amendments.
  766
  However, we should not be discouraged. We should go on pressing the Minister to accept the justice of the case and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill's passage we may be able to effect a change of heart.
  Mr. Boscawen: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) is not optimistic that the Minister will tear up his brief. Neither am I, because the Labour Party does not care for the self-employed. It has hit the self-employed very hard both above and below the belt.
  I very much welcome this modest amendment, which would help self-employed people to put aside a little more money for their retirement. It is particularly important for those aged over 50 who are starting to think of retirement and have been unable previously to start making provision for that time. They do not have many years left in which to make contributions towards a reasonable pension. It is vital that they should be allowed to put aside a little extra so that they can catch up with inflation.
  We must remember that what would have been a reasonable provision for old age a few years ago has become "peanuts" as a result of the massive inflation of the past few years. I hope the Chancellor, who has recognised the problem and raised the limit a little, will go the whole way and raise the limit by the amount by which the cost of living has increased since the last adjustment.
  The self-employed have been hit extremely hard, particularly over national insurance contributions. I add my plea, though it is not the subject of this amendment, for tax relief to be given on the employer content of these contributions.
  Treasury and Social Security Ministers have given many explanations in attempts to prove that the self-employed are not doing too badly under the present arrangements. But the self-employed do not believe it. They see their contributions have been increased enormously in the past few years and they do not see much benefit from these increases—certainly not the amount of benefit gained by employed people.
  I wish that the amendment had gone even further. Let the Minister consider the case of people aged over 50. If they

  767
  lose this opportunity to catch up on inflation by making extra contributions over the next 10 to 15 years, they will never be able to catch up.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I support the amendment and declare a personal interest. I am a member of the self-employed and have made my own contributions to a personal retirement benefits scheme under the provisions of the 1956 Act. I am not sure whether my declaration in the Register of hon. Members' Interests covers this point but I place on the record that I have a personal interest. If I tend to wax a little partisan in my short intervention I know the House will discount a little of it because of my personal interest.
  This debate takes some of us back to the debates we had last summer, when this matter was first ventilated in Committee on an amendment to the Finance Bill moved by one of my hon. Friends. After a certain amount of pressure, the Financial Secretary conceded that there was a problem to be reviewed. He did not appear entirely to understand the basis on which this small measure of relief was introduced in the Finance Act 1956. He called it a concession. Let us not play with words. It was a measure affecting self-employed people and even one or two directors and employees. We are not talking only of the self-employed. There were other categories for whom provision had to be made in the 1956 Act.
  I did not regard what was introduced in the 1956 Act as a concession. It was a belated recognition of the fact that certain classes in the community had been disadvantaged in pension schemes and that the considerable tax reliefs and advantages which had been conceded over the years were of no value to them. Self-employed people are permitted to defer during their working lives only a small proportion of their taxable income so that they may enjoy it after retirement.
  The Financial Secretary was inclined to play this up as a massive concession, and he told us that the pensions were treated as earned income. What an amazing concession! Even in 1956, it was a long-overdue measure of justice, and the position has altered considerably since then. That is why my hon. Friends
  768
  and I raised the matter last summer. The Financial Secretary undertook to view the matter sympathetically and, on that undertaking, we withdrew our amendment. Today we are judging in Clause 27 the measure of the Financial Secretary's sympathy and generosity. I hate to say this, but I have found his sympathy and generosity a little constricted and a little mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) was tempted to see that constriction and that meanness as being introduced by forces mobilised behind and beyond the Financial Secretary in his Department. Well, we shall see.
  Clause 27, to which the amendment is directed, is defective. It fails to meet the justice of this case for a variety of reasons. First, it comes into operation only in 1976–77. I need not point out the effects of inflation over the past year. It would have been a very small matter for the Financial Secretary to have made his clause retrospective for a year to allow people to "top up" in relation to the past year the contributions that they had already made. I commend that idea to him.
  8.30 p.m.
  He has increased the ceiling from £10,000 to £15,000, but the percentage remains the same. I contrast Clause 27 unfavourably with the measure of relief introduced in 1971 by Lord Barber. On that occasion, the ceiling was increased from £7,500 to £10,000, but the percentage was increased from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., and that against a background of inflation which was minimal compared with what we have had to endure in the past two years.
  I support the amendment warmly, although it could go a great deal further, and there are various other amendments which we shall reach later that amplify it. But, as a first break into this problem, I commend the amendment warmly.
  [MR. VICTOR GOODHEW in the Chair]
  Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that I shall be in order in drawing my hon. and learned Friend's attention to Amendment No. 71, which has not caught your eye, Sir Myer, as being appropriate for selection. That amendment would have met many of the points being made by my hon. and learned Friend, in that it would

  769
  have suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should in each subsequent tax year review the level of tax relief available for approved retirement annuity contracts for the purpose of determining whether it had retained its value in relation to the general level of earnings and prices. I believe that if the Government were to accept that principle it would go a long way to take account of the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
  There are other matters in that amendment which might or might not meet with the approval of the Government, but one very important item of it which I hope will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is that it would provide for the Minister to have to lay a draft uprating before the House and, if he did not intend to uprate it, he would have to give his reasons. Too often decisions are made by Governments without reporting to the House their reasons for doing so.
  Mr. Rees: I would never accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) of a want of generosity or a want of perception. I have not read the amendment in the context of the other amendments tabled by him and by others of my hon. Friends. However, the points to which I am directing my criticisms would not be covered by that amendment, although I recognise that inflation lies at the heart of so many of the problems that we are debating and will debate on this Bill.
  Perhaps I may come to the matters which I feel the Financial Secretary should consider. This debate inevitably must be a comparative exercise. The retirement annuities of the self-employed cannot be viewed in isolation. The Government must consider whether a fair amount of justice is being done to the self-employed by comparison with the reliefs, the advantages and the benefits which are extended under a tax system to other sections of the community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right to draw attention to the pensions which we have voted ourselves, based on a rather curious formula. I shall not open up the debate to defend or to attack the basis of that formula, but it is right to observe that perhaps this House has been a little more
  770
  generous to its own Members than the Financial Secretary is disposed to be to the self-employed.
  Again, employees who have the benefit of retirement benefit schemes are in a considerably more advantaged position. In the first place, there is no ceiling to the contributions made on their behalf. That is a crucial point. Again, it is quite possible for the companies, institutions or organisations which employ them to make up the position of late entrants. I shall come to the case of the self-employed. But it is difficult for a person wanting to start on a retirement benefit scheme on his own, that he is in his 40s or 50s, to make up the ground which has been covered already by his friends and neighbours who are in pensionable employment.
  Again, it is always possible, and indeed there have been very many cases over the past few years, for an employer to top up such pension schemes to protect them from the ravages of inflation, and these topping up contributions will always be tax deductible in calculating the employer's profits for tax purposes. So is the employee, provided his employer remains solvent, is potentially in a much stronger, sounder position.
  Coming to the pensions of civil servants, this is a delicate subject and always arouses strong emotions. It is perhaps unfair to single them out when those who enjoy them, or will potentially enjoy them, are unable perhaps to answer for themselves on the Floor of the House, but the Financial Secretary is well aware of their position because it has been raised in other debates. Let me remind the Committee that a civil servant, if he serves long enough, may enjoy a pension of two-thirds of his retirement salary, so immediately it is geared to the inflation that has been persisting up to the point of his retirement. Thereafter, under an Order passed a few years ago, it is inflation-proof.
  Beyond that, the civil servant may enjoy a lump-sum tax-free payment roughly equivalent to one and a half times his retiring salary. I remember making this point in Committee and challenging the Financial Secretary, who showed a certain reluctance to accept it. But evidence was given on this point to the Select Committee on Wealth Tax

  771
  and never challenged. This very day the Prime Minister was disposed to say that there was nothing more inflammatory and more irritating to the country than the golden handshake. What, in principle, is the difference between the lump-sum retirement figure paid to a civil servant and the golden handshake given to an employee or director who retires? If we are going to attack golden handshakes, we must reconsider the principle of the lump-sum tax-free gratuities.
  I should like to see a broad, even measure of justice. Let there be golden handshakes in genuine cases where people's expectations have been cut short, and let civil servants have lump-sum tax-free gratuities. But if narrow, partisan points are to be made from the Government Benches about golden handshakes, let us view the problem in the round and not be too selective in the examples we choose to bolster our cases.
  I am sure the Committee will agree that by these standards in pensionable employment, whether in the public or the private sector, what is proposed for the self-employed is mean. Indeed, some interesting figures have been prepared to show just what kind of percentage allowance would be needed to provide an inflation-proof pension for a self-employed person on retirement, on certain assumptions. I know that the Financial Secretary has had a copy of these figures. They have been prepared with a wealth of actuarial evidence and submitted to him, and therefore I shall draw liberally on them, but on the assumption that other members of the Committee in general have not been given them, I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I read them out.
  If one starts with the assumption that inflation may run at a rate of 71 per cent. per annum—and I remind the Financial Secretary and the Committee that the Government Actuary, in certain recent calculations he has made in the social security field, has been budgeting for inflation at the rate of 8 per cent.—if a self-employed person is to start making contributions at the age of 25 and is to equip himself with a retirement annuity to cover such a rate of inflation he will have to make contributions at the rate of 17 per cent. I put it to the Committee that there are not many mem-
  772
  bers of the self-employed who are in a position to start making such contributions at the age of 25. If I may inflict on the Committee my own experience, I was certainly in no position to do so and was probably showing a negative income for a few years after that, such are the hazards of life in my profession. I should certainly not have been in a position to contribute 17 per cent. of anything I was earning.
  Let us suppose that such a person started a scheme at the age of 35. The percentage contribution required from such a person would be 22 per cent.—way above the figure that the Government, in their generosity, are prepared to concede under the Bill. if a person enters into a scheme at the age of 45, at which age many people probably are at the peak of their earning power and their children are not making so many demands upon them—the percentage contribution required to secure an inflation-proof pension would be 30–5 per cent. If a person is so unlucky as to defer his entry into the scheme to age 55, his contribution would need to be at a rate of 47 per cent.
  Measured against those figures, what the Government now propose is niggardly in the extreme. The Financial Secretary will say that under the wise and beneficent rule of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of inflation will be nothing like as high as it has been, and we must bear that point in mind.
  Let us assume that the pension will not increase at all after retirement but will remain static—in other words, at a fixed figure, year by year. It must be against the Committee's experience that there is likely to be no inflation at all in the coming years. For a person entering a scheme at the age of 35, the percentage contribution will need to be at a rate of 9 per cent.—well within the Government's margin. A person entering the scheme at the age of 45 would need to make contributions at a rate of 121 per cent. A person entering at the age of 55 would need to contribute at a rate of 32 per cent.
  Let us contrast their position with that of a person who is employed in the private sector. His employer could make adequate provision for him, because there is no ceiling on contributions. The provision would be tax-deductible for the

  773
  employer and could be topped up at any time against the ravages of inflation. One is led to the ineluctable conclusion either that the Financial Secretary is not applying himself to the problem or that he is working under some constraints, which I hope he will uncover when he replies to the debate.
  I do not wish to wax sentimental about the virtue of contributions for the self-employed; they have their own distinctive place in our national life. But it is fair to say that without the salt and savour that they give, something would go from our national scene. It is fair to to point out that for this important debate there is a very low attendance on the Labour Benches; and there is a total absence of minority parties. I hope that the country will note who are the champions of the self-employed.
  Do the Government recognise that there is still a place for the self-employed in our social and economic structure? Does the Financial Secretary believe that they have an important contribution to make, or does he see us all eventually as State employees in one form or another?
  Amendment No. 64 seeks to bring a small measure of justice to a much-oppressed class. Amendment No. 66 seeks to explore the problem of late entrants, whose difficulties do not appear to have been brought into focus by the Financial Secretary.
  Some of my hon. Friends have emphasised how much the self-employed have suffered in the past two years, whether it be in terms of social security provision, inflation levels, or pressures of business or professional life.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is prone to talk about equality of sacrifice. When he does so, I am not certain what he means. He appears to believe that we are about to enter a period of difficulty. In the past two years the self-employed have suffered a sharp drop in their standard of living. It is not a question of their tightening their belts for the cold winds to come; they have already tightened their belts over the past two years. All that my hon. Friends are asking, and what I am pressing for, is a small measure of justice for them—some recognition of what they have had to undergo and what they will have to
  774
  endure in retirement against accelerating inflation. All we are asking tonight from the Financial Secretary is a modest measure of relief, which will cost the Exchequer very little. We shall await with interest the reply to this debate.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). In Committee on the Finance Bill last year I moved the amendment which led to the undertaking from the Financial Secretary that he would review the position of the self-employed and the controlling director. I must thank him for honouring that undertaking and coming to the House tonight with an amendment which improves the position of the controlling director and the self-employed. But I must say that we have to be extremely careful when we discuss the arrangements which we are prepared to allow other people to make for their pensions.
  There is tremendous resentment outside the House of Commons that we as Members of Parliament have agreed that our pensions should be based on a figure of £8,000, the figure which we would have been paid had we accepted the recommendations of the Boyle Review Body; but we did not accept them. As we all know, our pension arrangements are now based on a figure which is much higher than our income and it is perfectly possible to argue that if we had taken the £8,000 recommended by Lord Boyle, although there would have been rows about it, our pension arrangements at least would be consistent.
  The public at large does not see it like that and says that as we did not accept the Boyle recommendations, we must accept the consequences and must not start making special arrangements allowing Members of Parliament to protect their pensions from the consequences of their own action.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: I would submit to my hon. Friend that he is not being absolutely fair to us as MPs. After all, can he think of any other body of people who have had their salaries reviewed by a totally independent group, consisting of a wide range of people from very distinguished positions

  775
  in industry, the trade unions and professions, who, having looked at the salaries being paid and the responsibilities and duties of the job, said "Members of Parliament should be paid £8,000 now", Members who then said, "Our salaries having been considered by an independent group, we decide suddenly that Members of Parliament should not take the £8,000 and that the amount should be reduced to £5,750"?
  Can my hon. Friend think of that having been done in any other case? I should have thought that that was a great example. Is it not fair and reasonable that for the future, when many of us will retire either voluntarily or not quite so voluntarily, and earn the full pension—and we have to be here well over 20 years to do so—there should be a reasonable pension in return for long and hard service to the nation?
  Mr. Clement Freud: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that a Member must serve for 40 years to earn a full pension? Would he not agree that the time to say that—
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: One a point of order, Mr. Goodhew. Is it not a little unusual to permit an intervention in an intervention?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is somewhat unusual, but I hope that this intervention is connected with the previous one so that the two can be asked together, and I hope that it will be short.
  Mr. Freud: I am grateful, Mr. Goodhew. The hon. Member did give way to me. My point is simply that obviously the time to say that we would not accept the full wage increase to £8,000 but that we would take the pension was at the time when we said that £5,750 would do us at that moment, but that our pensions should be based on the notional £8,000 which we were refusing. The controversy has come as a result of the time lag between the non-acceptance of the Top Salaries Review Board's recommendation and our subsequent decision to base our pensions on it.
  Mr. Parkinson: I find myself in the difficult situation of being tempted to agree with both hon. Members. The
  776
  point which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has made is a very fair one and boils down to the fact that we are appallingly bad at handling our own affairs. We are diffident about making arrangements which appear to benefit us. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), but, as he has seen in leaders in the newspapers and probably in his own postbag, many people do not take that view. They feel that once again Members of Parliament have reserved for themselves a privilege which is not available to other people.
  Sir Edward Brown: A second part of the report has yet to come. The Prime Minister and his predecessor have had it in their office. That is the part dealing with pensions. This has not yet appeared although it has been notified to every hon. Member since November last year. That is another consideration which should be taken into account.
  Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to strain your good nature, Mr. Goodhew. We are not debating Members' pensions; we are debating the self-employed. It would be adding to our insult to the self-employed if we seemed to prefer to debate our own affairs.
  Mr. Bowden: I too, do not want to strain your good will, Mr. Goodhew, but in both cases we are dealing with natural justice. However, if we do not have the courage to say that in both cases we do not think justice is being done, we do ourselves no service.
  Mr. Parkinson: We can all feel better for this brief excursion into the problems of Members of Parliament, but the fact is that the public do not understand us. I believe this is the constant complaint of the husband to his attractive girl friend—that his wife does not understand him. Perhaps we shall also get into that dilemma in referring to ourselves.
  The only point I was making is that, having set up a most unusual situation for ourselves by preserving our pensions, we have to be careful when we discuss arrangements which we are prepared to allow other people to make for their own pensions—in particular, the self-employed and controlling directors. Civil servants and those who advise Ministers must also

  777
  feel a little intimidated when they examine amendments of this kind.
  The Civil Service has inflation-proofed its pensions and is in a highly privileged position. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal pointed out that the golden handshake is not something known only to commerce; it affects top civil servants and the Civil Service generally. They have the power to commute part of their pension entitlement and take it as a tax-free lump sum. Golden handshakes and inflation-proofed pensions are available to civil servants.
  We have voted large sums to nationalised industries to eliminate losses supposedly incurred through price restraint. We once gave the Post Office a subvention of about £132 million. When one of my hon. Friends investigated the Post Office accounts, it turned out that the reason was not price restraint. The largest element in the deficit was over £100 million for the Post Office Pension Fund, which had been ravaged by inflation. Parliament helped to sustain the pensions of postmen. Many of us thought it was sharp practice to use price restraint legislation to slip through huge sums to prop up a pension fund.
  So a variety of arrangements are made in the public service, the Civil Service and in the House to enable some of us to look forward to a satisfactory pension. Under the Government's pension scheme, the nation will be issued with an inflation-proof IOU dated 1992. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) promised that if we paid our contributions and behaved ourselves, we should get this IOU when we retired. The Conservative pension scheme, which this Government abandoned, was far more realistic and sensible.
  No Government can promise that the working population of the 1990s will treat pensioners more generously than ever before and yet not set aside money to meet the commitment. It would have to be met from the revenue of the day. The mind boggles at the arithmetic involved in that kind of guarantee. The pensioned population is increasing and the working population is shrinking, yet our pensions are to be inflation-proofed.
  This Government have a fixation about the poor old self-employed. They regard them as a bunch of untrustworthy
  778
  fiddlers to be persecuted in every possible way. The self-employed pay more than the rest of us in national insurance contributions yet receive smaller benefits. The reasoning is that they are not trustworthy, they are on the make, and must be penalised.
  Once against, thanks to the Treasury, this group will be entitled to pay increased contributions, to get tax relief but to have no guarantee of inflation proofing. The figures do not reflect the effect of inflation even since the last review. To do so they would have to be nearer £3,000 than £2,250. Yet we are saying that we will be broadminded and generous and will allow them to make an additional contribution for themselves. Who knows, in a few years' time, if some Government can pluck up the courage, they will allow them to come back and press us for another review. We are not extending to them the same privileges which civil servants have arranged for themselves, which those in the nationalised industries can expect, and which can be expected by many others when they retire.
  9.0 p.m.
  We are saying that this is a very special, suspect group and that we reserve the right to look at their contributions from time to time. If the Labour Party is in power, it is likely that the group will fall back in the race against inflation. If inflation continues, it is likely that the self-employed will not be able to provide an adequate pension for themselves. We are saying that that is their bad luck because they have committed the unforgiveable—they have chosen to work for themselves and therefore they are a group against whom we are entitled to discriminate.
  Conservative Members do not see the self-employed and controlling directors in that light. Even the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a point of exempting small businesses from his criticism when he was Secretary of State for Industry. Whatever plans he had for nationalisation, he always said that he would do nothing to damage the prospects of small businesses because they created the dynamism and the growth, were the giants of the future, and must be looked after. The right hon. Gentleman often paid tribute to small businesses.

  779
  The subject is becoming almost a bore. We are making the small business man and the controlling director big-headed as we sing their praises. But when we have a chance to allow them to make better arrangements for their pensions, we talk of them as a dodgy group. We are happy to sing their praises and to admit that one-third of the population relies on them for jobs, but when it comes to practical arrangements, we revert to type and refuse them the privileges which everyone else enjoys. We say "Why should we take inflation into account?"
  Conservative hon. Members do not accept that thinking. We believe that the self-employed and controlling directors are important and deserve the same treatment as others.
  Mr. Bowden: I apologise to the Committee for not being in the Chamber earlier in the debate but a series of other engagements kept me away from the House.
  The principal amendment is modest.
  Mr. Freudrose—
  Mr. Bowden: I note that the Liberal spokesman is about to leave the Chamber, which is a pity, because I hoped that he would stay. The Liberal amendment is more generous than the principal amendment, and the Committee should support it. The main Opposition party felt that it did not want to ask for too much, and hoped that by keeping its request at a fairly reasonable level the Government would feel able to accept the amendment to increase the sum from £2,250 to £3,000
  None of us would deny that the position and the life of the self-employed person today is far from easy. Indeed, life is not easy for any of us under the present Government, but it is probably more difficult for the self-employed than for most sections of the community. We really shall be suffering very greatly as a nation, both in terms of the spirit and the enterprise that the self-employed show and in the context of our economy, if we continue to drive more and more of these determined, hard-working and able people out of business.
  In my own town, Brighton, we have a substantial number of self-employed
  780
  people—small shopkeepers and people in small businesses—all geared to providing vital services to the people of Brighton and for the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the town each year during the holiday season. Some of those self-employed are geared particularly to the holiday industry for six or seven months of the year. They work extremely long hours, literally from first light until it is dark. Some use their Sundays, if they are not open for business on Sundays—although many still provide their services on Sundays—to do mountains of paper work and form filling to keep the Government happy and to ensure that their VAT returns are kept up to date, along with the requirements of the other Regulations.
  Unless they get a fair and reasonable return for these long and gruelling hours, and for being unpaid tax collectors, as so many self-employed people are—unless we give them a fair return for their efforts and their work—they will not continue as self-employed people. Many small shops and small businesses, which provide such a vital part of the economy and such excellent services to the community as a whole, will disappear completely.
  It is no exaggeration to say—though some Labour Members may dispute this—that the spirit that motivates the self-employed man is exactly the opposite of Socialism and the dogma and creed for which Socialism stands. The self-employed man can build up a business through his own determination and effort. How many companies have started as one-man or two-man businesses and have grown into great firms providing jobs for thousands of people? In their hearts, however, Labour Members really want to see the self-employed disappear completely, because the self-employed do not fit into the system. They do not fit in with the Socialist dream, in which we would be controlled by the State from the day we were born to the moment when we go into a little box in the ground. It is the complete opposite of the whole creed of Socialism that a person should be able to build up a business, to make profits and to earn a great deal of money—at the same time, however, paying a great deal of tax, which benefits the nation and provides jobs for thousands upon thousands of people.

  781
  Therefore, I hope that on this occasion, if on no other occasion in Committee on this Bill, the Government will look with a little sympathy and understanding at this group of amendments, or we shall drive these hard workers out.
  When we look at the situation in the context that one of the great problems in the trade union movement today—particularly in relation to wage freezes and wage restraint—can be centred around differentials, we know that this is a problem which will increase, for inevitably differentials are based upon different and various skills, and upon the quality of those skills.
  Unless we make due allowance for people who are fortunate enough to have exceptional abilities and skills, for which they should rightly receive extra remuneration, they will go somewhere else in the world, where those skills and hard work will be duly rewarded. Therefore, we are talking not merely of driving out the self-employed but of the inevitable consequences of Government policy in driving out those who are prepared to work long and hard hours.
  I do not regard it as a crime, as some hon. Members obviously do, for a person to work far beyond the average working week in order to provide extra standards for himself, for his wife and for his family. I appeal to the Treasury Ministers to reconsider these amendments and to see whether, in common justice, they can agree at least to accept the one that would raise the level to £3,000.
  Mr. Nott: The debate on my hon. Friend's amendment arises out of Clause 27, which in its small way we are glad to see in the Bill. The Government undertook last year to review sympathetically the problems of the self-employed with regard to their capacity to put aside money for their retirement. Having done so, the Government have come forward with this very modest increase in the provision which these people may make for their retirement.
  I shall outline quickly the history of the arrangements. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said, the system stems back to the Finance Act 1956 which allowed the deduction from relevant earnings of premiums up
  782
  to 10 per cent., with an earnings ceiling of £7,500. In the Finance Act 1971, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Barber, increased the relief to 15 per cent. of relevant earnings for those under 40, and to 20 per cent. of relevant earnings for those over 48 in 1956, with an earnings ceiling of £10,000 a year. Then there was a graduation in between those ages whereby the percentages moved up in 1 per cent. steps.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said, we are talking here in these new arrangements of a ceiling of £15,000 a year, but the circumstances are entirely different from those prevailing in 1971. Inflation at that time was a mere fraction of what it has been in the past two years. It is the case that members of the professions, those who are not in company pension schemes, and those who are not working in the public sector, have had their past contributions enormously eroded by the rate of inflation over the past couple of years.
  To a very large extent, therefore, these people, who have been putting aside money for their retirement, find themselves back not entirely at square one but, having had a great proportion of their past savings eroded, they need to make much greater contributions than they could have imagined would have been necessary in 1971
  The proposal before us raises the earnings ceiling to £15,000, and we are glad of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), in his very interesting speech, raised a rather general point of principle about the manner in which we deal with these things. He said that he was not sure at all that it was right to look at the pensions of self-employed people on the basis of an annual contribution.
  My hon. Friend made the valid point that the provisions must take account of the good years as well as the bad in private business. I think that he sounded a note to which we shall want to return when we review the arrangements, when we consider whether they should be made more flexible. He said that the good years should be taken with the bad, and that may be we should take an average of three years, for example, for deciding the limit of the contribution.

  783
  9.15 p.m.
  My hon. Friend made the interesting point that if a company has an especially good year it may mean the opposite of the proprietor having more money to put aside for his pension, as the good year might have brought a considerable cash strain upon his business. It may be that in a good year the proprietor has less to put aside for his pension than in a bad year.
  My hon. Friend made the valid case that we should look at the whole system again with, first the idea of concentrating on a percentage rather than on a ceiling. That is the basis of the next amendment that we shall be discussing. Secondly, he felt that an average of three years should be taken for deciding relevant earnings. Thirdly, he made the interesting suggestion that if we are to operate on an annual basis, we should allow the self-employed person to carry forward that element of the unused limit that he could not use in one tax year because his business or profession was not generating sufficient income for him to come up to the full limit at that stage.
  I believe that my hon. Friends feel some passion on this subject. The present arrangements offend their natural sense of justice. We are talking of discriminatory arrangements against certain sections of the community that are unacceptable. There is no place in equity for those who are self-employed, such as those who run their own businesses, those who are members of professions, such as accountants, solicitors and barristers, and those who are small shopkeepers, to be treated differently in our tax system from those who are in company pension schemes and those working in the public sector.
  In economic terms there is something more to be said for those who are contributing to funded schemes. Clearly, there is greater benefit to be derived from the normal pension contributions made by a man in a profession, or by a self-employed person, by those who are actually contributing to a funded scheme where the savings are channelled out into investment. Clearly those contributions are of greater benefit than the public sector scheme, when one is talking about a pay-as-you-go arrangement.
  I am sure that it is not right that there should be one set of tax arrangements
  784
  for those in pension schemes and those in the public sector, and a far less favourable set of arrangements for those working for themselves. I am sure that there is no disagreement across the Committee that the process of saving out of earned income for retirement is highly to be commended. Such saving helps counter-inflation policies and provides funds for investment. Indeed, our legislation in many areas admits of its beneficial effects. Yet as my hon. Friends have said, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who moved the amendment, the contributions are treated very differently. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal has said, pensions in the public sector are now inflation-proof. But more importantly—this is a matter that has been raised by others of my hon. Friends—the schemes normally taken account of final salary. That is of enormous benefit to those in public sector schemes compared with the self-employed, because if final salary is taken as the basis on which subsequent pensions are paid, at least there is some protection against inflation up to the moment when the individual retires from the public sector.
  There are arrangements in the private sector, as many of my hon. Friends have suggested, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), whereby companies are able to top up their employees' pension funds when inflation is running at a higher level than was anticipated. But there is no way that the self-employed man over 40 can make up for the devaluation of his past contributions in the time remaining before his retirement.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal referred to some very interesting figures. I noted them down. My hon. and learned Friend said that if we made certain assumptions—I understand that the assumptions that he made were those made by the Government Actuary, who last year took a figure of about 8 per cent. as being the likely inflation rate for the purpose of calculating Government pension schemes and an interest rate of about 9 per cent.—it would be necessary for somebody aged 45 to be able to set aside over 30 per cent. of his earnings to provide protection against inflation or, if aged 55, over 47 per cent. of his earnings.

  785
  We have here a 15 per cent. rate applying to the self-employed. That is in total contrast to the situation if the man were an employee. If a man joins a firm at the age of 55, his contributions need to be 47 per cent., but, through his company's pension scheme, he can get the whole of that 47 per cent. approved for tax purposes. It is allowable if he is an employee, but not if he is self-employed.
  The situation is even worse for young people starting out in the professions at, say, 25 years of age. At that young age they will not be making contributions which can protect them against inflation with a limit of 15 per cent. At 25, making the assumptions which my hon. and learned Friend made—the same assumptions as the Government Actuary made—a man would need to make a contribution of 17½ per cent. of his earnings to keep pace with inflation or, at 35, he would need to make a contribution of 22½ per cent. When we consider that a young person entering a profession or starting his own business is almost certainly not going to be able to put aside large sums in the early years, it becomes all the more clear that, under present arrangements, making the same inflation assumptions as the Government Actuary, there is no way that he can keep pace with inflation.
  The amendment seeks to increase the cash ceiling. This is a modest amendment, because the cash ceiling proposed goes nowhere near to meeting what we consider to be the essential point. I emphasise that there is no cash ceiling for Government superannuation schemes or approved private employee schemes. Several civil servants and private employers now have overall remuneration exceeding £15,000 per annum, which is the limit with which we are dealing, especially if we include in their remuneration the contributions which would be required to fund their pensions. We are not referring specifically to a salary of £15,000 in the public sector, but to a salary which incorporates sufficient money to fund pensions as well.
  Although these arrangements stem from the Finance Act 1956 and were increased in 1971, we are operating in an entirely different environment, because inflation has greatly eroded the contributions already made under these schemes. Unless we have a figure somewhere nearer
  786
  to 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of income, there will be no way in which a man in middle age will be able to protect himself in his retirement against the ravages of inflation. We are seeking to bring the tax arrangements for the self-employed more into line with those which exist for the private and public sectors. It is not asking a great deal.
  I conclude by commenting on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). He raised a number of questions about contributions to the national insurance scheme and pointed out that these were out of line with the arrangements for the employed person. I do not want to move into that area because here we are dealing specifically with pensions for the self-employed.
  We are not happy that the Government have sufficient understanding of the very special position of the self-employed and we see this as a good example of how they are undoubtedly, under existing tax arrangements, worse off than their contemporaries in the public sector or in companies with private pension schemes. I hope that the Financial Secretary will do his best to answer these points.
  Although we prefer the higher limit in the amendment, what we are seeking even more than that is what is embodied in the next amendment—not a cash limit at all, but a percentage limit. Only with a percentage limit will the self-employed be protected against inflation. Only with a percentage limit—and there are no cash limits for private schemes or for the public sector—shall we be able to put this whole thing on a fair and comparable basis.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I apologise to the Committee for dealing with the previous amendment rather briefly. I understood that the Committee was anxious to move on to the next clause.
  I shall give the details of the amendment and its intentions and results as I see them. The present position was that relief is given on premiums not exceeding 15 per cent, of earnings, up to a total of £1,500, or the equivalent of £10,000 in earnings. In the Committee stage upstairs of last year's Finance Bill I gave a commitment to look at this matter sympathetically. I did so and came to the House with what I thought would be

  787
  received not with ecstasy but with reasonable appreciation. Having undertaken to consider the arguments that were adduced in Committee, I thought there should be some increase, and the increase that I have suggested in this Finance Bill is an earnings limit of £15,000 a year, which means relief up to £2,250
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) wanted some form of indexation in this year as opposed to previous years. We have not had as many indexation debates as we had last year. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has restrained himself considerably throughout our debates, although he has given indications that he is still dedicated to that solution. Even without speaking he had made his view well felt in this Committee.
  If we were to accept the indexation argument in general, it would be a matter of great importance, and one that I would not be prepared to accept, for reasons that I have given many times. I need not repeat them. The point was made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke in respect of pension arrangements now being made. He said that pensions should be reasonably in proportion up to 10 or 15 years from now. He said that inflation had to be seen in the long-term context that he envisaged and that as a result there needed to be an increase in the limits of the kind that he had explained to the Committee. Obviously we need to take a long-term view of inflation, but that is one of the most difficult things to do at present. All of us who are dealing with economic matters have been through a quite traumatic year, in which we saw inflation at levels we never dreamed could exist in this country. We are now seeing a rapid reversal of that trend. It would be wrong to make too many assumptions based on experience of the past year.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Since the £1,500 limit was set in 1971 there has been an 89 per cent. increase in the rate of inflation. The Financial Secretary's "generous" uplift is only 50 per cent. My argument for looking two years ahead at the rate of inflation was to indicate that the amendment was too moderate and that we should have a much more generous scale.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Sheldon: I understand the hon. Member's point, but that may not necessarily be the whole picture. If inflation were to grow at the levels he might consider reasonable to assume, reasonable adjustments could be made, in the same way that adjustments were made this year following earlier representations.
  The hon. Member said that the Government's actions were unjustifiable and that the Government were—I think he said—the hammer of the self-employed. He was guilty of immoderate language and he failed to take account of the real concern that is being expressed so frequently by the Government for the problems of the self-employed and small businesses.
  The wheel has come full circle, where people interested and engaged in the activity of our industries are trying to afford every possible assistance to small firms and to understand the contribution that they make. I always held that view, but it is now becoming more widespread and the hon. Member for Basingstoke has played his part in that process. He said that the self-employed were frequently unable to make a contribution to their pension arrangements until they reached their late forties or early fifties. I agree that there is a great deal in what he says. Such people frequently are engaged in building up their businesses and making sure that all the profits are ploughed back. It is a pity that we do not still have the old corporation tax, which enabled them to do that—
  Mr. David Mitchell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sheldon: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me. That was one of the most valuable aspects of the old corporation tax system, which, unfortunately, the last Conservative Government abolished. One of the consequences of the very natural interest of the self-employed in building up their own business is that at the end of it all they have a valuable asset which they can sell or which will produce an income. That is something that the person in private employment does not have. That is one of the reasons for previous Governments' having accepted the need for both the premiums ceiling and the percentage limits of annuity arrangements.

  789
  If the arguments put by hon. Members tonight are so conclusive, why have all previous Governments not been persuaded of the need to abandon either total or percentage limits? The reason may be found in the Tucker Committee on the Taxation Treatment of Provisions for Retirement, which led to the 1956 provisions. It produced recommendations that were the precursor of the retirement annuity provisions that we are now considering. The Committee recommended that there should be a restriction on relief for earnings because they usually include an element more in the nature of a return on capital than of reward for work performed, which should not be included in pension provisions.
  Not only is there this underlying capital value which must be taken into account in some way—and the method could be subject of a debate—but also the self-employed can decide their own future more readily than employees who have an arm's length transaction with their employers. Restrictions have been devised to meet the differences in the way I have described.
  In the end, we realised that there must be some restriction on annuity relief, and the argument becomes how much and in what way.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The Financial Secretary has attributed certain motives to the Government who introduced the 1956 provisions, but might they not have done so on the basis that pension schemes for employees were not nearly so widespread, and does he not concede that there are many occupations in respect of which there are no great capital assets to be disposed of when a person retires?
  Mr. Sheldon: Both those statements are true in certain respects. Some self-employed people do not build up capital assets, but many do.
  The provision of pension schemes has increased, but with that has gone an improvement in the total and percentage limits by which self-employed people can make provision for their retirement.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) asked me to view this matter sympathetically. I did not expect enthusiasm, but I thought a welcome would have been justified when I returned to the Committee this year with a 50 per cent. increase in the limit. Apart
  790
  from one or two instances, our proposal was not accorded that welcome.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal reverted again to the regular replay we have on the question of pensions of civil servants. The Civil Service pension is one-half—not twothirds—of final pay. It is only the lump sum that brings it up to the equivalent of the two-thirds pension. That is the position as I stated it last year. If the hon. and learned Gentleman checks on it this time, he will see that that is correct.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman gave some very interesting figures from the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar. I am sorry that the large number of figures that he necessarily had to give this Committee were in such a form that they were not readily digestible. My office received these representations only yesterday, and I had the full details only today. For that reason, I have not had time to go into them. They were part of the response which I have had when I announced that I was happy to receive personally observations on the technical and practical provisions of the Finance Bill. I am happy to say that a number of representations have been made to me which obviously will receive close scrutiny. Unfortunately, that scrutiny was in this case not possible before today. Within the time available to me, I was not able to go into them in detail, but it may be that another opportunity will avail itself for me to do so.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to digest that important material. If the conclusions are found to be soundly based, will he defer to the recommendations, if not in Committee, at least on Report?
  Mr. Sheldon: I can always give an undertaking that if information comes to me as a result of which my mind is changed in any important respect, so far as it is practicable to do so I shall bring changes into the legislation before the Committee; but obviously I can give no undertaking at the moment, given the state of my knowledge of these detailed comments.
  Perhaps I may refer to the activities of the Government Actuary in this connection. In his latest report on the

  791
  National Health Service, he has assumed an earnings increase of 7 per cent. annually and average annual price increases of 5 per cent. That may set the record straight, in comparison with the assumptions of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal.
  Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I quote what I said last year about retirement annuity relief limits:
  "Clearly, as time goes on, these limits are subject to change as all limits in taxation, due to inflation, are subject to change. I am inclined to look at the proposal"—
  the proposal then before the Committee—
  "sympathetically. I have to bear in mind the general review of tax allowances which the Chancellor is at present undertaking and I shall be happy to look at the matter in that light."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 3rd July 1975, c. 935.]
  When I brought forward these proposals, they were a direct result of the observations that I made on that occasion.
  I think that right hon. and hon. Members have seen some improvement here. Obviously these matters are always kept under review. I hope that they will accept that this has been a useful step forward.
  Mr. Lawson: The sparkling oratory of the Financial Secretary has moved me to intervene in a debate in which I had no intention of speaking.
  I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suspicion that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends might have lost their interest in indexation. That is not the case. I think that we have a little explaining to do to the Financial Secretary—and we have plenty of time in which to do it in this Committee stage—of the difference between what he calls "revalorisation" and what we mean by "indexation"
  At this stage, I do no more than draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on Tuesday when he made it clear that what was needed at the very least was that the indexed figures should be printed and published in the Finance Bill so that we should all know where we were and what the new datum point was from which the Government could then make their discretionary changes.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whether it is called "indexation" or "revalorisation", it is unacceptable if the cost of living has gone up by 89 per cent. to have a concession of only 50 per cent.?
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is of course right; that is unacceptable. Although the difference between indexation and revalorisation is an important one, we shall have plenty of time in Committee to discuss it.
  To pass on to a point which I do not think the Financial Secretary has covered in his contribution to this debate so far, there is something to which I should like to draw his attention. It came to me in the guise of a constituency case and it is very germane to this point of saving for retirement among the self-employed.
  It must be realised that not every self-employed person starts his working career as self-employed. There are many who will be employed to begin with and will then want to branch out on their own. If they are working for a company to begin with and are in a pension scheme, under the 1970 Finance Act—I have the Revenue document on "Occupational Pension Schemes: Notes on Approval under the 1970 Finance Act"—and the Financial Secretary will know paragraph 13.16—there is the £5,000 rule. If an employee who is a member of a pension scheme happens in any one year—and it may be an unusually good year if, say, he is a salesman and gets a lot of commission—to earn more than £5.000, when he leaves the scheme he cannot take any of his money out. That test should clearly be indexed and I hope that on Report the Government will table an amendment to that effect, because the £5,000 rule, even if right in 1970, is certainly not right now.
  This leads on to the self-employed person. What an employee can do in certain conditions is have the deferred pension transferred to a pension scheme of a new employer. But if he becomes self-employed, there is no transfer that he can make. He cannot transfer it to one of these retirement annuities in Clause 27 that we are talking about. This is a further clear example of discrimination in effect against the self-employed, although maybe that was not the intention.

  793
  I am surprised that the Financial Secretary has at no time brought the wealth tax into this. He will know that the Diamond Commission in its report on income and wealth has pointed out that the wealth of this country is to a large extent in pensions of one kind or another—savings for retirement, pension rights, and so on. This is a very important aspect of the total wealth.
  Those who were on the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax, on both sides—and I am glad to see our distinguished Chairman, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the Benches opposite—will know that we spent a great deal of time discussing this subject. One thing that caused us great difficulty was deciding whether all forms of saving for retirement should be treated equally for the purpose of wealth tax, or whether it should be the case that the valuable inflation-proof indexed Civil Service pension rights should not be chargeable for wealth tax, but that the self-employed man saving for retirement—maybe in this kind of retirement annuity, but maybe not; it may consist in the assets he has saved up, everything may be ploughed back into the shop, or whatever it is he owns—should be chargeable for wealth tax. Many of us on both sides of the Committee felt that there was an unfairness here.
  I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to get an assurance from the Financial Secretary on two things. First, we should like to learn that the Government have dropped their ideas for a wealth tax, having read very carefuly the many reports of the Select Committee and the voluminous evidence that it took. But I hope the Financial Secretary will also give us an assurance that if there is ever going to be a wealth tax, in elementary fairness all forms of saving for retirement will be treated alike. Either all forms are brought within the charge of the tax or no forms are brought within it.
  Our fear is that, judging by the track record of the Labour Government, there is a grave likelihood that some of this wealth—the savings for retirement in the form of public service pensions—will be regarded as being outside the tax and that, as usual, the self-employed will be penalised in terms of the wealth tax as in other forms of taxation. I hope that we can be given either or both those
  794
  assurances. If we get the first assurance, we shall not need the second, but if we cannot get the first, let us at least have the second.
  Mr. Nott: If my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) seeks to press his amendment, I shall certainly advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support him in the Lobby.
  Although the Financial Secretary was in some respects sympathetic to our comments, I do not think that his reply was satisfactory in every respect. He made a number of comments on the situation, one being that it would be wrong to make assumptions about inflation since the last year had been somewhat traumatic. I hope that he is correct in that forecast.
  Assuming that there is no inflation at all, it is still not possible, under the 15 per cent. set aside, for a self-employed person adequately to protect himself against inflation to the same extent as a person working in the public sector is protected by public sector schemes.
  It has also been said that if a man enters a pension scheme at age 55, there is no reason under existing approved pension scheme arrangements why the contribution for tax purposes should not rise to 47, 57 or 67 per cent. They are all allowed for tax, even if somebody joins a scheme late in life.
  We want the arrangements to be put on a comparable basis. It is not good enough for the Financial Secretary to say that many self-employed people have an asset which is saleable at the end of their working life and that they can live on the income from that asset. That may be true, but there are many people who do not have a saleable asset.
  We are extremely glad to learn that the Minister is to study closely the representations from the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar. I hope that he will take due note of those representations and report back to the House on the memorandum to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) referred and which I have read with some care. I believe that document puts forward an irrefutable case for reviewing these arrangements again and for bringing them more into line with the tax arrangements available to those who work in other sectors of the economy.

  795
  I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) about a broader and much more radical suggestion for reviewing the manner in which an annual contribution is now taken for the purposes of limits and percentages. When we come to make a more fundamental review—a review of the kind undertaken by the Tucker Committee—we should examine whether it will be wiser to take average earnings over the years so that good years can be taken with bad years.
  Since the Conservative Government in 1971 increased the limit to £10,000—and we are glad that the Financial Secretary has gone as far as he has—the contributions of the self-employed have been greatly eroded by the fantastic rate of inflation in the past few years. The situation now is nothing like the situation in 1971
  We want to recapture, to revalorise, or whatever term one likes, some of the contributions actually lost through the rapid inflation since 1971. We wish to bring this whole basis more into line with existing arrangements in the private company and the public sector. Although I must ask my hon. Friends to divide on this amendment, I hope that the Financial Secretary will look at this sympathetically between now and Report, because I believe that we have put forward a very fair case.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) for the support he has given to this very modest amendment and I greatly regret that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not felt able to accept it. I had hoped, as I believe my hon. Friend had hoped, that on this occasion he would have thrown away his brief and allowed himself to do what I know he believes to be right and to accept this amendment.
  The Financial Secretary spoke of regretting the lack of warmth with which
  we had received the small concessions he has made, but they have to be set against the background of the level of inflation. I can only say that in politics gratitude is a recognition of the anticipation of further benefits to come and I regret that those further benefits have not been greater than they have appeared in the Bill.
  The self-employed, the small business man and people of this type have very often gone many years at the end of their working lives before being able to contribute to a fund for their old age. The allowance which the Government are now giving is wholly inadequate for the needs, against the level of inflation as it has built up, and is wholly unfair by comparison with the treatment of civil servants and those in private company schemes.
  The Government have not accepted the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) for indexation. If the Government do not accept indexation, there is imposed upon them a double duty—to make sure that at those times when they move the figures, if they are not moving them automatically with indexation, they move them sufficiently adequately to cover inflation since the previous occasion when they were moved. Adequately to cover the movement in inflation since 1971 would require the figure to be lifted by 89·9 per cent.
  Because the Government have failed to do this and have let down the self-employed on this occasion as on so many others, I urge all my hon. Friends who support the case for the self-employed to join me in the Lobby in opposing this treatment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 119 Noes 127.

  Fookes, Miss Janet.

  MacGregor, John.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Forman, Nigel.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Mather, Carol.

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Freud, Clement.

  Maude, Angus.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin.

  Sainsbury, Tim.

  Goodlad, Alastair.

  Mayhew, Patrick.

  Scott, Nicholas.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony.

  Shersby, Michael.

  Hall, Sir John.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Sims, Roger.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sinclair, Sir George.

  Hastings, Stephen.

  Moate, Roger.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hayhoe, Barney.

  Molyneaux, James.

  Speed, Keith.

  Henderson, Douglas.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hordern, Peter.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Heave, Airey.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Newton, Tony.

  Tapsell, Peter.

  Hurd, Douglas.

  Nott John.

  Thompson, George.

  Jessel, Toby.

  Onslow, Cranley.

  Tugendhat, Christopher.

  Kilfedder, James.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pardoe, John.

  Wakeham, John.

  Knox, David.

  Parkinson, Cecil.

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lamont, Norman.

  Penhaligon, David.

  Weatherill, Bernard.

  Lane, David.

  Percival, Ian.

  Welsh, Andrew.

  Lawrence, Ivan.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William.

  Lawson, Nigel.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wiggin, Jerry.

  Le Merchant Spencer.

  Raison, Timothy.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Winterton, Nicholas.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  MacCormick Iain.

  Reid, George.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McCusker, H.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey.

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Macfarlane, Neil.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald.

  Graham, Ted.

  O'Halloran, Michael.

  Armstrong, Ernest.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ovenden, John.

  Atkinson, Norman.

  Hardy, Peter.

  Owen, Dr David.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Harper, Joseph.

  Palmer, Arthur.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Park, George.

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene.

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred.

  Bates, Alf.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Perry, Ernest.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur.

  Hooley, Frank.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert.

  Horam, John.

  Radice, Giles.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis.

  Robinson, Geoffrey.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cant, R. B.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas.

  Roper, John.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Clemitson, Ivor.

  John, Brynmor.

  Sandelson, Neville.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Judd, Frank.

  Sedgemore, Brian.

  Coleman, Donald.

  Kelley, Richard.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Corbett, Robin.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kinnock, Neil.

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Cryer,Bob.

  Lamborn, Harry.

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davidson, Arthur.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Silverman, Julius.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Snape, Peter.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lipton, Marcus.

  Spearing, Nigel.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Litterick, Tom.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Deakins, Eric.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Macfarquhar, Roderick.

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dormand, J. D.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce.

  McNamara, Kevin.

  Tinn, James.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max.

  Tomlinson, John.

  Dunn, James A.

  Magee, Bryan.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunnett, Jack.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Edge, Geoff.

  Marks, Kenneth.

  Ward, Michael.

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Marquand, David.

  Weetch, Ken.

  English, Michael.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Weitzman, David.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maynard, Miss Joan.

  Wellbeloved, James.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert.

  Whitehead, Phillip.

  Faulds, Andrew.

  Mendelson, John.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Flannery, Martin.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael.

  Molloy, William.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Moyle, Roland.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  George, Bruce.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Mr. David Stoddart and

  Gilbert, Dr John.

  Newens, Stanley.

  Mr. Frank R. White.

  Golding, John.

  Noble, Mike.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Nott: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 15, line 23, leave out '£2,250' and insert '15 per cent.'
  The Temporary Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
  No 63, in page 15, line 21, leave out '£1,500' and insert '15 per cent.'
  No. 65, in page 15, line 23, leave out '£2,250' and insert '20 per cent.'
  No. 67, in page 15, line 24, leave out '£500' and insert '5 per cent.'
  No. 68, in page 15, line 25, leave out '£750' and insert '7 per cent.'
  No. 69, in page 15, line 25, at end insert:
  '(bb) paragraph (a) of subsection (1A), paragraph (a) of subsection (1B), and subsection (1C) of section 227, subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 228, and the references to subsection (1C), subsections (1) and (2) and £1,500 in subsection (4) of section 228, and the column headed "Sum" in the Table in the last-mentioned subsection, shall be omitted'
  No. 70, in page 15, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert:

  Division No. 138.

  AYES

  10.10 p.m.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hordern, Peter.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch.

  Baker, Kenneth.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ralson, Timothy.

  Benyon, W.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Bitten, John.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Body, Richard.

  Jesse], Toby.

  Reid, George.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert.

  Kilfedder, James.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey.

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Knox, David.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Bradford, Rev Robert.

  Lamont, Norman.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Brittan, Leon.

  Lawrence, Ivan.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brotherton, Michael.

  Lawson, Nigel.

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Le Marchant Spencer.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Tim.

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen.

  Scott, Nicholas.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacCormick Iain.

  Shersby, Michael.

  Clegg, Waiter.

  McCusker, H.

  Silvester, Fred.

  Cope, John.

  Macfarlane, Neil.

  Sims, Roger.

  Costain, A. P.

  MacGregor, John.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Speed Keith.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey.

  Maude, Angus.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mayhew, Patrick.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Emery, Peter.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony.

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Farr, John.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tapsell, Peter.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey.

  Moate, Roger.

  Thompson, George.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel.

  Molyneaux, James.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fookes, Miss Janet.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wakeham, John.

  Forman, Nigel.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes).

  Weatherill. Bernard.

  Freud, Clement.

  Neave, Airey.

  Welsh, Andrew.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Newton, Tony.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William.

  Goodlad, Alastair.

  Nott John.

  Wiggin, Jerry.

  Griffiths, Eldon.

  Onslow, Cranley.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Winterton, Nicholas.

  Hall, Sir John.

  Pardoe, John.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Parkinson, Cecil.

  Mr. Anthony Berry and.

  Hastings, Stephen Hayhoe, Barney.

  Penhaligon, David.

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Henderson, Douglas.

  Percival, Ian.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert.

  Corbett, Robin.

  Armstrong, Ernest.

  Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)

  Cryer,Bob.

  Atkinson, Norman.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davidson, Arthur.

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Castle, fit Hon Barbara.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Clemfitson, Ivor.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bates, Alf.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Deakins, Eric.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur.

  Coleman, Donald.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  '"1914 or 1915", "1912 or 1913", "1910 or 1911", "1908 or 1909", and "1907" there shall be substituted respectively "1933, 1934 or 1935', "1930, 1931 or 1932", "1927, 1928 or 1929", "1024, 1925 or 1926", and "1923", and for "16", "17", "18", "19" and "20" there shall be substituted respectively "22", "24", "26", "28", and "30"'.
  Mr. Nott: We had a full debate on this clause when we discussed the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) and, subject to the views of my hon. Friends, I do not think that there is any need to debate the subject further. If my hon. Friends agree, we shall just divide on the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 114, Noes 124.

  Dormand, J. D

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roper, John.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rose. Paul B.

  Duffy, A. E. P

  Lyon, Alexander (York) H

  Sandelson, Neville.

  Dunn, James A

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sedgemore, Brian.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Macfarquhar, Roderick

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Edge, Geoff.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  English, Michael

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Magee, Bryan

  Silverman, Julius.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Snape, Peter.

  Flannery, Martin

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marquand, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoddart, David.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce.

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Gilbert, Dr John.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Klibride)

  Tinn, James.

  Golding, John.

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tomlinson. John.

  Graham, Ted.

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hardy, Peter.

  Moyle, Roland

  Ward, Michael.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Weetch, Ken.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Newens, Stanley

  Weitzman, David.

  Hooley, Frank.

  Noble, Mike

  Wellbeloved, James.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ovenden, John

  Whitehead, Phillip.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Owen, Dr David

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  John, Brynmor

  Park, George

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Judd, Frank

  Pearl, Rt Hon Fred

  Wise, Mrs Audrey.

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kinnock, Neil.

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Lamborn, Harry.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rooker, J. W

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  AGRICULTURE.
  That the Hill Livestock and Young Cattle (Compensatory Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.—[Mr Walter Harrison.]
  Question agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.(SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That notwithstanding the Order of the House of 15th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Mr. Edward Short be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Michael Foot be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (MEMBERSHIP OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon:The matter I am raising tonight arises out of a particular case affecting my own constituency but raises a general issue of considerable importance.
  The village of Kielder, in my constituency, was mostly built by and is largely owned by the Forestry Commission. Its inhabitants are not only the commission's tenants but nearly all get their livelihood directly or indirectly from the commission.
  Kielder has a parish council, and not unnaturally a number of people who serve on the council are employees of the Forestry Commission. From time to time issues arise which affect the Forestry Commission and upon which the com-
  804
  mission has a view. A case arose—I think that the facts are known to the Minister as they have been discussed in another place—affecting the relationship between the chairman of the parish council, who is also the head forester in the area, and his employers, the Forestry Commission. Mr. Weir was summoned to a meeting 60 miles away in Newcastle on 19th January, and two days later he resigned. He wrote a letter of resignation in which he said:
  "Following my interview on Monday, 19th January 1976, the conditions imposed by the Commission make it no longer possible for me to carry out my duties as chairman or councillor in the manner expected by the electorate. Therefore, with great regret, I tender my resignation from the Kielder Parish Council with effect from the above date, and wish to thank all members of the council for their full and loyal co-operation."
  That gave the impression, not unnaturally, that influence had been brought to bear by the commission upon an employee carrying out his public duties as a councillor. This caused considerable concern locally and eventually nationally. When the matter was raised in another place some misunderstanding arose because the Minister who replied to the debate spoke of the rules which bind civil servants. He said that civil servants.
  "are classed into three groups—broadly those who are free to take part in national and local political activities, subject of course to moderation and discretion"—
  and I should like to repeat "subject to moderation and discretion"—
  "because it has a very important bearing in this particular case. Secondly, there are those who make take part in such political activities subject to certain conditions; and, thirdly, those who may not take part in national political activities but may seek permission to take part in local political activity. I must say that the chairman of the parish council in question comes in the first category; that is to say, he could take part in local politics subject to moderation and discretion. It is one of the distinctive features of our Civil Service that civil servants do not mix politics with business. That is a restriction which civil servants accept when they accept employment in the public service."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th March 1976; Vol. 368, c. 1193–4.]
  It is true that public employers may lay down certain conditions of service, but there are many people who work for various public authorities who are completely politically free. Mr. Weir was one of those persons. As head forester he fell into the class of politically-free employees under the Forestry Commission

  805
  Staff Code. As such he was not even required to notify his employers that he had been elected a parish councillor. The only conditions imposed upon his parish council activities, which were not breached at any time, were that he should observe the Official Secrets Act—that is a condition that applies to a great many of us—and that his activities should not take place while on duty, while in uniform or while on official premises. There is no question of those conditions requiring this public employee of the Forestry Commission, and no doubt this applies to other public authorities, to exercise moderation or discretion.
  I believe that it will be helpful if the Minister, or the Secretary of State, in due course, if it cannot be done tonight, makes it clear by way of circular, or in some other appropriate form, that once someone is eligible to be a member of a local authority, and is a member, he should be free to act in the interests of the electorate without any sort of pressure being brought to bear on him.
  This matter was first raised in another place on 4th March. The disturbing feature of the case is that on 25th March the personnel officer of the Forestry Commission wrote to J. Sheldon, Esq., of the Civil Service Union. He wrote.
  "Following the resignation of Mr. Weir, the Bellingham Courant"—
  in fact, he means the Hexham Courant—
  "of 6th February carried a fairly full report of the episode and Mr. John Wharam, the.Conservancy A & FO, is quoted as follows: 'We welcome, and indeed encourage, any of our employees to serve on parish councils or as magistrates, and provide facilities for them to do so. We asked Mr. Weir to consider where his responsibilities lay, and whether there was not a clash of interests with his parish duties and those of his job as a head forester. We certainly did not want him to leave the meeting with the impression that we wanted him to resign.' He said it was not the Forestry Commission's intention to 'muffle' opinion at parish meetings and added: 'It is not our business to interfere in Parish Council business—that would be a monstrous suggestion. But we do feel that our employees owe us some sort of responsibility.' I think this quotation sums up fairly well our general feelings about the problems which arose at Kielder and I can only repeat what I said in my 10 March letter, that I think both the Commission and the Parish Council have to accept that there is a special relationship in Kielder and that both sides have to try to establish an effective working relationship, and that it is incumbent on both sides to avoid any extreme action."
  806
  I challenge two of those statements. There can be no question, it seems to me, once it is accepted that an employee is entitled to be a member of the council, that he owes any sort of responsibility to his employer as such. If any private employer who allowed or encouraged one of his staff to become a member of a council subsequently brought any pressure on him to look after the employer's interests in any shape or form, there would be a public outcry. Therefore, it is important, when dealing with public bodies, that they should bring no sort of pressure on their employees.
  I submit that no sort of special relationship can exist between any local authority and any employer, public or private. It would be helpful to all those who serve on local authorities who are employees of public bodies if that were made clear beyond any doubt. That is the nub of the matter that I want to raise tonight.
  I am concerned not so much with the particular case though that was regrettable and I think that the Forestry Commission must realise that it made an error of judgment—as with the fact that it is important to lay down some kind of general guidance for the benefit of local authorities generally on the relationships which should exist between public employees and the local government bodies on which they serve. With such a large number of people employed by one public authority or another, this matter has very wide implications.
  In the case of Kielder, a large proportion of the inhabitants' jobs are affected, directly or indirectly, by the Forestry Commission. There are many mining villages or steel towns in which the same kind of conditions are likely to arise. Many people are directly or indirectly employed by or affected by the operations of large public corporations. However, if they are free to serve on their local authorities they must equally be free to speak and to vote in what they consider to be the interests of the electorate, without any pressure being brought to bear upon them.
  I spent many years in local government. When I first went on the Surbiton Borough Council there was a senior civil servant—the Accountant General at the Ministry of Pensions at the time—who also served. No doubt it could be said that a senior civil servant should behave

  807
  with moderation and discretion. But that cannot apply in the majority of cases. Of course, such people must declare an interest, if they have an interest, just like any other member of the local authority, but on matters of general policy they should be free.
  I recall that when I was the Secretary of State for the Environment there was a good deal of public controversy over Maplin. One of the main objectors was a civil servant. I made it clear—I hope that my successors would also make it clear—that, having accepted that a public servant had the right to take part in a political activity and was not precluded, by the nature of his employment or the terms and conditions of his service, from taking part in a political activity, we must let him carry out his civic duty fully and freely without any possible interference.
  I think I can indicate the strength of feeling on this matter by referring to a powerful leader in the Local Government Chronicle dated 30th April, which concludes:
  "All employers will have to learn to live with the requirements put upon them by law and to take the rough with the smooth: in no circumstances are they justified in using disciplinary measures to impose their own wishes on members of a public authority. "
  I would like the Minister to clarify the position tonight, and to emphasise that members of local authorities must be allowed to be free. I hope the Secretary of State will consider the possibility of issuing a circular, or taking some other action in order to clear up some of the misunderstandings which have arisen in recent weeks.
  10.37 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): The House will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for raising this important subject in the debate tonight. I would like to express a personal interest, for two reasons. First, before I came into the House I was employed by a grant-aided institution and was personally involved in some of the restrictions of which the right hon. and learned Member has spoken. Secondly, before I took up my present appointment I was consultant to the Society of Civil Servants, which is
  808
  very concerned about the issues he has raised. Another reason why I am glad to answer this debate is the long personal interest I have had in the Forestry Commission, among whose staff I number several close friends.
  I am aware of the issue that the right hon. and leared Member has put before us this evening. I was interested in what he had to say about Kielder, and the number of people who live there who are employees of the Forestry Commission. That illustrates the dilemma in which we are placed as a consequence of the Civil Service rules which govern the behaviour of civil servants, and grant-aided and other public service organisations and their employees.
  Unfortunately, it is very difficult for me to give the kind of undertaking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for. He wanted the Secretary of State to issue some kind of circular on this subject. I must explain the difficulties involved in this. A Royal Commission has been set up—the Salmon Commission—to study the standards of conduct in public life, and it is dealing with the very subject that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised tonight. I accept everything that he said. Certain individuals do find themselves in a difficult situation, and the Royal Commission will give full attention to their position. But in view of the fact that the Royal Commission is studying this matter, it would be very difficult for me to comment in detail, and I am sure he would not expect me to do so. In view of the case that he has raised, I undertake to consider it carefully from the point of view of the Department of the Environment and write to him, giving whatever assistance and guidance I can.
  I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member has a certain measure of fellow-feeling for me, having no doubt answered similar debates when, many years ago, he was my predecessor in this post. And, as an ex-Secretary of State in this Department, and with his own experience in local government, the House will of course have listened with great interest to his remarks. Indeed, had it not been for the good fortune of the 1974 elections, one of his colleagues might now have been replying in not dissimilar terms to me. His right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr.

  809
  Page) promised, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in a debate some three years ago, that he would look into this subject.
  Perhaps one way in which I could illustrate the sort of difficulties that we are facing is by looking at the situation of local government employees. The situation is raised in an acute form for them.
  The whole question of employee participation in the running of the affairs of the body for which the employees work is of course a very important one, with wide-ranging implications, and I would not like to suggest that there are not strongly held political differences of opinion. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it is something to which this Government are committed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when at the Department of Trade, said in a statement to the House on 5th August last year:
  "The Government are committed to carrying through as soon as possible a programme for the radical extension of industrial democracy in both the private and public sector."
  He went on:
  "…development in industrial democracy, particularly below board level, are now taking place and more are planned. It is desirable these should continue."—[Official Report, 5th August 1975; Vol, 897, c. 245.]
  He then announced the setting-up of the committee of inquiry, under Lord Bullock, which is to advise on questions relating to representation at board level in the private sector—a move that was welcomed by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—as, indeed it is broadly welcomed in British industry. He also announced that industrial democracy in the nationalised industries was to be reviewed—a review that is now under way.
  Industrial democracy in public services is, however, a rather different matter, and that we are studying separately. I can illustrate the difficulties that we face. On 11th February my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), said
  "a co-ordinated series of studies is now proposed, in consultation with the appropriate
  810
  unions and management, into the scope for the extension of industrial democracy—within the accepted principle which governs the operation of elected bodies—throughout the public services, including both central and local government and related bodies."—[Official Report, 11th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 241.]
  I want to stress that central phrase,
  "within the accepted principle which governs the operation of elected bodies"
  Industrial democracy in the public sector presents special problems, because of the role of Parliament and local authorities as representatives of the electorate. It is fundamental to the working of democracy as we know it that elected representatives take decisions and act in the interests of the community as a whole. That principle cannot be breached. I noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment on that. But the Government feel that, within the need to safeguard accountability of elected representatives and the requirements of the public interest, local government employees and their representatives should be given the maximum opportunity to contribute their views on matters of legitimate staff interest.
  I want to deal with the question of the position of local authority employees vis-à-vis membership of the council by which they are employed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the long-standing and fundamental distinction between the roles of the elected member and the appointed employee was preserved in the Local Government Act 1972. Under that Act, Section 116 debars a member of an authority from becoming its employee whilst he remains a member, and for 12 months thereafter. Section 80 disqualifies an employee of an authority from election to it.
  As the House will know, this subject was studied by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in his report on conduct in local government. He heard the arguments of those who want to maintain the existing disqualification. His Committee endorsed the present position and argued the need to avoid a conflict of interest between an individual's public duty as an elected member and his personal interest as an employee; the need to preserve political impartiality of officers; and the need to maintain sound working relationships at all levels in the authority and to avoid divided loyalties.

  811
  However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the party to which I belong, and the TUC, have argued that this "disenfranchisment" is anomalous in modern conditions and that the rule should be relaxed. That is the view of my party and the TUC. But this whole issue is being examined by the Royal Commission. We shall await its report with great interest: until we have received and considered it, I can assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will not reach any conclusion on this matter.
  I hope that the Royal Commission will consider the many subjects raised by the
  812
  right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight.
  I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising those interesting and very important matters. I have listened with great interest to the views that he has expressed. I am sorry that I have been unable to say anything more specific. I shall write to him if there is anything I can add which would assist him in the difficult cases he has raised and the dilemmas he has presented.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank of England (Exchange Control)
  Bank of England (Exchange Control)
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  European Community Finance Ministers
  European Community Finance Ministers
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Foreign Loans (Interest Payments)
  Foreign Loans (Interest Payments)
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Mortgage Repayments
  Mortgage Repayments
  Dollar Premium (Investigation)
  Dollar Premium (Investigation)
  Bank of England (Governor)
  Bank of England (Governor)
  Animals (Illegal Imports)
  Animals (Illegal Imports)
  War Disablement Pensions
  War Disablement Pensions
  Benefits and Allowances
  Benefits and Allowances
  Married Women (Tax Allowances)
  Married Women (Tax Allowances)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Building Allowance
  Capital Building Allowance
  Bigamists
  Bigamists
  Tax Arrears
  Tax Arrears
  Corporation Tax (Capital Allowances)
  Corporation Tax (Capital Allowances)
  Exports
  Exports
  Concessionary Air Fares
  Concessionary Air Fares
  Concessions and Rates
  Concessions and Rates
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Borrowing Requirement
  Borrowing Requirement
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Liaison Committee
  Forestry Liaison Committee
  Rabies
  Rabies
  National Farmers Union of Wales
  National Farmers Union of Wales
  CBI and TUC
  CBI and TUC
  CONCORDE
  CONCORDE
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  RABIES
  RABIES
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  EDINBURGH
  EDINBURGH
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSION
  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSION
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  KIRKBY
  KIRKBY
  GREENWICH
  GREENWICH
  BROADSTAIRS
  BROADSTAIRS
  NEW ZEALAND
  NEW ZEALAND
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Benefits (Discretionary Payments)
  Benefits (Discretionary Payments)
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefits
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefits
  Married Women (Benefits)
  Married Women (Benefits)
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  Hospital Provision
  Hospital Provision
  Supplementary Benefits (Heating Charges)
  Supplementary Benefits (Heating Charges)
  Psycho-surgery
  Psycho-surgery
  St. Augustine's Hospital, Canterbury
  St. Augustine's Hospital, Canterbury
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Municipal Housing (Circular 13/74)
  Municipal Housing (Circular 13/74)
  Peterborough (Hospital Building)
  Peterborough (Hospital Building)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  School Nurses (Hull)
  School Nurses (Hull)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Wines
  Wines
  PAY POLICY
  PAY POLICY
  INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS
  INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Remand Centres
  Remand Centres
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Remanded Prisoners (Bail Applications)
  Remanded Prisoners (Bail Applications)
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Schoolchildren (Imprisonment)
  Schoolchildren (Imprisonment)
  Passports and Identity Cards
  Passports and Identity Cards
EMPLOYMENT
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Overtime
  Overtime
  National Enterprise Board Companies (Pay Policy)
  National Enterprise Board Companies (Pay Policy)
  Employment Protection Act 1975
  Employment Protection Act 1975
TRADE
  Exports
  Exports
  Rabies
  Rabies
  British Airways (Pilots)
  British Airways (Pilots)
  Companies (Returns)
  Companies (Returns)
  UNCTAD IV
  UNCTAD IV
  Oil Prevention (Pollution)
  Oil Prevention (Pollution)
  Shipping (Thames Estuary)
  Shipping (Thames Estuary)
  Concessionary Air Fares
  Concessionary Air Fares
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil (State Participation)
  North Sea Oil (State Participation)
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
ENVIRONMENT
  London Rail Committee
  London Rail Committee
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Roads
  Roads
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Municipal Housing (Circular 13/74)
  Municipal Housing (Circular 13/74)
  Rating Relief (Disabled Persons)
  Rating Relief (Disabled Persons)
  Passports
  Passports
  Local Government Finance (Inquiry)
  Local Government Finance (Inquiry)
INDUSTRY
  Nuclear Reactors (Stainless Steel Plate)
  Nuclear Reactors (Stainless Steel Plate)
  Wool Textiles Scheme
  Wool Textiles Scheme
  British Shipbuilding (Headquarters Site)
  British Shipbuilding (Headquarters Site)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Compensation
  Compensation
  Transport Users (Consultative Body)
  Transport Users (Consultative Body)
  Clergy
  Clergy
  Terrorist Activities (Compensation)
  Terrorist Activities (Compensation)
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Further Education (Building Programme)
  Further Education (Building Programme)
  LEA and their Project
  LEA and their Project
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
DEFENCE
  Sub-Martel Project
  Sub-Martel Project
  Sub-Harpoon
  Sub-Harpoon
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Armaments Workers
  Armaments Workers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Tindemans Report
  Tindemans Report
  Triad Offences
  Triad Offences
  United Nations Information Centre
  United Nations Information Centre
SCOTLAND
  Mr. James T. Donald
  Mr. James T. Donald
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Testing of Goods
  Testing of Goods
  Plastic Materials (Fire Hazards)
  Plastic Materials (Fire Hazards)
  Hallmarking
  Hallmarking

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich
The Lord Rockley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

DELINEATION OF UK OILFIELDS
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 there have been any difficulties or disputes over the delineation of individual oilfields in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf for the purposes of legislation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, discussions are proceeding on the delineation of the oilfields which have so far been declared commercial with the licensees. Agreement has already been reached on the delineation of some; in the case of the remainder I see no obstacles to a satisfactory outcome.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Since petroleum revenue tax is to be levied on each oilfield as a separate unit and not on a company's profits from the Continental Shelf, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that uncertainty whether a reservoir constitutes one, two or more fields is a crucial factor in deciding whether it is worth while to extract oil at all? This arises because of the separate fixed tax allowance for each recognised oil field.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, it was made clear during the passage of the Oil Taxation Act that the decision on the extent and
1044
delineation of an oilfield would be made on geologicsal. I am not aware that this has given rise to any difficulties.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is there any method of deciding in the case of disputes? Is a dispute to be decided by the courts? If so, Scottish or English? Or is it to be decided by arbitration; or by the fiat of the Government?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as was made clear during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the decision of the Secretary of State is final in this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the geological criteria for delineation of fields can produce different results since their application cannot be certain or precise?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not aware that any substantial difficulties have arisen so far and in some fields the delineation has been agreed.

WHITSUN RECESS
Baroness LLEWLYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will make a Statement about the Whitsun Recess. Subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Thursday, 27th May and return on Tuesday, 8th June. The Sitting on Thursday 27th May will be at 11 o'clock in the morning.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Hinton of Bankside to advance his Motion on the siting of JET from Thursday the 20th to Tuesday the 18th instant.—[Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGITIMACY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I understand that no Amendment has been put down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—[Lord Wigg.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[References are to Bill (56) as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The Licensing Acts 1964 and 1967 and this Act may be cited together as the Licensing Acts 1964 to 1976."
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. I perhaps owe a word of explanation as to how it comes about that I move this Amendment, because the work on the Bill was undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He is abroad and has asked me to move the Amendment in his name; and it is perhaps fitting that I should pay tribute to him for the hard work he put in, and also to Members of another place.
This Bill is a technical Bill. The Amendment which your Lordships are
1046
now considering is a technical Amendment, but technical though it may be, it affects the livelihoods of some 200,000 people and the enjoyment of very many more. All the Bill does is to alter the law to what everybody thought it was until a case was decided in the opposite direction. The effects have been catastrophic in terms of employment and catastrophic in terms of the people who spend their time in going to dances and the like. Indeed, as recently as last Friday a Birmingham court, on the basis of the law as it will be until this Bill becomes an Act, imposed a fine of £500. A few weeks ago in Birmingham a group of people were fined £600.
The work of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was very important indeed. Perhaps I might say, as one who is sometimes critical of the procedures in your Lordships' House, that when your Lordships wish you can move with great speed. The proceedings in this connection started only on the last day before the Session was brought to an end, under the Ten Minute Rule in another place. Then the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, took up the task and introduced the Bill in this House. It had a speedy passage, as indeed it should because it is technical and non-controversial. Then a Labour Member, Mr. Rooker, undertook the task of piloting the Bill through the House of Commons, again on an all-Party basis. There was support from all sides of the House of Commons, as there has been in this House. My Lords, I apologise for detaining your Lordships for as long as I have, but I wished to pay a proper tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and those associated with him, in the passage of this Bill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wigg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.15 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move

1047
that this Bill be read a second time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill, the chief purpose of which is to give general effect to clauses which are commonly precedented in Local Acts. Many of your Lordships will remember that in the context of the controversial South Glamorgan Bill on 9th December we had a lively discussion on the role of private legislation and its relationship with public legislation. As that debate confirmed, it is generally agreed that the state of local legislation is chaotic, its processes expensive and time-consuming and the results voluminous.
Under Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, existing local legislation is to be repealed as from 1984, 1979 in metropolitan counties. In the meantime, counties promote Private Bills seeking to retain those powers which are really needed for the efficient conduct of local administration. And we have already seen the different interpretations that are given to these words. For their part, the Government undertook to produce a Bill giving general effect to those powers which are well precedented and which were thought to be of' value to the majority of authorities.
The aim was to present the Public Bill before the bulk of local authority Bills, so that there would be a saving in time and effort for local authorities, agents, Government Departments and of course Parliament; in fact, all those closely concerned. It was hoped that the body of local law would be greatly reduced and streamlined by these means. Unfortunately, events did not keep pace with our intentions, and so when the debate on the 9th December took place, although the Bill had already been drafted, I was unfortunately unable to give a date for its introduction. As it turned out in the event it was introduced on 12th February in another place. However, before summarising its progress, there are a few words I feel that I must say about the principles on which the Bill is based.
The first important point is that the Bill consists almost entirely of provisions which have commonly appeared in local Acts. This means that it is not intended to include new provisions even though they may be desirable. And the Department will be discussing with the local
1048
authority associations next week how best to proceed on these matters. Mean-while, the present Bill follows the precedent of Public Health Acts, the last being the Public Health Act 1961 which was also restricted to well-precedented provisions.
We have avoided clauses which might lead to controversy since we wanted, at this stage, to avoid taking up too much Parliamentary time. The aim was to give local authorities a useful batch of powers and to do it as quickly as possible. I appreciate that some local authorities and also the local authority associations may feel that it would have been better to make this an even bigger Bill including other precedented clauses for which a case can be made but which might be controversial. We recognise that there may be provisions of this kind and also others which are suitable for this Bill but which were identified too late to be included in it. These matters, too, will be covered in the discussions next week with the local authority associations.
I should also mention the subsidiary purpose of the Bill. This is to alter certain provisions of the Public Health Acts; and I will return to this when I deal with the individual clauses. A further point I must emphasise is that all these powers are discretionary. Therefore they place no obligations on local authorities who will continue to be free to decide whether or not to operate them, just as they are with their own private legislation. It is important that this should be widely understood in view of the current restraints on local authority expenditure.
I turn now to the progress of the Bill so far. When it was introduced it contained 33 substantive clauses covering a wide variety of topics. The Bill made smooth and rapid progress because it was welcomed by both sides of the House of Commons, as I am sure it will be here. In only four Sessions, 54 new clauses were considered in Committee and of these 37 were added to the Bill. They consisted of the code of taxi provisions which now form Part II of the Bill. Of the other new clauses considered, most were precedented in local Acts and of these four were accepted in principle for amendment at a later stage of the Bill. They dealt with the amendment of Section 55 to the

1049
Public Health Act 1936, which is concerned with requiring satisfactory access for refuse collection; private sewers and the duty to clear obstructions; the restoration of gas, water and electricity supplies; and payment to local authority officers in certain circumstances. One further clause—enclosure of excavations to afford protection to the public—is currently being considered to see whether it is possible to prepare a Government Amendment to give effect to this.
On Report, a clause concerning the use of spare capacity of computers and printing equipment of local authorities was added by Government Amendment to meet the case made by the local authority associations. The Bill therefore comes to this House as a substantial Bill of 72 clauses, which must have a significant effect in reducing the size of the Bills which local authorities promote. Indeed, we fervently hope that some authorities will feel that they have no need to present Bills of their own before 1984.
I come now to the individual provisions of the Bill; but, since some of them are of a very minor nature, I shall, I am sure with the approval of the House, mention only the more important. The first six clauses deal with minor improvements in the law on highways, and are quite straightforward. Clause 7 enables a local authority to board up property condemned as unfit and vacated as a result of action under the housing Acts; Clause 8 enables by-laws to be made controlling the open land on housing estates to stop, for example, unauthorised parking or other activities unsuitable for the particular location such as Concorde-noise level games by children immediately outside old people's flats.
Clauses 10 and 11 contain a code of powers which will enable local authorities to supply heat from a common source to both public and private sectors. These are welcomed by the District Heating Association and the local authority associations. The requirement in Section 11(4) to keep separate accounts was put in on Report in another place by Government Amendment as a result of a proposal by the Opposition. Clause 12 and Schedule 1 empower local authorities to acquire compulsorily, on payment of compensation, rights over land rather
1050
than purchasing the land itself; for example, rights of access to adjoining land. This avoids the acquisition of land when only an easement or right is required.
Clause 14 empowers local authorities to survey land they propose to acquire compulsorily before they make a compulsory purchase order. This ensures that proceedings do not reach an advanced stage if the land then proves on investigation to be unsuitable for, say, geological reasons. Clause 15 gives local authorities a general power, for the purpose of performing their functions, to obtain information about the ownership of land. This, like the other provisions, is well precedented in Private Acts and replaces several such powers already in public Acts. Clause 18 replaces Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 which has been the subject of frequent amendment by Private Acts.
Clauses 22 and 26 are the only ones which are not precedented in local Acts. They derive from the secondary purpose of the Bill which I mentioned earlier—which is to tidy up various procedural provisions of the Public Health Acts 1875 to 1936 before the Law Commission begin to consolidate the Public Health Acts. Since there was clearly a lot of misunderstanding about Clause 26 in another place, I feel I should emphasise that it is not based on local Acts but on Section 274 of the Public Health Act 1936. This enables a local authority to use its powers under that Act outside its area. It seems right that that principle should apply to all local authority powers and not just to the Public Health Act 1936. Thus the clause confers no new powers on local authorities but merely affects the area in which their existing powers may be employed. For example, it would enable them to provide a school or clinic just over their boundary to serve a population which resides within that boundary.
Clause 23 is a general power to enable local authorities to set up funds at their discretion instead of having to obtain specific statutory powers for each fund, as they have to do at present—a tortuous and lengthy procedure. Clauses 27 and 28 are designed to cope with the situation which is arising because of the heart-breaking spread of Dutch elm disease. It was already in some of the local Acts,

1051
but it is for this reason that we feel it should be included in this public legislation. At this stage, that is all I want to say on Part I.
Part II of the Bill is now its dominating feature, and since it was added at the Committee stage it deserves some special mention. For a long time there has been a widespread demand for a review of legislation relating to the control of taxis in areas of England and Wales outside London and for this control to be extended to include the private hire car trade. At present, control of taxis can be exercised in England (outside London) and in Wales under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. There is no general legislation for the control of private hire cars, but a number of local authorities have taken powers in local legislation to extend or modify the powers of the Act of 1847 in respect of taxis and to introduce new controls over the operation of private hire cars.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been preparing a Consultative Document on the control of taxis and private hire cars. His intention was that, when this document had been prepared and issued, there should be consultations with the local authority associations and other interested organisations. Following these consultations, the Government would prepare their own legislation which would take account of the many developments which have taken place both in technology and in society since the Town Police Clauses Act was passed in 1847. It was because it was thought that this was the best course of action that we advised the Standing Committee in another place not to include in this Bill provisions on taxis and private hire cars. The Committee did not accept the Government's advice on this matter and the Bill now includes a very substantial number of provisions relating to taxis and private hire cars. In view of the general demand for these provisions, we have accepted that they should stay in the Bill until the Government bring forward their own proposals. The Home Office are working on these now and expect to issue a Consultative Document shortly.
These are some of the more important clauses in the Bill. Although in the context of contemporary legislation it
1052
is not a major Bill, nevertheless it will be of considerable use to local authorities in serving the community. It is indeed a significant Bill in the rationalisation of local law. It will also save authorities money as well as time—a powerful justification, I consider, for a piece of legislation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.29 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for introducing this Bill to us today and for explaining it so clearly. It follows from Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, which provides that most local government Private Acts will be repealed in the metropolitan counties in 1979 and elsewhere in 1984. The House has already experienced the consequences of this provision, for it had before it not so long ago the South Glamorgan County Council Bill, and already proceeding through its Committee stage is the Tyne and Wear Bill. But for the Bill before us, there would be very many more such local authority Private Bills.
That being so, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill, which we regard as necessary. Its proposals are, in the main, non-controversial, and in the interests of good local government we wish to speed its passage. Indeed, we agreed to take the Second Reading this afternoon after the Bill had received its Third Reading in another place only on Tuesday. This is in no sense a criticism, but it means that I have not had time to study as closely as I should like the results of the Report stage and Third Reading in another place. Nor, indeed, has it been possible to consult as fully as we should have liked our colleagues in local government, who have been surprised at the speed with which this Bill is progressing.
There is one general question which I should like to ask. I understand that one of the principles behind the Bill is that its clauses are both non-controversial and well precedented. Will the Government therefore accept Amendments which in any way extend local authorities' powers? A number of new clauses were debated in Committee in another place, and others

1053
have been proposed by local authorities; and, indeed, discussions upon these are proceeding. What is important to know is how this general principle is to be interpreted, and if the noble Baroness can say anything further on that it would be helpful.
I was very grateful for her detailed comment on Part II of the Bill, which was, of course, added in Committee in another place. It refers to the law relating to hackney carriages and private hire cars and, as I understand it, arose following strong representations made from the local authority associations, in particular the Association of District Councils. The clauses are based on the latest Private Act on the subject; that is, the Plymouth City Council Act 1975. However, as the noble Baroness herself has recognised, this Bill cannot be the last word on the subject as the law is still based largely on the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which, after all, is 130 years out of date.
I wonder whether I could press her further about the Consultative Document which has been promised from the Home Office. As I understand the position, this has been promised for some time and it would be useful to know what the Government's timetable on the document and subsequent legislation is likely to be. Clearly, any new legislation must depend upon extensive consultations, not only with local authorities but with the trade itself. I am bound to add a personal comment, that when I was in local government I knew of hardly any subject which caused greater discussion, and often greater controversy, than taxis and hire cars. But I think it is important in the interests of good and efficient local government, as well as in the interests of the trade, let alone those who use taxis and private hire cars, that this matter should be put right as soon as possible.
There are a number of other powers which local authorities are seeking. Some Government undertakings were given in another place that Amendments would be tabled during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, and I was therefore very glad to hear from the noble Baroness of five Amendments which the Government propose to put down during its passage through this House. There are, however, a number of others that, so far as I can see, have not yet been
1054
debated. I do not intend to take up the time of the House this afternoon by going through them all.
I regard this as very much a Committee stage Bill dealing with rather smaller and technical points, and not one for aprolonged Second Reading debate. So far as I can see, contentious matters might arise only if there was any suggestion to extend direct labour schemes, to which we on this side of the House are opposed, or any attempt to include in the Bill any form of municipal trading. These matters were not accepted in another place, and I hope they will not be accepted in your Lordships' House. That said, we on this side of the House support the Bill. We wish it a speedy passage through this House, because it is important to get it on the Statute Book. We agree that it will make local government more effective, it will certainly save local government money, and we shall give every help we can to seeing that it makes its way on to the Statute Book.
3.35 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill and I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on the way in which she introduced it, because it is an important first step—but only a first step—in the rationalisation of local government law made possible by the Local Government Act 1972. It contains a number of clauses—though, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will not be surprised to hear, not as many as I should have liked—that have hitherto been included in Bills promoted by local authorities for general powers. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness that she will have discussions shortly with the local authorities, which I hope may include the desirability of further legislation.
One result of the Bill, when it passes, will be that legislation on these subjects will no longer be piecemeal in parallel and differing local Acts, but will be incorporated in the public general law and thus capable of being kept up to date by the ordinary processes of Statute law revision. I particularly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of Part II relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, which, as both

1055
noble Baronesses have pointed out, was put into the Bill during the Committee stage in another place. This will replace the antique law—I think "antique" is the correct adjective—contained for the most part in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. I notice that Part II contains 37 clauses, and it will be readily understood that the passing of legislation of this extent and complexity in private Acts is an exercise that cannot be effectively performed by Committees on Private Bills.
I hope that there will be no difference of opinion about the principle of the Bill, and no difference of opinion has been expressed so far. But I should like, if I may, to draw the attention of the House to the provisions in two clauses about which contrary views may be expressed. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this is essentially, from the point of view of the work of this House, a Committee stage Bill, so I hope that I may be permitted to make a few comments on two of the clauses.
The first of these is Clause 2, which introduces a new restriction on the placing of scaffolding on the highway for the purpose of building and cleaning operations on premises fronting a highway. I believe that provisions of this kind are already in force in Inner London. The general law gives a householder, who is also a frontager, a right to erect scaffolding on a highway for the purpose of cleaning, repairing or painting his house, provided of course that he does not unreasonably obstruct the highway. It is for the highway authority to proceed against him if it considers the obstruction unreasonable, and of course for the courts to decide. But under this clause, either the frontager or his builder will have to obtain a licence from the highway authority before any work that requires the placing of scaffolding on a highway can be done. So far as I am aware—and there may be facts of which I am not aware—the existing law has not created difficulty. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that a similar clause was disallowed in the County of South Glamorgan Bill. But I hope that your Lordships will examine this clause with special care in Committee, and will not accept it as it stands, unless the Government can prove conclusively that there is a genuine need for this restriction and that the advantage to road users is
1056
likely to outweigh the disadvantage to the householder.
The second provision which I think deserves careful scrutiny by your Lordships is Clause 27, which gives local authorities power to deal with trees that are complained of, because they are likely to cause damage to persons or property upon a neighbour's land. The law as it stands deals only with trees and other vegetations, such as hedges or shrubs, that affect a highway or other road or footpath to which the public has access, so as to endanger or obstruct vehicles or pedestrians which are likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or path. Thus the present law allows danger to be dealt with not only where it already exists, because a tree overhangs a road, but where it is likely, because the tree may fall. The law protects the users not only of highways but also of other roads and paths to which the public has access. Therefore, it enables a highway authority, or in some cases a local authority, to require the owner of the tree or the occupier of the land on which the tree stands to fell it or make it safe. On failure to comply with the requirement the authority may act and recover expenses from the defaulter.
Subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 27 of the Bill go much further than this. They are for the benefit of the person who says to his local authority, "On my neighbour's land there is a tree which is in such a condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property on my land. If you agree, order my neighbour to fell the tree". If the local authority agrees, it may order the adjoining owner to fell the tree to make it safe. If he fails to do so, the local authority may send its employees on to his land, do the work and recover the expenses from him. This is new law. At present these matters are covered by the right of the subject to sue his neighbour. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to hear from the Government in what respects the present law is inadequate and, if so, how far it is desirable to give to local authorities the important new powers proposed in this clause. They would include, as I have pointed out, the power in certain circumstances to enter land without the consent of the owner or occupier in order to lop or fell trees that they, the local authorities, may consider to be a danger to his neighbour.

1057
I have made these comments on these two clauses not in any carping spirit—they do not in the least diminish my gratitude for the Bill—but in case they may be helpful to your Lordships in the consideration of this Bill in Committee. What I should like to say most of all at this stage of the Bill is that I am indeed grateful to the Department of the Environment for fashioning the Bill and to the Government for introducing it because it will bring some measure of order into the chaos of local government law. Therefore, I hope that the House will give unanimous support to the Second Reading.
3.43 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the Government for bringing forward a Bill which, by its very nature, is not of the kind that is popular with Governments. The truth of the matter is that there are not many votes to be got out of a Bill of this kind and my suspicion is that, as Governments come and go, they find at the bottom of their predecessors' pending tray proposals for such a Bill and there they remain indefinitely. I suppose, therefore, that we have to be grateful that this Bill has finally emerged.
It seems to me that what is needed is a greater stimulus to get such Bills rolling and I suggest that we need to invent a new procedure. I suggest that we need a body such as a commission—possibly a Joint Committee of both Houses—with whom would be deposited a copy of every local authority's Private Bill. It would be the duty of this committee to scrutinise the clauses to find any clause which fulfilled two requirements and dealt, first, with a matter of general application and, secondly, with a matter which was non-controversial. Any clause which fulfilled those two requirements would be recommended by the committee to be brought forward in a general Miscellaneous Provisions Bill.
I hope that that committee would be strengthened in its work in the kind of way that the Boundaries Commission is strengthened in its work, by all-Party agreement that the recommendations of such a committee would be respected and and that whatever non-controversial
1058
measures were recommended by the committee to be brought forward would be brought forward by whatever Party was in power at that time. If we are dealing with non-controversial matters, such Bills need not take up much Parliamentary time. Indeed, the quick passage of this Bill, upon which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, commented, advertises that not much Parliamentary time need be taken up with Bills of this kind.
So much for that general point. I come now to the rather more ticklish matter of trying to deal with individual clauses without being told that I am making a series of Committee points. I have selected three or four matters which I trust your Lordships will think are a little wider than pure Committee points. Clause 19 empowers local authorities to require what the Bill calls "sanitary appliances" to be provided in, among other places, betting shops. When the legislation which swept away the street bookmaker and established the betting shops was going through Parliament, I thought that Parliament was very strongly of the opinion that people should not be encouraged and should positively be discouraged from loitering and hanging about in betting shops. To that end Parliament laid down that television should not be provided in betting shops, as a discouragement to people to hang about and loiter there. I believe that sound commentaries are provided but not television. If people are not to loiter in betting shops, if they are to treat betting shops like other shops to which they go to make a transaction and then leave, it seems to me that there is no need to require betting shops, any more than other ordinary shops, to provide "sanitary appliances". I think we should seriously consider whether or not we still adhere to the idea that people must be discouraged from hanging about in these places and that we should set our faces against the provision of lavatories in betting shops.
I join with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in quarrelling with Clause 27: "Power of local authorities to deal with dangerous trees". I do not quarrel at all with the principle, which seems to be admirable. However, the clause is extremely long and complicated,

1059
and to my mind it contains one extraordinary curiosity. It operates only if the information about the dangerous tree comes to the local authority from an owner or occupier. Why should this be? If a tree, to use the words in the Bill, is in such a condition that there is imminent danger of its causing damage to persons or property, why should the local authority not be empowered to act if it gets its information from the policeman, or the postman, or the milk roundsman who may go to the local authority and say, "Do you realise that at No. 63 there is a large bough hanging by a thread and I am terrified every time I have to pass underneath it to serve those premises?" In those circumstances, why should not the local authority be allowed to invoke this clause? It seems to me quite extraordinary that there is this strange provision that only the owner or occupier of property shall set the ball rolling.
I hope that in Committee we can greatly simplify this clause by laying down that where a tree is in imminent danger of causing injury or damage to property, the local authority may go upon any land and do whatever is required; save only that if it is practicable they shall first inform the owner or occupier, who may be able to carry out the work more cheaply than the local authority, because of course the owner or occupier will have to pay for it in the end and he may have the equipment to enable him to do it himself. Secondly, if the danger is not all that imminent but nevertheless the local authority consider—again irrespective of who has informed them—that the tree is dangerous, though not imminently dangerous, then they may serve a notice upon the owner or occupier, requiring him to do whatever work is required to remove the danger.
Clause 30 deals with the spare capacity of computers. Here again we have in principle the very sensible idea that, with computers and printing equipment which local authorities genuinely require for their own purposes, if they have spare capacity they shall be able to hire out the equipment in order that the spare capacity may be used. A clause of this nature came before the second Committee which considered the unopposed parts of the County of South Glamorgan Bill. It was felt by that Committee that great care
1060
should be taken to see that the local authority, in hiring out their spare capacity of computers, should not undercut private enterprise in the same field, which after all they very easily could if the local authority chose to disregard the total cost of installing or hiring a machine upon the ground that anyway they needed it for their own purposes. They could show on paper quite a good profit by hiring it out at rates which would seriously undercut any private enterprise concern, who of course in fixing their charges would have to take into account the enormous cost of hiring or purchasing the machine in the first place.
The Promoters of the South Glamorgan Bill came back to the Committee on Unopposed Bills with an Amendment to their clause which said that they would not substantially undercut private enterprise; but the Committee was still not satisfied and the Promoters were persuaded to remove the word, "substantially". I feel this is an important matter, because Parliament tends to set its face against municipal trading, which I think was the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I seem to remember that not long ago a local authority came to Parliament with a Bill which would empower them to run shops and to engage in retail trading, and they did not get very far with that Bill. The matter of the spare capacity of computers is very much on the fringe of municipal trading, and I think this point should be looked at.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for a moment. Unhappily I did not hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I heard the noble Lord say that Parliament has on the whole—I hope I am quoting him correctly—set its face against municipal trading. As I understand it, he quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as having made that remark. I am just trying to relate that to Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain, and indeed the whole Chamberlain family, in terms of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. When did the Conservative Party set its face against municipal trading? The Birmingham Bank—the Chamberlain Bank—is municipal trading.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, my memory goes back certainly to Neville

1061
Chamberlain, but it does not go back so far as the memory of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. In so far as the attitude of the Conservative Party to municipal trading is concerned, I do not think I dare trespass on that ground. All I wish to say is that apparently quite recently Parliament did not approve of a local authority's proposal to open shops and engage in retail trading, and I thought I was speaking on a clause which was upon the fringe of that topic.
I await with anxiety and great interest a new clause which I understand we are to have before the Committee stage, which I think was promised by the Minister in Standing Committee in another place, which will deal with a harrowing state of affairs which was related to both of the Committees on Unopposed Bills which considered the County of South Glamorgan Bill. The matter concerned a mother with several young children who had done nothing wrong and who had paid her rent, which included the provision of electricity and gas to her premises. She had her electricity cut off in the depth of winter, not because she had done anything wrong at all but because her landlord, to whom she had paid her full rent, had failed to pay the electricity bill. It seems that in a case of that kind it would be right and proper to empower the local authority to pay the cost of reconnecting the premises and recover that cost from the defaulting landlord. I think we have been promised a clause which will deal with that matter and I shall welcome it with open arms when it arrives.
Finally, if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would like to look forward for a moment to the next of this series of Miscellaneous Provisions Bills, which I hope we are to have, and select the first topic which needs to be dealt with in the next one, I suggest that it ought to be the control of street trading. If the noble Baroness ever goes shopping in Oxford Street, as I dare say she does from time to time, I am sure she will realise that the control of street trading is something which deserves the attention of Parliament.
3.58 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, if I may venture to reply to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in the way that my noble friend from the Liberal Benches
1062
was too shy to reply, I should like to say that the Conservative Party never stands still, and over the past seventy years it has refined and perfected its policies in several matters. Perhaps I may leave it like that.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I rather caught the noble Lord out.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wish to give a very warm welcome to this Bill. At the time when we were debating the South Glamorgan Bill the Ministers from the Front Bench, in response to requests from some of us that a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should be produced as soon as possible, promised us that that would happen, and I feel that the Ministers have fulfilled their obligation completely by bringing forward this Bill within a few months of telling us that. Harking back for one moment to the debate we had on that Bill, we all remember the extreme courtesy with which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, dealt with the matter on that occasion. It was a pleasure to hear him again today.
The alternative to this Bill was, as my noble friend Lady Young said, a flood of separate local Bills which would have to come forward between now and 1984. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that that is the alternative, and it is perfectly clearly so; and if that course had had to be followed, the resultant Bills would have been immensely expensive in time and manpower, and money, too. The members of the Association of County Councils, the local government association with which I am most familiar, have very few criticisms indeed to make about what is in the Bill. They feel that it could, with advantage, have gone further. We quite see the point made by the noble Baroness about it not being appropriate in a Bill like this to introduce very controversial matters, but I think there are a number of other rather similar matters to this which have been selected for inclusion. I think the Association of County Councils will be anxious to discuss these at the meeting to be held next week to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. They have some suggestions to make of very similar kinds of provision which they think could well be included in the Bill, and which would not

1063
fall under the heading of being very controversial, or controversial at all, and, it is thought, would not take long to prepare.
My Lords, when one looks at the clauses in this Bill, they are a wonderful mixed grill, but the Bill is none the worse for that. I like the rather cheerful and colourful rubric to Clause 1:
"Power to erect flagpoles, etc., on highways."
That is a very cheery start. These flagpoles are given the very respectable description, in the last line of page 1, of "relevant works". Next year being Jubilee Year, I hope that the whole country will be sprinkled with relevant works.
There is no more I wish to say at this Second Reading stage. This is a good and useful Bill. I should like to give it complete support and, in particular, support the points which were so clearly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. My statistical advisers have told me that it is my practice to address your Lordships for an average of twelve minutes. On this occasion, I have held your Lordships spellbound for only four minutes, but I should like to say I hope very much that the other eight minutes will be credited to me for the embellishment of any future speeches I wish to make to your Lordships over the next twelve months.
4.2 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I apologise for taking part in this Second Reading debate without previously having put down my name on the list of speakers, but there is a point of principle which I should like to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to Clause 30 of the Bill, mainly with reference to computers, as I understood him, but not to printing equipment. in another place last Monday, 10th May, the Government introduced on Report—and at very short notice, I may add—a new clause, Clause 30, which in effect is giving much concern to CBI members in the printing industry. When introducing it, Mr. Guy Barnett, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, said the clause would enable local authorities to use up the spare capacity of computer equipment and reprographic machinery installed for their own use. As far as I
1064
can understand it, he concentrated his argument almost entirely on data processing and photographic facilities. Also as far as I can gather, on this basis the Opposition, who had no time to consult anybody in advance, accepted the provision.
The CBI and their members think that the clause in fact would allow local authorities all over the country—and I stress the words "all over the country"—to carry out printing in competition with private enterprise. The rubric to Clause 30 reads as follows:
"Use of spare capacity of computers and printing equipment of local authorities."
The West Midland County Council tried to take a similar power in Clause 6 of their Bill earlier this year, but that Bill failed to obtain a Second Reading, largely because of the proposed extension of local authority manufacturing and trading powers.
So far as I can ascertain, the only precedent for Clause 30 is Section 38 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1969. I should like to quote this to your Lordships because I think it places less emphasis on printing machinery. Section 38(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1969, says:
"The Council may by agreement with any person, for that person's purposes, use or promote the use of any electronic, mechanical or other equipment for accounting, analytical, statistical or other purposes or for the printing and reproduction of documents (including equipment for microfilm recording) which the Council have provided for the purposes of all or any of their work, and may provide any facilities and services ancillary to or necessary or convenient for, the use of the said equipment and make such charges as may be agreed for the use of such equipment and the provision of such facilities or services."
Section 38 is headed purely:
"Electronic, mechanical or other equipment, etc."
Therefore there is no emphasis on the printing equipment.
I understand, too, that with these lesser powers, the Greater London Council have never used the power to carry out printing for other persons. The CBI would like to see Clause 30 amended, so that the power can be used only in relation to computers or data processing equipment which, in the normal sense,

1065
would not cover printing machinery. I shall endeavour to devise for the Committee stage an Amendment to this end. In the meantime, I feel it right at Second Reading that I should raise this point of principle with regard to the question of the extension of local authority trading powers. I sincerely hope, especially as Clause 30 was introduced into the Bill only last Monday, that Her Majesty's Government will be able before the Committee stage to give consideration to the points I have made today.
4.10 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that a few words of welcome for the Bill should be expressed on this side of the House. I think it is a very good Bill; I hope it will have a very quick passage through the House. It is also probably appropriate that I should be the one to say these few words, because in a few minutes we shall be passing on to consider the Endangered Species Bill, and the Local Government Act 1972 certainly endangered the species to which I belonged, that of the county alderman. He no longer exists; he is now an extinguished species. I was for 25 years or so a county alderman and I also served on a district council. I therefore approach this Bill as one who is very interested indeed.
If one wanted to be unkind, one could possibly say that it is a hotchpotch kind of Bill, something like the vicar's wife's stall at the parish garden party. Nevertheless, it is a very good Bill, a very useful Bill, and it will be appreciated by every local government authority in the country. At the present time some of these authorities have certain powers and others have not. These powers have often been obtained through the promotion of private legislation by municipal authorities who were well heeled, whereas poorer ones could not afford the expense. This Bill will now give all councils an opportunity to adopt and put into operation the various services which are enumerated in the Bill. They will not be compelled to, but they will have the opportunity to do so if they wish. It very considerably extends the freedom of local authorities, and I think that is something that everybody in the House wants to see.

But, my Lords, I think we shall need to have another Bill from the same stable
1066
very shortly, because the various local government organisations, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, have a number of items which they would like to see in this Bill and which they propose to discuss with the Minister. If there is no time for these matters to be settled before the Bill is passed on to the Statute Book, it looks as though another Bill will be necessary.
There are a number of what appear to me to be very sensible proposals that the associations would like to see, proposals, for example, dealing with the sale of food on the verges of roads, particularly main roads. One sees this when one motors out into the country; one sees a beautiful bunch of flowers or a bag of apples or a sack of potatoes outside a farm gate and one is invited to pull up and purchase. You pull up and all the traffic behind you has to pull up; that is, if it does not bump into the back of your own car. The associations also want to see the prohibition of camping on the verges of roads, and they want to see something done to protect dangerous ponds from careful or careless members of the public.
There are one or two items in the Bill to which I would draw specific attention. Clause 5 prohibits posters on trees on the roadside. I think this is a very useful innovation. I get very angry as I motor out into the country around my area and see tree after tree labelled with such objectionable signs as "Vote Conservative" and things like that. Clause 16—and I think this is something that can be put right in the Department by the draftsmen—in one paragraph deals with 1,000 metres and in the next paragraph it deals with 1,000 yards, while Clause 2 deals with 12 inches. I think out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, of the Metrication Board, we ought to standardise the system which we use in the Bill. Clause 10 says that councils can produce heat. You can take it from me, my Lords, as a former chairman of a county council, that a council meeting can produce heat. Clause 11 says it can produce hot air, and the same remark applies to that.
I come now to what I think is a serious point. Clause 18 allows a council to provide various forms of recreation. I see that it does not mention croquet in the long list that it gives. Quite a lot of the

1067
old people who go to our parks would, I am sure, like to be able to have a game of croquet there. They cannot participate in the other sports and recreations mentioned, like tennis. I think that would be an improvement. A point to which I want to draw attention, and to which I am opposed really, is that which says that councils can set up riding schools. I fear that councils may be involved in many suits for damages if the pupils at these riding schools are injured during their lessons. It is one thing for an instructor to show you how to get on a horse, it is another thing for the instructor to show you how to sit on the horse. But one thing the instructor cannot tell you is how to fall off a horse and to be safe on every possible occasion.
I feel that the Minister should look at that clause again and perhaps have some hesitation about authorising local authorities to set up riding schools. I speak feelingly about this because my horse once hit the top bar of an oak fence; I went into the ditch on the other side and the horse came down on top of me. I am tough and can take it, but some of the youngsters attending these riding schools might not be able to and they might be hurt more seriously than I was.
There is a trifling matter of drafting in Clause 27. We have paragraph (c) at the top of page 33 which says that,
"Where such a council—
(c) knows the name and address of no person…"
If there is no person, how can you know his name and address? It might be possible to redraft this along the lines: "Where the council does not know the name and address of any person", and so on.
The new clause which has been added to Part II dealing with taxicabs and hire cars is, I think, very necessary indeed. I have lived in places where the regulation of taxicabs is very strictly enforced. I have lived in other places where there has been very considerable slackness. I would also mention Clause 23, which sets out the circumstances in which councils can establish funds. The 1972 Act provided that a council could establish what is called a capital fund. This has nothing at all to do with its consolidated loans
1068
fund, which deals with the gross amount of the money that the council has raised from outside. The capital fund is a fund which is internally established by the council itself. If it finds itself with a surplus on its estimates at the end of the year it can, if it wishes, instead of using that to reduce next year's rate, post it to a capital fund. It can also give so many pence in the pound of the rate each year to the capital fund. I established such a capital fund when I was finance committee chairman of my county council. We used to give a 3d. rate per year to the fund, and I think later on we increased it to 6d. By using this capital fund for minor capital works, we were able to save a considerable amount of money for the ratepayers.
What I want to know from my noble friend, after she has looked at the very lengthy Clause 23, is whether the new Bill in any way restricts the enjoyment which councils at present have to set up these internal capital funds; and, secondly, whether it restricts in any degree the way in which councils can invest their superannuation funds. I remember we altered our superannuation fund so that we were not restricted to investing funds in property and gilt edged stocks. We decided to go into equities as well, and the experience has been very beneficial.
The only other matter that remains is Clause 26, which authorises councils to indulge in what is called direct labour. I hope noble Lords will not overplay this clause. I do not think it means that the local council is going to become one of the great merchandising establishments in the district. There are circumstances in which it is desirable that a council should be able to use its direct labour squad on work which is outside its own local boundaries. The Greater London Council, for example, has big housing estates at Dagenham, at Romford, and also at Ockenden in Essex, and it seems sensible to me that if they want to carry out repairs to those thousands of houses they should be able to use their direct labour building squads to do the work rather than have to put it out to contract. As I say, I hope that this proposal will not be overplayed.
Of course, there is no element of Party politics in this. My memory goes back quite a long time. I remember that Tory

1069
councils used to run gasworks and electricity works, and I remember when I was in charge of the costing system of one of the Birmingham Corporation Departments some 55 years ago we carried on quite a big trading organisation. We used to sell pig food, we used to sell fertilizers, and we used to sell quite a lot of other things. There was no outcry from local traders because we engaged in this work. In fact, we were saving and earning money for the ratepayers at the same time as we were obliging the farmers in the surrounding districts. There are, as I say, one or two untidy bits of verbiage in the Bill. I think that this can all be put right, and I sincerely hope that the Bill will have a very quick passage.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this has been a wide ranging and interesting debate. It is amazing how quite a small number of speakers, each taking a very limited time to speak, can cover such an enormous area. I suppose it is because a Bill of this sort—and, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland rightly said, it is quite a hotch-potch—is consolidating private legislation which reaches into every nook and corner of local authority activity. The Bill demonstrates this, and also that, whereas some noble Lords would like to stop up some of the holes and corners, others would like considerably to extend other areas of them.
First, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their welcome to the Bill and their general support of it. I should also like to emphasise that it is part only of a continuing process of securing for local authorities in public legislation those ancillary powers that they need to enable them to work smoothly and effectively. The point was made again by my noble friend Lord Leatherland that he would like to see it go further. This covers some of the points that will be discussed at the meeting with the Association of County Councils next week. Any positive result from that will be by way of future legislation, or Amendments which I hope to move on behalf of the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me whether this extends local authority powers. Of course, it is true that the Government have already
1070
accepted four clauses in another place, and we shall be prepared to accept additional clauses here where they fit the twin criteria of being desirable and of being well precedented and non-contentious. Within that area there is certainly room for discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the question referring to direct labour. As we are all aware, a Working Party to go into this has been set up by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. The Government intend to bring in general legislation on direct labour. I think that my noble friend Lord Leatherland put it extremely well, and the Government are certainly not apologetic about our support for efficiently run direct labour organisations in doing local authority work. The extension of this to any great degree must, of course, be a matter for general legislation and not part of a Bill like this.
On municipal trading, a subject which the noble Baroness also raised, the Bill does not contain any provision which would increase the opportunity for provisional trading. As there is no general power in local authority Acts to engage in municipal trading, it would not he appropriate in this Bill. There are a few isolated examples of municipal trading, such as the Birmingham Bank. and my noble friend Lord George-Brown gently tapped my shoulder and reminded me that the Tory areas of Bournemouth, Eastbourne, Scarborough and I think several other places, indulge in municipal trading. I think that this depends not only on the authority but on the trading and on the circumstances; but this Bill certainly is not opening any wide doors in that area.
I am grateful for the warm welcome given to the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I was quite aware of how pleased he must be to see this coming about at last, as he has had to carry so much responsibility for all the problems arising in the disputes over Private Bills. Taking up the points he raised on Clause 2 and Clause 27, the point on Clause 2 about the scaffolding is well precendented and it is not anything new. The clause has been put in to give the public protection against dangerous scaffolding, and the frontagers protection against proceedings, provided they have obtained a licence.

1071
But, if there is any particular point the noble Earl wants to raise on the clause, we can consider it in Committee. I also like the view taken of this clause by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also raised the question of trees, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think that probably we have got that one right, because they both took entirely different views about it and we seem to be holding the middle ground. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, felt that this introduced a new law, and that the clause went much wider than he felt it should. But there are local Acts precedent, and we have been extremely careful to build in safeguards for the owners of dangerous trees; that is, they have a right of appeal. Further, we have not included the right of local authorities to enter land without a request from the owner occupier or some other person. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the other hand, would like to see the new law going rather wider. We deliberately took a restrictive view on the right of local authorities to enter private land to do this work, because, in the context of this type of legislation, we felt that it would be wrong to give other people who have no real connection —if you like a familial connection—with the property the right to start the operation of this clause. I appreciate his motivation over this, and particularly in the situation we have today with the danger of Dutch elm disease, but this is the reason. This again is something that can be discussed in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made an interesting suggestion about agreed Bills. It is an idea which I think should be given careful consideration. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not deal with the subject of sanitary appliances in betting shops, not because of female modesty but because I would rather consider the matter between now and Committee.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, raised the question of the spare capacity of computers. The intention is not to undercut private concerns; and this again is a subject which we will consider in Committee because Lord Merrivale indicated his intention to raise it then. The argument for saving
1072
ratepayers' money by using the spare capacity of computers applies equally to printing equipment and certainly if one can save the ratepayers' money, then I should have thought that that would receive support on both sides of the House and certainly from noble Lords opposite in view of the criticism that they have expressed in our debates. The limiting words in the clause make it clear that the power extends only to equipment installed for their own needs; it will not allow them to get enormous amounts of equipment which go beyond their own needs but to run their equipment at full capacity. I should have thought that such an approach to productivity would have been very attractive to all noble Lords.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, is this not in effect a new power, much wider than anything that has existed in the past? As I mentioned, one reason why the West Midlands County Council Bill was rejected was that in their Clause 6 they were seeking these powers. It is rather unfair competition on the printing industry because local authorities are not set up to act in competion with, for one, the printing industry.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there were a great many other points in the West Midlands County Council Bill which made it unacceptable. In any event, it was not drafted with exactly this wording. On the face of it, I think it would be difficult in principle to justify dealing differently with printing equipment than with computers. There would be great difficulty in distinguishing the boundary line between one category and the other, and although we shall be giving further consideration to the matter between now and Committee, the basis of the argument —that the local authority in this particular area should not be in competition with private enterprise, when, on the other hand, we are hearing that competition is being reduced in so many places and that this is taking the challenge and bite out of commercial life and the opportunity to give the best to the consumer—is perhaps that we should think in terms of the consumer as well. However, I have no doubt that we shall return to this subject in Committee.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Baroness—
Baroness BIRK: I think I should get on, my Lords.
Lord MERRIVALE: Would the noble Baroness allow me to raise a point about the GLC, my Lords?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords. As the noble Lord intends to raise it in Committee, I think we should leave it there for now. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. If the noble Viscount supports so many of the things we do he will continue to be my favourite Tory so far as local government matters are concerned. As usual, he did so with great felicity and, as he pointed out, with great brevity. So far as I am concerned, he has a rain check, for which he asked, for future debates.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised a number of points and I think I have dealt with most of them. I should like to consider the one he raised about the riding school when we come to it. The fact that there is a certain amount of danger could apply to many other issues. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised the question of street trading. This matter is being considered by the Home Office, which is really the Department concerned, and it is one for general legislation rather than for a Bill of this type. In the way that the noble Baroness thought that taxes caused almost the greatest amount of argument in relation to Bills of this sort, I think that street trading would come equal to it or a close second. We have heard today the different views of noble Lords on this subject, but, as I say, it is not part of the Bill.
It is clear that many of the points that have been raised will come up in Committee. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Leatherland will allow me to answer his question about local authority funds in writing. I have the answer with me but it is a rather complicated matter. I would only say at this point that it does not restrict the powers of local authorities to set up funds; in fact, it widens them. Nor does it affect the investment of their superannuation funds. As I say, this is a complicated subject and I would rather write to him about it. My noble friend also raised the question of posters on
1074
trees. I am glad that he supports the enhancement of the environment which is contained in the clause concerned. On the whole, it seems that the Bill has been well received by the House. I hope that we are able to give it the speedy passage that it got in another place so that it may quickly reach the Statute Book, and then local authority private legislation will be able to be reduced; these provisions will be there to be enacted as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause 1 [Restriction of importation and exportation of certain annuals and plants]:
4.37 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("kinds") to end of line 22 and insert ("to which Schedule 1 to this Act for the time being applies;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to this Amendment, I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 14, 19 and 20. The effect of this series of Amendments is to secure reverse listing in the Schedules generally and to introduce the revised version of Schedule 1 which reverses lists of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 simply remove the references in Clause 1(1) to columns in Schedules and provide for references to the Schedules themselves. Amendment No. 10 puts it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State can by order introduce reverse listing or revert to simple listing and can alter the lists of excepted species. Amendments Nos. 14 and 20 are simply consequential.
When we debated the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in Committee, the advantages of reverse listing were discussed and I think we reached a large measure of agreement; I will not therefore repeat the arguments today. However, I should perhaps describe how Schedule 1 is now arranged and explain the ideas that lie behind it. The revised

1075
Schedule I is divided into two parts The first, which contains mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, is reverse listed. The second part is simple listed and contains fish, insects and molluscs. The original sequence of groups, starting with those which are most advanced in an evolutionary sense, is thus maintained. For legal purposes it is necessary to use the scientific names of the species which alone give sufficient precision and clarity.
I have been mindful of the need to make the lists as understandable as possible, especially to traders. We have therefore introduced common names in the cross headings. These correspond generally but not exactly to orders and families. We have also inserted common names for the species where we can and the lists are complete for the well-known excepted species but incomplete for the restricted species which are rare and less well-known. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the footnote to Schedule 1, which makes it clear that the common names are for guidance only.
A great deal of work and consultation has gone into the preparation of these lists and I should like to pay tribute to the help given to us by traders and by the voluntary bodies. But inevitably there will still be some omissions or errors and I should welcome your Lordships' comments. We have no intention at present of altering the format of Schedule 2. Reverse listing appears to be impracticable. There are few common names and the family name is the most useful guide to the kind of plant.
In Schedule 3 each paragraph is logically independent and can be dealt with separately. The Government intend later to bring forward Amendments to paragraph 20, which deals with plumage, in order to revise the list of excepted species of birds. We are also considering whether it would be feasible to control mammal skins on the reverse listing principle and to bring Schedule 3 more into line with Schedule I by introducing common names. We are also still considering whether it would be appropriate to use italics for scientific names in accordance with accepted practice. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, it takes a long time to complain in this House and it takes a very short time to say thank
1076
you. I should like to say thank you not only on behalf of your Lordships but also on behalf of all the conservation bodies in this country. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness and I am sure that, with a few exceptions, we shall be content to leave the schedule to the Department of the Environment and the scientific authorities, who will do what is right. I thank the noble Baroness very much.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to reiterate the thanks expressed by my noble friend. I feel that the noble Baroness and her Department have listened with great wisdom and taken the advice of the House as a whole, and I am sure that they will have made the life of the Customs and Excise authorities a great deal easier by so doing.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, may I also add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness for having succeeded in doing what I first asked the Government to do when the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, introduced his Bill?—that is, to include the English equivalent, where possible. There is one small note of sadness. I am sorry to see that the Government have not been able to find the English for my old friend Bufo bufo—and that has nothing to do with the noble Earl who sits on the Liberal Benche—sand it is a small blot on the escutcheon. I thank and very warmly congratulate the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line I, leave out from ("kinds") to end of line 3 and insert ("to which Schedule 2 to this Act for the time being applies;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.44 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to any penalty imposed by any enactment, and in particular without prejudice to the imposition of penalties under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (notwithstanding the provisions of sections 45(3), 56(4) and 304 of that Act), any person who, knowing of or reckless as to its nature, is in any

1077
way concerned in the importation or exportation of anything mentioned in subsection (1) above, except in accordance with the terms of a licence issued under subsection (2) above, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or to both.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List at the Committee stage of the Bill and my noble friend Lady Stedman kindly said that she would look into the points which I then ventured to raise before the present stage of the Bill. She has certainly done so and, I have no doubt, has considered those points with the greatest care. Unhappily, it has not been possible to find what I may describe as an accommodation which would meet the point of view which she had and that which I ventured to put before the Committee. So the matter comes again before your Lordships' House for reconsideration in its original form.
I do not believe that I should be very usefully occupying the time of the House were I to repeat in any detail the longish argument which I put to the House when sitting in Committee. Very briefly, however, I remind the House that the point of the Amendment is that it is accepted that, as the Bill is at present drawn, the only prosecuting authority is the Customs and Excise, under the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 1952. As the Bill stands, nobody else can approach the courts in order to take up any particular case which, in the judgment of that person, seems to require judicial consideration. The broad point is that there is danger of the Bill failing in its objective if the very many conservation organisations which take a keen and active interest in the general objective of the Bill, and particularly in the preservation of species that are endangered, cannot take up individual cases in order to make sure that offenders are brought to justice, abuses stopped and the attention of the public in general directed to the situation which the organisation seeks to raise by its prosecution.
Broadly speaking, I believe that I shall be interpreting the view of my noble friend Lady Stedman correctly if I say that her anxiety is that if one can have two possible prosecuting sources—namely, the Customs and Excise and the voluntary
1078
conservation bodies—prosecutions by the Customs and Excise may be seriously impeded and there may be general muddle. I believe that this is the broad basis of the anxiety which has prevented my noble friend from making any concession to the point of view which I put before the Committee. That is one view, and it is clearly a view of great importance. I do not deny that for a moment. However, I submit that the other point of view is also of great importance and, if it is not in some way given place in the drafting of the Bill, I put it to the House that there is a danger of a major objective of the Bill not being achieved and of the Bill not getting anywhere near providing protection for endangered species the protection of which is a matter of great concern to very many well-meaning people, who hate to think that animals and birds can be endangered because they or that which is derived from them is used, notwithstanding that it has not been thought appropriate to license their importation or exportation.
I should like to make the following general comment, having reminded the House of the broad conflict of view. I accept at once that the Customs and Excise is composed of serious and responsible people of high principle and that they have extremely important duties to fulfil. I also accept that they ought not to be impeded in the fulfilment of their duties. Having said that, however, I believe that it is equally the case that, when considering the membership of the voluntary conservation societies, those bodies are also composed of people who are public spirited and well-intentioned and who do not rush into prosecutions merely because it suits their whim. They are not what we used in the old days to call angry young men and angry young women. They are sensible people, too. So we are dealing with the Customs and Excise, which is made up of sensible people with one approach to these problems, and with the conservation bodies who also are sensible people, but with a completely different approach and objective. It is not in the least designed to interfere with the Customs and Excise. On the contrary, it is an objective which aims to achieve what I should have thought was a very deep purpose which lies behind the whole of this projected legislation. On the danger of a prosecution by the voluntary conservation bodies

1079
impeding or bringing confusion into a prosecution by the Customs and Excise, I would simply say that we are dealing with two groups of perfectly sensible people.
It is unreasonable to suppose that if they both act according to their instincts, their common sense, their sense of public duty, their sense of pity, their sense of general obligation, they will fall foul of each other, one will get in the way of the other, and there will be a kind of unseemly general clash in their proceedings. That is most unlikely. I would go further. From the point of view of the conservation authorities your Lordships may well think that the last thing in the world they would want to do would be to undertake a prosecution which was likely to fail; a foolish prosecution; a prosecution which would seem to be wholly unjustifiable, and which would result in the public thinking that they were the kind of people who had some bee in their bonnets and who delighted in wasting public time. Those are not the kind of people one is dealing with. One is dealing on both sides with decent people who have honourable motives and common sense, by which they are guided. I respectfully submit to my noble friend that her apprehensions are not justified when one considers the actual situation.
I hope that I have not re-expounded the argument at too great a length. I know that I have not convinced my noble friend. Unless other views prevail, I feel that I ought, in due course—after other noble Lords intervene, if they wish—to invite the House to express an opinion on this matter in the Division Lobby. I do it with reluctance. I do not wish to impede or hold up the proceedings, but I feel it to be a plain duty upon me to invite the opinion of the House. Perhaps the view which I am putting will not be acceptable. If that is so, I shall be told so in most certain terms by figures which are easy to read. But it may well be that my noble friend will find that there is more feeling in favour of the point of view I am putting forward than, perhaps, she suspects. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord said, including his closing sentences about dividing the House. What is this
1080
Bill about? Surely it is an attempt by mankind to prevent the destruction forever of species which, unless we do something, will disappear off the face of the earth. This is not a matter which, for whatever good reasons, could rightly be left to a Government Department with wide other interests, when there are so many other people, including conservation bodies of whom the noble and learned Lord spoke, who are willing to help sensibly. I assure the noble Baroness that I agree with the noble and learned Lord when he said—and I wrote down the words—that there is a danger of the Bill failing in its object unless private prosecutions are allowed. There are so many ways of getting round the terms of the Bill otherwise. Thus I beg the noble Baroness to say that she will consider the matter and so prevent us taking the action we shall otherwise have to take.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I also wish to support my noble and learned friend Lord Stowhill and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on this matter. If we are serious about the Bill, and if we want to be sure that it will operate, we should allow private prosecutions, because to leave the whole matter with the Customs and Excise would be to leave a task which is of vital importance to the carrying out of the Bill in the hands of people who have a vast number of other jobs to do and who cannot be expected to police every shop in the country and watch exactly where all these species are being dealt with and sold. I know that the Customs and Excise has a very ancient history. I suppose it goes back to a time almost earlier than the origins of the kind of ordered government to which we have been accustomed in this country. I think I am right in saying that the Customs and Excise goes back beyond the foundation of the United States of America, the bicentenary of which we are now celebrating. Perhaps those involved in Customs and Excise at that time were the people who were responsible for founding the United States by the actions of Customs and Excise.
Nevertheless, Customs and Excise, from the nature of its activities, could not effectively be able to police or control the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. I hope that my noble friend Lady

1081
Stedman, who has done such a remarkable job in getting the Bill this far, will be able to help us a little further and ensure its effective implementation.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have strong reservations about the right of private prosecutions. I believe that in some circumstances such a right can be abused, and that different forms of pressure and intimidation can be brought to bear. I recall how strongly I objected to the idea of private prosecutions in the case of the Bill relating to cinematograph and indecent displays. In that case, it was not difficult to see the kind of intimidation that could be brought to bear on a newsagent, bookseller, or anyone else who might display a publication or other matter which could be proceeded against under Act of Parliament. We know that some people have almost made a business of pursuing private prosecutions. I do not want to mention any names in this connection, but those who keep a watch on these matters see how, at any rate in some fields, the right of private prosecution can be viewed with some misgivings. I do not suppose that in the conservation of endangered species people will get all worked up as they do over indecent displays and other matters affecting the emotional side of sexual morals. Nevertheless, I believe that the principle is important.
Notwithstanding my reservations, I shall support the Amendment, because I hope that if it were included in the Bill it would be acceptable to the Government to remove the right of any person to take proceedings on his own account (as is proposed in the Amendment) and substitute that with the names of acceptable conservation bodies. I made this suggestion during the Committee stage, and I believe that there is much to be said for giving the right of private prosecution to responsible bodies working in this field, whose motives would be free of any criticism.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, and other noble Lords who have spoken, that to leave the right of prosecution exclusively in the hands of the Customs and Excise would be to reduce the likelihood of prosecutions in a number of cases where there would, in fact, be grounds for taking them. That is why wider vigilance is desirable, but to
1082
scatter this around the whole of the population and give people the right to prosecute their next door neighbour, or anyone else whom they feel has transgressed the Bill after it becomes an Act, would be to carry the matter too far. That is what I feel about it. Some compromise would probably be generally acceptable to everybody, perhaps, except the Government, and if the rest of the House is in favour of something then the Government do not matter. I think the will of the House should prevail if it feels that way; but I must express my reservations on the right of private prosecutions.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should merely like to say that my point of view is rather similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I appreciate the action of the Government in defending the view of the Customs and Excise. They have to support this point of view as much as they can, because the Customs and Excise are a very important body in the enforcement of Government excise policy, in the collection of revenue and in watching out at the ports. It will become very hard for the Customs and Excise if this Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is not accepted. The Customs and Excise are not really very suitable for finding things or for initiating prosecutions in inland areas, though they are very good at dealing with things at airports and ports. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may laugh, but we like to think they are good. They try hard. But if the noble Lord laughs at their being good at that, how much more should he laugh at their being good at places inland. So I think that if the House passes this Amendment it will at least partly concentrate the mind of the Government on bridging this gap between the views of the House and those of the Customs and Excise authorities, and I think that this is an exercise which is well worth while carrying out.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I spoke at the Committee stage on a similar Amendment, and I do not want to repeat the arguments that I made then; but I do want to ask the Government if they will very carefully consider the compromise which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He

1083
has an extraordinary genius for compromises, as was shown in the proposal he made when we were discussing the rights of the Press and the rights of journalists. I want to suggest this. I am not sure that we are yet adjusting ourselves to the development of democracy in this country; that is, that we are getting at the root organisations of people particularly concerned in issues—organisations which are contributing enormously to public opinion on the issues in which they are concerned. I think this applies particularly to conservation societies. If one looks back over the last few years at the pressures which they have exerted in advancing proposals of benefit to the nation, of benefit to the beauty of our countryside and of benefit to the species of wild life and strange life, their efforts really have been a contribution to our nation. That is taking place in other spheres as well; and the time will come when Governments will have to recognise the contribution which these kinds of organisations are making to the dynamic democratic life of our country. I hope very much that this proposal will be accepted.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think there is one point which does not seem to have been mentioned so far. I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in this Amendment. The one point which would underline its importance is that a member of a conservation society is more likely to be able to know what a blue walleye perch is, whereas a member of the Customs and Excise is probably less likely to know. If there is some illegal animal which is found in a shop or in son-le other form of sale, this Amendment could possibly even tend to make sure that a prosecution is brought, and brought effectively, as opposed to waiting for a Customs and Excise official to come along who, even then, will perhaps not be able to recognise the animal. By this, I do not want to imply any criticism of the Customs and Excise. What I should like to say is that this will enable the conservation authorities to act as a great help to the Customs and Excise; and, knowing what a kind and good heart the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has, I am sure she will listen with great sympathy to what we have all said.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this afternoon my heart is not kind enough to go all the way with your Lordships. I think that, in speaking to this Amendment, with the leave of the House and, I hope, with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I may also perhaps refer to Amendment No. 5, which is to come, because they are very similar and it will save my repeating myself at that stage. I was aware, and was deeply conscious at Committee stage, of the feeling of your Lordships about this Amendment, and, indeed, I have been made even more conscious of it this afternoon. I assure your Lordships that we have sought a compromise and that we have had long hours of consultation on this particular set of Amendments. Both the Amendments are designed essentially to permit private prosecution in relation to imports and exports which are illegal under this Bill. The general trend of argument in support of these Amendments in Committee was that it was unreasonable to expect the Department of Customs and Excise to take the kind of personal interest in the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill which the voluntary organisations will doubtless regularly take, and that too much might be thrown upon Customs and Excise, so that it should be made possible for action to be taken by interested bodies.
No evidence has been brought forward that the policing of the controls for conservation purposes by Customs for very many years has been inadequate; and owing to the inadequacies in the private means of collection of evidence, the enforcement of the Bill would be prejudiced, in our view, if this Amendment were accepted. As the House will know, the Customs and Excise have been charged by Parliament with the enforcement of numerous prohibitions and restrictions in relation to import and export. The legal provisions in their own Acts have been in existence for many years, and their experience of enforcing prohibitions is considerable. I am no lawyer, my Lords, but I am advised that the jurisprudence in relation to their statutes is conveniently set out in Volume 12 of Halsburv's Laws of England, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is editor-in-chief. Both those in the Customs and Excise who deal with enforcement and the public at large and

1085
its advisers are aware of the provisions and the jurisprudence, as well as of the powers and resources of the commissioners of Customs and Excise, to which I referred recently in my speech at Committee stage.
It may here be convenient if I refer briefly to the legal position in relation to what has been termed "point of sale". Evasion of a prohibition has been held by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to be a continuing offence, and the decisions of the courts show that offences against Section 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 may be committed, whether in relation. on the one hand, to goods which are dutiable or, on the other hand, in relation to goods whose import is prohibited, at any time or place after importation of the goods into the United Kingdom. These authorities are set out in the volume of Halsbury to which I referred earlier.
From a technical point of view the Amendments would not attract any of the enforcement provisions in the Customs Acts. Also, the first of them would provide for the offence to be summary; that is, it would not enable an accused person to elect trial by jury if he so desired, which is the case under the equivalent provisions in the Customs Act, and the period of limitation within which proceedings would have to be taken if they were not to be out of time would be six months, under the Magistrates' Courts Act, contrasted with the period of three years, which is the limitation period laid down in Section 283 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952. Private individuals, or bodies, will have no power to ask questions which the questioned person is obliged to answer. they will have no power to take possession of any item alleged to be prohibited and in the country, in contravention of the provisions of the Bill; and none of the onus of proof provisions in Section 290 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 will be applicable.
Even if it were legally possible for both Customs and private organisations to have power to prosecute, some thought would have to be given to the practical consequences. A Customs prosecution usually results from a painstaking inquiry which can take quite a long time. If a private prosecution were brought before
1086
the inquiry was completed, it would almost certainly be lost for lack of evidence, and Customs would then be unable to prosecute, so that the time and effort spent on the inquiry would be wasted.
It is therefore natural that Customs would be unwilling to commit resources to such inquiries, in view of this risk. Conversely, if the inquiry showed the person to be innocent and Customs indicated this to him, he would feel justifiably annoyed if proceedings were taken against him by another organisation, and Customs may even be open to an accusation of bad faith. Provision for private prosecution could therefore effectively prevent Customs from prosecuting in any case.
Apart from technical difficulties which might well in practice have the effect of making the proposed clause a dead letter, there is a further objection on the ground of basic principle. It is this: in relation to import and export offences, Parliament has consistently over many years required the enforcement of prohibitions and restrictions, whether on import or export, to be in the hands of a public authority—today, actually a Department of State. I do not here need to refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions who has power, as your Lordships will know, himself to take over and conduct penalty proceedings by any Government Department. The reason for this is that it has been considered important in the interest of the citizen that the decision whether or not to put a citizen on trial should be taken by a public authority. It is a decision which has been consistently maintained for many years in relation to import and export and the Government are not prepared, in the context of another prohibition among many, to depart from it. That, my Lords, is the crucial point. Is the citizen to be brought before the courts following a decision of a public authority, when there are offences for which the punishment of imprisonment is possible and he has a right to elect trial by his peers, or is the decision to put him in peril to be taken by some private individual who can put a fellow citizen in peril of imprisonment without responsibility as a public Department, or without accountability, through Ministers, to Parliament?

1087
My Lords, may I refer, in addition, to the position in Scotland in relation to the taking of the decision to institute penalty proceedings. In that country that decision is taken by the Procurators Fiscal, or the Lord Advocate, whichever enforcement authority is charged with the investigation and the preparation of the case. Private prosecutions are not taken in Scotland. The Bill is to apply throughout the United Kingdom; so that the result of the insertion of this clause, if your Lordships so decide, will be to permit private prosecutions in England alone. For my part, I can see no reason for making such a distinction between the enforcement in each country of a provision common to both, in implementation of an International Convention to which the United Kingdom, as one whole, is a signatory.
I do not want to overstate the case, because there may well be instances where,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 4:
in limited and closely defined circumstances, certain outside organisations may have limited powers. But in the case of this proposed clause the object of which is to enable private prosecutions to take place for what are, in effect, Customs offences, the Government cannot do other than move that the proposal be rejected when responsibility lies with a public Department supported by long experience and clear jurisprudence, used to enforcing prohibitions of a varied kind, and for whose activities, both during the investigations and also for its decisions, Ministers may be called to account. I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gainford, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Balfour, E.

George-Brown, L.

Norwich, V.

Birdwood, L.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Blake, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Brecon, L.

Hamnett, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Platt, L.

Chorley, L.

Hawke, L.

Porritt, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Redesdale, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robbins, L.

Cromartie, E.

Inglewood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Strang, L.

Dulverton, L.

Longford, E.

Sudeley, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Wall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Meston, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L.Chancellor.)

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Henley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bradwell, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Derwent, L.

Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
("(8) In this section, "dead" includes preserved in any manner, eviscerated, and an incomplete specimen prepared in such a way that it still externally resembles the dead animal or plant.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 because these are consequential on Amendment No. 4. Amendments No. 28 and 29 are to omit paragraphs 16 and 18 of Schedule 3. Paragraph 16 says:
"The dried body of any animal of any of the families Alligatoridae and Crocodylidae."
Paragraph 18 reads:
"The preserved body of any animal of the subspecies Atelopus varius zeteki".
The object of Amendment No. 4, coupled with these Amendments, is to make it clear that animals and plants which are dried, pickled or otherwise preserved are included within the term deal animal or dead plant. Unless this is stated specifically in the Bill, this may be a matter of doubt. If paragraphs 16 and 18 in Schedule 3 are retained in the Bill, it appears clear that preserved specimens are not included because those paragraphs specifically control certain types of preserved bodies of specified kinds of animals. The implication of that is surely that these preserved bodies are not otherwise covered. That does not automatically include preserved bodies. It is for that reason that I have put down Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 because if paragraphs 16 and 18 of Schedule 3 are not struck out, I believe that preserved, dried or pickled specimens could slip through the Act.
The most likely people to import preserved bodies are museums. Any reputable museum could obtain a licence and would have no difficulty in importing these specimens. There may be certain types of collectors who might not be so reputable. They might want to bring in preserved rare specimens, such as rare butterflies, which if dead are restricted. The same argument applies to an eviscerated animal, what we call in Scotland gralloched, if it is a stag. It is an animal, bird or fish whose guts are removed. This argument also applies to birds and stuffed animals. But it is surely illogical to control the import of dead animals—as this Bill does—to be stuffed and put on display if you do not also control the import of animals already stuffed and ready for display. I agree that might lead to difficulties with imported animals which have been stuffed before the Bill becomes law. It would be up to the
1090
importer to prove that these animals have been killed and stuffed before the Bill becomes law. For exhibitions and museums I can see no difficulty, because licences could be granted. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, this Amendment needs to be considered with Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. The effect of these Amendments would be to extend the coverage of Schedules 1 and 2, which at present cover whole live or dead animals and plants, to preserved, eviscerated and incomplete specimens, provided they still resemble the complete animal or plant. Dead animals and plants were included in Schedules 1 and 2 to comply with the Convention.
Those preserved dead bodies which we thought to be significant in trade and capable of recognition have been listed as parts or derivatives in Schedule 3. There is inevitably a measure of duplication between Schedules 1 and 3. This Amendment will undoubtedly extend the area of duplication. It will also place controls on the preserved bodies of many more species. I do not think those are serious objections, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment on the understanding that we shall want to consider further the precise wording. We accept its intention.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) A person handles unlicensed goods, if knowing or believing them to be items unlawfully imported by virtue of this section, he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, dispersal or realisation by, or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
( ) A person guilty of handling unlicensed goods shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine, or both."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Amendment put down at Committee

1091
stage by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, who regrets that he cannot be here himself to take part in this Report stage since he has to be in Scotland on business. The Amendment has an addition which my noble friend himself mentioned on moving it previously, namely that it will now be possible to take an offender to a higher court and impose penalties of two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. This Amendment is complementary to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and which has just been accepted by your Lordships, to punish illegal import and export. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill covers activities at the ports of entry. This Amendment applies to people further inland who deal in illegally imported goods. Between the two of them, therefore, they cover most of the possibilities of wrongful possession of endangered species.
The wording of this Amendment closely follows Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the handling of stolen goods, often still known by its old name of "receiving stolen goods". The idea is that just as no one should knowingly deal in stolen goods, no one should knowingly deal in unlicensed endangered species. As my noble friend Lord Mansfield stressed at the Committee stage, this Amendment will not penalise innocent people, such as a lorry driver who may have no idea that his cargo is unlicensed or even rare, but only those who know what they are doing.
This Amendment allows anyone to prosecute; and that includes the conservation bodies, the police and even Customs and Excise, if they so choose. However, the point of having the Amendment is that Customs are not really the proper people to control unlicensed goods in the shops. The most sensible way of dealing with that would be for those individuals who are concerned and who suspect an offence to notify the local police on the spot, who could then investigate, if necessary getting information from Customs; but they are clearly the right people to investigate. If, however, the police decide not to prosecute but, for example, the conservation bodies feel there is a point of principle which the courts ought to consider, they can take up the matter themselves.
Without this Amendment, the only available offences will be under the Customs
1092
and Excise Act, which means that only Customs can prosecute and both the police and the conservation bodies would be cut out. We all know that Customs cannot increase their staff to deal with litigation over the complicated problems which might arise, and the voluntary bodies would be very happy to sort out any difficult matters out of their own general funds. Therefore, the possibility offered by this Amendment is that of keeping a stricter control over endangered species at no cost to the public purse. If the Bill remains as it stands it will not affect public funds, because Customs simply will not be able to pay more staff to do the work, but it will quite possibly affect the world's stock of rare species, which is a resource this Bill is supposed to protect. I beg to move.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. As the noble Lord has pointed out, it covers a great deal of the ground covered by the Amendment which the House has just carried, but it has one special and particular feature. So far as I read the Customs and Excise Act 1952, it contains no provision which can lead to the prosecution of a person who dishonestly and fraudently deals in imported matter, unlicensed, knowing that that is the case, and after it has passed through the Customs barrier.
I reread the argument that took place on the Committee stage of this Bill, when the same Amendment was moved and discussed. I also read the speech of my noble friend Lady Stedman in reply. If she will allow me to say so, the only real answer that I thought she gave was that it was quite unnecessary to have this power because a power to do precisely what the Amendment sought to achieve is already contained in existing legislation. I am sure it is my fault; but I do not know of any such power.
May I ask my noble friend a direct question: will she please tell me what section of what Act of Parliament enables a prosecution to take place of a person who knowingly deals in matter which has passed through Customs when without licence, and dishonestly does so by selling it or moving it or dealing with it in some way? What power is there? I do not know of any such power. I confess I may have missed it, because I have not had the opportunity of going through all

1093
the volumes of Halsbury to which my noble friend referred when she was dealing with the last Amendment but one; if she will be so very kind as to tell me in what section of what Act there is a power to prosecute a person who dishonestly, fraudently, deals in, moves, adapts and generally handles matter which has been passed through the Customs without licence, I should be very glad to know it. If she could point to such a power, I would have thought that the Amendment loses a great deal of its force, but I would ask the specific question: where is that power?
This Amendment is modelled on a very similar provision of the Theft Act; in effect, receiving stolen goods. So far as I know, in the Customs and Excise Act, although there are plenty of powers to prosecute for fraudulent evasion of the Customs prohibition, there is no power to go after a person who after the goods have gone through the Customs barrier, proceeds fraudently to deal with them, either for his own advantage or for someone else's. Therefore, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would indicate to me the section that is referred to here. I am sure that my noble friend's advisers must have told her of such a power; otherwise she would not have felt able to give the advice to the House that she gave last time. I hope she will be able to tell me what is the section.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not want to repeat all the arguments, which are as relevant to this Amendment as they were to Amendment No. 3. But, in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, I explained when replying to the earlier Amendment that evasion of a prohibition has been held by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to be a continuing offence, and the decisions of the courts show that offences against Section 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 may be committed,
1094
whether in relation on the one hand to goods which are dutiable, or on the other hand to goods whose import is prohibited, at any time or in any place after importation of the goods into the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was sufficient for Customs to act upon, and Customs is the only body that has readily available information about imports and exports.
I said in Committee that we wanted the co-operation of the voluntary bodies. if they will come to my Department and say "Such-and-such a shop or such-andsuch a person has possession of these items. Have they been issued with a licence?", then, provided that they can produce a good reason for making the inquiry, my Department will give them information as to whether or not a licence has been issued. I thought I had given the assurance in Committee, that if we found that someone had any goods, parts or derivatives, or anything which he should not have, and did not have a licence, then my Department would deal with the matter promptly and would ask for the promptest and best co-operation of the Customs and Excise, which we have been assured we should have. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, but I really do not see how her arguments are any more germane to this Amendment than they were to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I should still like to test the feeling of the House on this Amendment.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Amulree, L.

George-Brown, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray, L.

Phillips, B.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Porritt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hawke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brecon, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Just, L.

Chorley, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clitheroe, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shinwell, L.

Craigton, L.

Long. V. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Cromartie, E.

Longford, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

de Freyne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

Wall, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Northesk, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Norwich, V.

Young, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bradwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L. [L. Privy Seal.]

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
(" (7A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

(a) to maintain a register of licences issued under subsection (2) above, and of certificates issued in pursuance of subsection (7B) below;

(b) to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(c) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Secretary of State, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This Amendment is designed to bring in at the end of Clause 1 a subsection that would require the Secretary of State to maintain a register of licences, to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public, free of charge, and to afford to members of the public reasonable facilities
1096
for obtaining, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register. With regard to the last Amendment, my noble friend Lady Stedman mentioned that only the Department would have the information upon which action could be taken.
The purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to ensure that such information would be available so that people who were interested—particularly the conservation societies—could obtain the necessary information about licences. If I may refer to the following Amendment, Amendment No. 7 permits any individual applicant for a licence to ask the Secretary of State for exemption from the requirement that the information on the licence should be made public. This would be allowed only if there were a serious reason for it. Amendment No. 7 is designed to cover the case which has been mentioned previously, where commercial secrecy might make it undesirable for the details of licences to be generally published. However, quite clearly the purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to make available such information as is required in order to

1097
control and check the proper dealing with all the substances which are covered by this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Stedman has mentioned already that certain assurances were given, but I should like to press her a little further on this point. If satisfactory assurances are given and my noble friend considered that it was impracticable, I should not wish to press this Amendment to a Division. At the same time, I believe that the purpose of the Amendment is important. It is essential that information should be made available to those people who are interested in the enforcement of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to go into a little more detail than was possible at the Committee stage and reassure the House that we shall indeed be able quite readily to obtain information from her Department.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has said, we discussed at Committee stage the Amendments moved by him and by my noble friend Lady White which would have had the effect of making available for public inspection detailed information about licences, except where a certificate of exemption had been issued. The Amendments now before the House are in similar terms, and, like my noble friend, I should like to look at both of them together.
I am ready to repeat the assurance I gave then, that if an individual or body contacts the Department of the Environment, gives the name of the assumed importer of an Appendix I species, identifies himself and gives a good reason for his inquiry, my officials will be prepared to say whether or not a licence has been issued. We have considered the matter deeply since the Committee stage and I am prepared to extend that assurance in certain circumstances to cover Appendix II species as well as Appendix I. If, for example, the country of origin were to place a ban on the export of an Appendix II species, its status would become similar to that of an Appendix I species. I am also prepared to say that where conditions have been attached to a licence then, in the circumstances I have des
1098
cribed, my officials will be prepared to say what those conditions are.
I must stress, however, that we cannot divulge an importer's name. The person applying for the information must already know it, or suspect it. Nor can we publish the actual register of licences. I repeat that commercial confidence must be protected and traders' sources of supply safeguarded. I hope that this assurance will allow my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. We have appreciated the opportunity of consultation with him since the Committee stage, and I hope he will now be satisfied with what we propose.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. She has effectively met all the points which were raised at the Committee stage and which I have just again raised. Therefore, with permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Scientific authorities]:
5.57 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert (" and he may by order exempt such a body or bodies from the provisions of section 1 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and, by leave of the House, to speak to Amendment No. 9 at the same time. This is a quite simple point. I believe that something has been left out of the Bill. When at the Committee stage the noble Baroness moved the new Clause 2 on page 3 she allowed that the Secretary of State may
"(b) assign to any other body or bodies the duty referred to in subsection (4) below".
Therefore, the noble Baroness allowed herself the right to appoint not only a scientific body but a body such as the Natural History Museum to act as though it were a scientific body. At col. 495 of Hansard the noble Baroness referred to this scientific body which she intends to use as an advisory body, and said:
"It is his intention"—
that is, of the Minister"—
"to 'designate' these bodies formally after the Bill becomes law,"—[Official Report; 4/5/76; col. 495]
There are bodies which quite properly should be freed from the obligation to comply with this Bill. Again, it might even be the Natural History Museum. However, it would be quite a nonsense to apply formally for a licence to import bits of an animal, or scientific specimens.
Even at this stage, therefore, the noble Baroness has not given an undertaking to designate such a body. However, I put it to your Lordships that the designation of a body for the purpose of freeing it from the provisions of the Bill should be public knowledge and should be discussed in the proper way, as happens with all Acts of Parliament. Therefore, after Section 2(1)(b) by which the Secretary of State may assign to any other body or bodies the duty referred to in subsection (4), my Amendment would insert:
"and he may by order exempt such a body or bodies from the provisions of section 1 of this Act".
This gives to the noble Baroness powers which she does not now possess to exempt from the Bill the body which she is going to use as a scientific body, and to add to it other scientific bodies which may not necessarily advise her but which, quite rightly and properly, should be exempted from the Bill. I feel that both Parliament and the public should have in proper form any exemptions from this Bill, be it a scientific body that advises the noble Baroness, or simply a scientific body that is doing a good job. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, should be considered together with his Amendment No. 9 and they would allow the Secretary of State by order to exempt scientific authorities from the need to obtain licences. The Convention allows, but it does not oblige, party States to grant exemption from licensing for specimens exchanged between scientific institutions in different countries. I understand that the noble Lord probably has it in mind to designate all reputable scientific institutions.
Lord CRAIGTON: No, my Lords.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon—but if so it would seem invidious to exempt one or two institutions and not others that were similar, and I do not think the Secretary of
1100
State could contemplate assigning the functions of a scientific authority to a host of institutions for no reason other than to grant them exemption.
We have looked at the possibility of exempting scientific institutions in general and we have concluded that it would be unnecessarily complex to translate this exemption into a satisfactory provision in the Bill. We would have to consult and make decisions as to which scientific authorities can be regarded as reputable and it would seem to us to be easier to proceed by administrative action. The only significant amount of exchange appears to be in herbarium specimens of pressed plants. I can assure the noble Lord that it will not be necessary for licences to be obtained for individual consignments, and if scientific specimens are to be exempt I think I should want to take this back and look at it again. At the moment, I could not accept the noble Lord's Amendments.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, it is through no fault of the noble Baroness that we have had only a very short while to look at these matters. I am content to withdraw my Amendment because I believe that what I have said will be found to make sense when the noble Baroness and her officials study it. It was the last intention in the world of mine that she should give a blanket exemption to all institutions. This is something we do not want. That is why it is much better to do it in a formal way and put it in the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Power to modify Schedules 1 to 3.]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("(e) to facilitate the more effective or more convenient administration of any restriction which is for the time being imposed by virtue of this Act on the importation and exportation of animals or plants of any particular kind or of any particular items.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, to which I have already spoken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause: Power to restrict ports at which live animals may be landed.
—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State desirable to do so for the purpose of assisting the discovery of any importation contrary to section 1 above of any live animal of any of the kinds to which Schedule I to this Act for the time being applies, he may by order provide that, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order, it is prohibited to import any live animal of any kind specified in the order uness—

(a) the animal is imported at a port, or one of the ports, specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind, or

(b) the Secretary of State authorises the animal to be imported at some other place.

(2) Any order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order thereunder.

(3) The power conferred by this section to make any order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment should be considered with Amendment No. 31. These Amendments would give the Secretary of State power to restrict by order the ports of entry at which a live animal could be imported. Noble Lords will remember our discussion of this subject at Committee stage. I said that it might be possible to consider some form of permissive power, and I am moving this Amendment now as a result of these considerations.
This Amendment resembles closely Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. But it makes clear that the power to restrict ports is being provided as an aid in enforcing the controls of the Bill. We are not yet convinced that restricting ports would ease identification problems, and noble Lords will remember the arguments which I put forward at Committee stage. But we accept that future experience might show that these restrictions were desirable, and we wish to have the power available. Other arguments have been put forward on animal welfare grounds. We can appreciate the feeling behind them. But the scope of the Bill will allow us to consider the welfare of endangered species only. If restrictions are to be brought in for the welfare of common animals, they will have to be inserted in a more appropriate Bill.
The Amendment would allow the power to be exercised by Statutory Instrument, which could be varied or revoked at any time. It would also permit the Secretary of State to make exceptions, either generally in the order or specifically in any particular case. It is important to provide for an animal which needs to reach its destination by the shortest possible route to use an undesignated port. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has proposed this sort of provision in his Amendment No. 13. In the light of what I have said, I hope the House will accept this Amendment, and perhaps the two succeeding ones might be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has met this point. I am well aware that parts of my Amendment No. 12 were defective, but I will reserve detailed comments on that until it is called. In the meantime, I am happy with Amendment No. 11 in so far as it goes.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this Amendment and I thank my noble friend for introducing it, because it is one of the points which was raised in my original Bill. I am very glad to see it now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
"Restriction of importation and exportation to specified ports.
—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the importation or exportation of any kind of live animal shall, in any or specified circumstances, be prohibited, unless landed or despatched at one of the ports as specified in the order.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.
(3) A person in breach of an order made under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for what I am now going to do, but in my own defence must say that I saw the Marshalled List

1103
only this morning and have not had much time to study it as I had other things to do. What I should like to do now is this. I have expressed my pleasure, and the House has expressed its pleasure, at Amendment No. 11, which we have now passed and is the new clause. I should now like to insert the third paragraph only of my Amendment No. 12. It would read:
"Insert after the new clause:
(3) A person in breach of an order …"
and so on. I understand from the Table that I am in order in doing this, and I apologise for not having had a moment to tell the noble Baroness what I intended to do. The only objection which I had to her Amendment was that I felt it did not go quite far enough, because by not making a breach a specific offence it makes any import in breach of the order a Customs offence; that is, it can be prosecuted only by Customs and Excise. All the arguments advanced on the other Amendments for private prosecution also apply. The Government have been defeated 66 to 31 and 73 to 19 on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, and what I am doing is directly in line with those Amendments which your Lordships have approved.
In addition, it is likely that conservation organisations, or animal welfare organisations who tend to co-operate with conservation organisations in such matters, are very likely to obtain relevant information and ought to be in a better position than the Customs to give evidence, for example that the animal was of a particular species. The Customs argument, that in private matters they would have all the important information, therefore would not apply and in my opinion that tells against the Customs. Therefore, I suggest that we should do what is in line with what the House has done. We have already moved exactly the same principle in the second part of Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"(3) A person in breach of an order made under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952.")—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining
1104
why he wants this particular addition and, as he has said, we have accepted the principle of his Amendment. We were not happy about the wording of his Amendment as it then stood, and the part which he now wants to add to the Government Amendment provides for the penalty of a final forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act for the breach of an order.
We do not consider that it is necessary to spell out a specific penalty here. If the animals are brought into an undesignated port, they become illegal imports and they will be subject to the Customs penalties in any case. I think it is unlikely that a prosecution or a seizure would be desirable if the import was otherwise in order. As the noble Lord says, we have not had time for any consultations about this. I hope that what I have said will lead him to see that we think that it is perhaps unnecessary. But if the noble Lord wants to press it, I would be happy to take it back and have another look at it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. If she is willing to take this back and have another look at it, and perhaps have a word with me before Third Reading next Thursday, it would give us all time. I do not like putting things down on Third Reading, but the point has been aired. I do not want to have more pains and penalties in the Bill than we need, so I will leave it at that, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4. [Restriction of movement of certain live animals after importation.]:
6.11 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("kinds") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("to which Schedule 1 to this Act for the time being applies")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions given under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is exactly the same Amendment as I moved in Committee, which I put down again. I have read the answer of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I am not totally convinced as to why this should not be. I do not regard it as being a similar Amendment to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, which he withdrew, because I do not see that in this case there is any commercial gain to be won by the information to outside parties. I cannot see what harm it can do to outside parties.
The only objection I can see is that it might cause busy men to have to spend time giving information to people who they might consider were being unnecessarily Clizzy-Lizzy. If, as I believe, there is a danger of people moving animals unnecessarily once they have been imported, and probably for wrongful purposes—I instanced the other day the example of animals being moved from a zoo to a safari park—with the intention of persuading people that the young animals they moved from the zoo had really been reared in a safari park, and if someone suspected these animals were not being born in a safari park and had not got the ability to ask for this information, I do not see how that safari park could be faulted with regard to the implication that they were rearing animals. This is only one small example; there are others which noble Lords can think of for themselves. Apart from the little time involved, and I do not regard it as more than a little time, this Amendment is not going to cause many inquiries. I should like to hear the further views of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have considered the points the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made when we debated this type of Amendment in Committee. It is quite true that directions are generally made only in respect of Appendix I animals, and no commercial interest is involved. But the information contained in the register will be simply the whereabouts of an animal, and this is something an inquirer presumably will normally already know.
When we discussed Amendment No. 6 I said that in certain circumstances we could reveal to a bona fide inquirer facts
1106
about the conditions attached to a licence. I am certainly prepared to extend this undertaking to include the fact as to whether or not a movement direction has been imposed. I think this procedure might prove to be simpler and cheaper than having to maintain a register publicly available. I think it might be less tempting to irresponsible inquirers to indulge in random snooping. It would certainly mean some expense on staff, and on accommodation in which to keep the register where people could go and consult it. Also, there would be an element of expense in producing such a register. I hope that, in the light of this, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as usual, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Far be it from me or the Party I represent to wish to impose on the Government any more expenditure; that would be the last thing I would wish to do, unless there was a good reason behind it. I think the explanation the noble Baroness has given is reasonable. If, on mature consideration, my friends do not regard it so, no doubt my friends in another place can deal with it accordingly. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 30, after ("premises") insert ("having suitable conditions for care as are approved by the scientific authority")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is sick, and has asked me to put down once again an Amendment in line with the one he moved towards the end of the Committee stage, at col. 444 of Hansard, At that time, the noble Earl put down a fairly long Amendment, laying out in some detail the type of accommodation required. I will read to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, what she said in reply. The noble Baroness said:
"Clearly, these are highly laudable aims and the Government are in sympathy with them. But it does not seem necessary and, indeed, I think it is undesirable, to spell them out in the Bill. There is always a danger that, if certain conditions are spelt out, doubt is thereby cast upon the Government's power to impose others not so specified.

1107
The Convention requires that the scientific authority shall be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it before it issues an import licence…".—[Official Report, 4/5/76; col. 445.]
As the noble Earl did not then have the opportunity of knowing the newly-worded clause of the noble Baroness about describing scientific premises, I felt he would like me simply to say such premises,
"…having suitable conditions for care as are provided by the scientific authority",
the word "care" covering all the things my noble friend wanted to put in. This may seem slightly frivolous, but it seems to me that the serious point is that nowhere in this clause is the Secretary of State obliged to consult the scientific authority on this matter of suitable care. He can consult the scientific authority about the issuing of a licence, but nowhere is he empowered to consult about care. On those two grounds, I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I support this Amendment. It seems to me to pinpoint exactly what is meant by the International Convention. It is taking what is stated in the International Convention and putting it straight into the Bill, making this an absolute legal requirement. I would think that there is not only nothing to lose by this but a great deal to gain by having it so clearly stated. I hope the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Leave out Schedule 1 and insert—

("SCHEDULE 1)

ANIMALS THE IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED

This Schedule applies to the following kinds of animal, namely:—

PART I

MAMMALS

1. All kinds of mammal except the kinds specified in the first column below—

Excepted kind

Common name or names

Marsupials

Macropus giganteus

Eastern grey kangaroo

Macropus fuliginosus

Western grey kangaroo

Insectivores

Talpa europaea

Common eurasian mole

Primates

Macaca rhesus

Rhesus monkey

Macaca nemestrina

Pig-tailed monkey

Cercopithecus aethiops

Velvet monkey

Rabbits and hares

Lepus catensis

Brown hare

Oryctolagus cuniculus

European rabbit (otherwise known as domestic rabbit)

Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. The care of animals generally is being increasingly invested in councils. They have powers of inspection of boarding kennels, breeding kennels, pet shops, everything. Councils, in this case, are not the people who should have the powers: the scientific authorities are the people who should have them.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as noble Lords will have gathered when we discussed this Amendment in Committee, the Government would comply with this provision in any case. The Convention provides for this type of approval. We have looked at it again, and still do not consider it necessary for it to be stated overtly in the Bill. In the interests of co-operation, and because Parliamentary Counsel have a few minor doubts about drafting, I would be happy to consider it.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, on that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Animals the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
6.20 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 19:

Rodents2

Sciurus carolinensis

Grey squirrel

Sciurus vulgaris

Eurasian red squirrel

Castor Canadensis

Canadian beaver

Rattus norvegicus

Common rat (otherwise known as laboratory rat)

Rattus rattus

Ship rat

Mus musculus

House mouse (otherwise known as laboratory mouse)

Meriones unguiculatus

Clawed jird (otherwise known as Mongoliangerbil)

Any domestic form of Mesocricetus auratus

Domestic golden hamster

Any domestic form of Ondatra zibethicus

Domestic muskrat (otherwise known as musquash)

Cavia porcellus

Domestic guinea pig

Any domestic form of Chinchilla laniger

Domestic chinchilla

Myocastor coypus

Domestic coypu (otherwise known as Nutria)

Carnivores

Canis familiaris

Domestic dog

Vulpes vulpes

Common fox and silver fox

Alopex lagopus

Artie fox

Procyon lotor

North American raccoon

Procyon cancrivorus

Crab-eating raccoon

Mustela vison

North American mink

Mustela fivo

Domestic ferret

Martes zibellina

Sable

Felis catus

Domestic cat

Seals

Callorhinus ursinus

Northern fur seal

Odd-toed ungulates

Equus caballus

Domestic horse

Equus asinus

Domestic donkey

Equus caballus x assinus

Mule and hinny

Even-toed ungulates

Any domestic form of Sus scrofa

Domestic pig

Lama glama

Domestic llama

Lama pacos

Domestic alpaca

Any domestic form of Camelus bactrianus

Domestic bactrian camel

Camelus dromedaries

Arabian camel

Cervus elaphus

Red deer

Dama dama

European fallow deer

Any domestic form of Rangifer tarandus

Domestic reindeer

Any domestic form of Bubalus bubalis

Domestic water buffalo

Bos taurus

Domestic ox

Bos indicus

Domestic zebra

Bos frontalis

Domestic gayal

Any domestic form of Bos grunniens

Domestic yak

Any domestic form of Capora hircus

Domestic goat

Ovis aries

Domestic sheep

BIRDS

2. All kinds of bird except the kinds specified in the first column below—

Excepted kind

Common name or names

Gamebirds

Perdix perdix

Common partridge

Alectoris

Partridges

Lophortyx californica

California quail

Colinus virginianus

Bobwhite quail

Coturnix

Quails

Excalfactoria chinensis

Painted quail (otherwise known as blue-breasted quail

Bambosicola theracica

Bamboo partridge

Gallus gallus

Red junglefowl

Rollulus roulroul

Roulroul partridge

Phasianus colchicus

Common pheasant

Phasianus versicolor

Green pheasant

Lophura hycthemera

Silver pheasant

Syrmaticus reevesi

Reeve's pheasant

Chrysolophus

Golden pheasants and Amherst pheasants

Pave cristatus

Indian peacock (otherwise known as blue peacock)

Numida

Spotted guineafowls

Guttera

Acryllium

Cranes

Grus antigone

Sarus crane

Anthropoides virgo

Demoiselle crane

Balearica pavonina

Crowned crane

Button quails

Turnix

Button quails

Rails

Porphyrio porphyrio

Purple gallinule

Laterallus laucopyrrhus

Red and white crake

Pigeons and doves

Colomba guinea

Speckled pigeon

Streptopelia

Typical doves

Cena capensis

Masked dove

Turtur

Wood doves

Chalcophaps indica

Green-winged dove

Geopelia striata

Barred dove

Geopelia cuneata

Diamond dove

Ocyphaps lophotes

Crested bronzewing

Phaps chalcoptera

Common bronzewing

Phaps elegans

Brush bronzewing

Zenaida auriculata

Eared dove

Columbina

Small America ground doves

Scardefella

Parrots

Trichoglossus haematodus

Rainbow lorikeet

Cacatua sulphurea

Lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo

Cacatua moluccensis

Salmon-crested cockatoo

Cacatua roseicapilla

Galah (otherwise known as roseate cockatoo)

Ara ararauna

Blue and yellow macaw

Ara macao

Red and yellow macaw

Ara chloroptera

Red and green macaw

Nandaya nanday

Black-headed conure

Myiopsitta monachus

Monk parakeet (otherwise known as quaker parakeet)

Cyancliseua patagonus

Patagonian conure

Forpus

Parrotlets

Brotogeris

Small South American parakeets

Psittacus erythacus

African grey parrot

Piocephalus senegalus

Senegal parrot

Poicephalus ruppelli

Ruppell's parrot

Agapornis

Lovebirds

Loriculus

Hanging parrots

Psittacula eupatria

Alexandrine parrot

Psittacula krameri

Rose-ringed parrot

Psittacula himalayana

Slaty-headed parrot

Psittacula cyanocephala

Plum-headed parrot

Psittacula roseate

Blossom-headed parrot

Psittacula longicauda

Long-tailed parrot

Psittacula alexandria

Moustached parrot

Amazona aestiva

Blue-fronted Amazon

Amazona ochrocephala

Yellow-headed Amazon

Neophema elegans

Elegant parakeet

Neophema chrysostoma

Blue-winged parakeet

Neophema pulchella

Turqoisine parakeet

Neophema bourkii

Bourke's parakeet

Psephotus haernatonotus

Red-rumped parakeet

Platycercus eximius

Northern rosella

Platycercus elegans

Crimson rosella

Nymphicus hollandicus

Cockatiel

Melopsittacus undulates

Budgerigar

Starlings

Lamprotornis

African glossy starlings

Spreo superba

Superb starling

Sturnus malabaricus

Malabar starling

Sturnus pagodarum

Pagoda starling

Sturnus roseus

Rose-coloured starling

Sturnus contra

Pied starling

Sturnus burmanicus

Jerdon's starling

Auridotheres

Typical mynahs

Gracula religiosa

Hill mynah

Corvids

Garrulus glandarius

Jay

Garrulus lanceolatus

Lanceolated jay

Cyanocorax yncas

Green jay

Urocissa erythrorhyncha

Red-billed blue magpie

Cissa chinensis

Hunting cissa

Dendrocitta vagabunda

Rufous tree-pie

Corvus

Crows

Babblers

Garrulax albogularis

White-throated laughing-thrush

Garrulax leucolophus

White-crested laughing-thrush

Garrulax menileger

Lesser necklaced laughing-thrush

Garrulax pectoralis

Greater necklaced laughing-thrush

Garrulax rufogularis

Rufous-chinned laughing-thrush

Garrulax canorus

Hwamei laughing-thrush

Garrulax sannio

White-cheeked laughing-thrush

Garrulax erythrocephalus

Red-headed laughing-thrush

Leiothrix argentauris Silver-fared mesia

Leiothrix lutea Pekin robin

Minla cyanoptera

Blue-winged siva

Heterophasia capistrata

Black-headed sibia

Yuhina

Yuhinas

Bulbuls

Pycnonotus

Typical bulbuls

Leafbirds

Chloropsis aurifrons

Golden-fronted fruitsucker

Irena puella

Fairy bluebirds

Thrushes

Copsychus saularis

Asian magpie-robin

Copsychus malabaricus

Shama

Zoothera citrina

Orange-headed ground thrush

Flycatchers

Niltava sundana

Rufous-bellied niltava

Dunnocks

Acceptor

Dunnocks

White-eyes

Zosterops palpebrosa

Oriental white-eye

Troupials

Icterus icterus

Troupial

Finches

Serinus serinus

Common Serin

Serinus lercopygius

White-rumped seed-eater

Serinus atrogularis

Yellow-rumped seed-eater

Serinus mazambicus

Green singing finch

Carduclis sinica

Chinese greenfinch

Carduelis spinoides

Himalayan greenfinch

Spinus magellanicus

Black-headed siskin

Carpodacus erythrinus

Common rosefinch (otherwise known as scarlet grosbeak)

Coccothraustes personatus

Japanese grosbeak

Coccothraustes migratorius

Yellow-billed grosbeak

Wax bills

Lagonesticta

Direfinches

Estrilda

Typical waxbills

Uraeginthus

Blue waxbills and violet-ears

Hypangos niveoguttatus

Peter's twinspot

Amandava

Avadavats

Ortygospiza atricollis

Quail finch

Erythrura prasina

Pintailed parrotfinch

Lonchura malabarica

Indian silverbill

Lonchura cantans

African silverbill

Lonchura griseicapilla

Pearl-headed silverbill

Lonchura cucullata

Bronze-winged mannikin

Lonchura bicolor

Pied mannikin

Lonchura fringilloides

Magpie mannikin

Lonchura striata

Striated munia (including Bengalese finch)

Lonchura punctulata

Spotted munia

Lonchura Malacca

Black-headed munia

Lonchura maja

White-headed munia

Lonchura castaneothorax

Chestnut-brested finch

Aidemosyna modesta

Cherry finch (otherwise known as plum-capped finch)

Amadina erythrocephala

Red-headed finch

Amadina fasciata

Cutthroat

Padda oryziovora

Java sparrow

Emblema guttata

Spotted-sidedfinch (otherwise known as diamond finch)

Neochmia ruficauda

Star finch

Poephila guttata

Zebra finch

Poephiia bichenovii

Double-barred finch

Poephila personata

Masked finch

Poephila acuticauda

Long-tailed finch

Poephila cincta

Black-throated finch (otherwise known as parson's finch)

Chloebia gouldiae

Gouldian finch

Aidemsoyna modesta

Cherry finch (otherwise known as plum-capped finch)

Lonchura castaneothorax

Chestnut-breasted finch

Weavers

Passer lutea

Golden sparrow

Petronia xanthocollis

Yellow-throated sparrow

Sporopipes

Speckled-fronted weavers and scaly-crowned weavers

Ploceus cacullatus

Village weaver

Ploceus philippinus

Baya weaver

Ploceus intermedius

Lesser masked weaver

Ploceus velatus

Greater masked weaver

Quelea

Quelea weavers

Euplectes

Bishops and large wydahs

Buntings

Hypochera

Combassous

Vidua macrqura

Pin-tailed wydah

Vidua paradisaea

Paradise wydah

Buntings

Emberiza leucocephala

Pine bunting

Emeriza cia

Rock bunting

Emberiza hortulana

Ortolan bunting

Emberiza tahapisi

Cinnamon-breasted bunting

Emberiza elegans

Yellow-throated bunting

Emberiza aureola

Yellow-breasted bunting

Emberiza fiaviventris

African golden-breasted bunting

Emberiza melanocephala

Black-headed bunting

Emberiza bruniceps

Red-headed bunting

Melophus lathami

Crested bunting

Sicalis flabeola

Saffron finch

Tiaris

Grassquits

Gubernatrix

Cardinals

Paroaria

Cardinalis

Cyranerpes

Honeycreepersv

REPTILES

3. All kinds of reptile except the kinds specified in the first column below—

Excepted kind

Common name or names

Geckos

Hemjdactylus brookii

Brook's gecko

Hemidactylus flaviviridis

Hemidactylus frenatus

Bridled house gecko

Hemidactylus mabouia

Morean's gecko

Hemidactylus turcicus

Turkish gecko

Lygodactylus picturatus

Pachydactylus bibroni

Bibron's clawless gecko

Tarentola mauritanica

Moorish clawless gecko

Thecadactylus rapicauda

Turnip-tailed gecko (otherwise known as top-tailed gecko)

Agamids

Agama agama

Margouillat lizard (otherwise known as rainbow lizard)

Agama atricollis

Black-necked agama

Calotes cristatellus

Londok agama

Galotes versicolor

Harlequin lizard (otherwise known as blood-sucker lizard)

Leiolepis belliana

Bell's agama

Physignathus concinnus

Iguanids

Anolis carolinensis

Carolina anole (otherwise known as green anole)

Iguana iguana

Plica plica

Tropidurus torquatus

Taraguia lizard (otherwise known as Wiel's ring-necked lizard)

Basiliscus basiliscus

Teids

Ameiva ameiva

Surinam lizard

Lacertids

Acanthodactylus boskianus

Daudin's fringe-toed lizard

Acanthodactylus pardalis

Leopard fringe-toed lizard

Lacerta muralis

Common wall lizard

Lacerta sicula

Italian wall lizard

Lacerta vivipara

Common lizard (otherwise known as viviparous lizard)

Cordylids

Cordylus cordylus

Rough-scaled girdled lizard

Gerrhosaurus flavigularis

Yellow-throated plated lizard

Gerrhosaurus nigrigularis

Black-throated plated lizard

Gerrhosaurus major

Platysaurus guttatus

Skinks

Chalcides ocellatus

Ocellated skink

Mabuya mabouya

Raddi's skink

Mabuya multifasciata

Many banded skink

Mabuya striata

Common two-striped skink

Mabuya varia

Savanna variable skink

Anguids

Anguis fragilis

Slow worm

Typical snakes

Boaedon fulignosus

Coluber constrictor

American racer

Coluber viridiflavus

European whip-snake

Drymarchon corais

Indigo snake

Elaphe guttata

Elaphe obsolete

American rat snake

Lampropetis getulus

Malpolon mospessulana

Montpellier snake

Natrix maura

Viperine snake

Natrix natrix

European grass snake

Philothammus semi variegates

Natrix rhombifera

Rhomb snake

Natrix sipedon

North American water snake

Natrix tessellate

Tessellated snake (otherwise known as diced snake)

Oxybelius aeneus

American vine snake

Oxybelis fulgidus

Spalerosophis diadema

Clifford's snake

Thamnophis sirtalis

Common garter snake

Thamnophis sauritus

Ribbon snake

Terrapins

Chrysemys scripta elegans(otherwise known as Pseudemys scripta elegans)

Red-eared terrapin

Chrysemys picta

Painted terrapin

Mauremys caspica leprosa (otherwise known as Clemmys caspica leprosa)

Snapping Turtles

Chelvdra serpentine

Common snapping turtle

AMPHIBIANS

4. All kinds of amphibian except the kinds specified in the first column below—

Excepted kind

Common name or names

Mole salamanders

Ambystoma maculatum

American spotted salamander

Ambystoma tigrinum

Tiger salamander

Newts

Salamandra salamdra

European spotted salamander

Triturus cristatus

Crested newt (otherwise known as warty newt)

Triturus vulgaris

Common newt (otherwise known as smooth newt)

Triturus helveticus

Palmate newt

Tongue-less frogs

Xenopus laevis

African clawed toad

Atelopus ignescens

Fire bellies and midwives

Bombina variegate

Narrow-mouthed frogs

Kaloula pulchra

Malayan bull frog

True frogs

Pyxicephalus delalandei (otherwise known as Rana delalandei)

Delaland's burrowing frog

Rana angolensis

Angola frog

Rana cancrivora

Rana catesbeiana

American bull frog

Rana chalconota

Rana esculenta

Edible frog

Rana ridibunda

Marsh frog

Rana temporaria

Common European frog

Tree frogs

Polypedetes leucomystax (otherwise known as Rhacophorus leucomystax)

Malayan tree frog

Sedge frogs

Hyperolius concolor

Hallowells tree frog

Hyperolius nasutus

Hyperolius picturatus

Hyperolius pusillus

Arrow poison frogs

Dendrobates auratus

Dendrobates histrionicus

True toads

Bufo bufo

Bufo marinus

Bufo mclanostictus

Asian common toad

Bufo regularis

African square-marked toad

Bufo viridis

Paradoxical frogs

Pseudis paradoxa

Paradoxical frog

Tree frogs

Hyla arborea

Common European tree frog

Hyla boans

Hyla cinerea

American green tree frog

Hyla crepitans

Rattle-voiced South American tree frog

Hyla crucifer

Spring peeper frog

Hyla meridonalis

Stripeless European frog

Hyla nasica

Hyla rubra

Dundin's tree frog

Hyla versicolor

Phrynohyas venulosa

Warty tree frog

Similisca baudini

Mexican tree frog

PART II

FISH

5. The kinds offish specified in the first column below—

Restricted kind

Common name or names

Sturgeons

Acipenser brevirostrum

Shortnose sturgeon

Acipenser fulvescens

Lake sturgeon

Acipenser oxyrrhynchus

Atlantic sturgeon

Acipenser sturio

Common sturgeon

Bonytongues

Arapaima gigas

Arapaima

Scleropages formosus

Asiatic bonytongue

Salmon

Coregonus alpenae

Longjaw cisco

Salmo chrysogaster

Mexican golden trout

Stenodus leucichthys leucichthys

Inconnu

Carplike fish

Chasmistes cujus

Cui-ui

Plagopterus argentissimus

Woundfin

Probarbus jullieni

Ikan temoleh

Ptychocheilus Iucius

Colorada squawfish

Atherine fish

Cynolebias constanciae

Annual killifish

Cynolebias marmoratus

Cynolebias minimus

Cynolebias opalescens

Cynolebias splendens

Xiphophorus couchianus

Monterrey platyfish

Coelacanths

Latimeria chalumnae

Coelacanth

Australian lung fish

Neoceratodus forsterl

Australian lungfish

Catfish

Pangasianodon gigas

Giant catfish

Perch

Stizostedion vitreum galucum

Blue walleye

INSECTS

6. The kind of insect specified in the first column below—

Restricted kind

Common name

Butterflies

Parnassius appollo Apollo

Apollo butterfly

MOLLUSCS

7. The kinds of mollusc specified below—

Restricted kind

Freshwater mussels

Conradilla caelata
Cyprogenia aberti
Dromus dromas
Epioblasma florentina curtisi (otherwise known as Dysnomia florentina curtisi)
Epioblasma florentina florentina (otherwise known as Dysnomia florentina florentina)
Epioblasma sampsoni (otherwise known as Dysnomia sampsoni)
Epioblasma sulcata perobliqua (otherwise known as Dysnomia sulcata perobliqua)
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum (otherwise known as Dysnomia torulosa gubernaculum)
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (otherwise known as Dysnomia torulosa rangiana)
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa (otherwise known as Dysnomia torulosa torulosa)
Epioblasma turgidula (otherwise known as Dysnomia turgidula)
Epioblasma walkeri (otherwise known as Dysnomia walkeri)
Fusconaia cuneolus
Fusconaia edgariana
Fusconaia subrotunda
Lampsilis brevicula
Lampsilis higginsi
Lampsilis orbiculata orbiculata
Lampsilis satura
Lampsilis virescens
Lexingtonia dolabelloides
Pleurobema clava
Plethobasis cicatricosus
Plethobasis cooperianus
Pleurobema plenum
Potamilus capax (otherwise known as Proptera capax)
Quadrula intermedia
Quadrula sparsa
Toxolasma cylindrella (otherwise known as Carunculina cylindrella)
Unio nickliniana (otherwise known as Megalonaias nickliniana
Union tempicoenis tecomatensis (otherwise known as Lampsilis tampicoenis tecomatensis)
Villosa travalis (otherwise known as Micromya trabalis)
Land snails
Papustyla pulcherrima (otherwise known as Papuina pulcherrima) Paraphanta
Restricted kind
Freshwater snails
Coahuilix hubbsi
Cochliopina milleri
Durangonella coahuilac
Mexipyrgus carranzae
Mexipyrgus churinceanus
Mexipyrgus escobedae
Mexipyrgus lugoi
Mexipyrgus mojarralis
Mexipyrgus multilineatus
tvlexithauma quadripaludium
Nymphophilus minckleyi
Paludiscala caramba
NOTE: The second column of this Schedule gives a common name or names, where available, and is included by way of explanation only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the first column is to he taken into account.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, this is a very small point, but I am rather intrigued by the inclusion under "Fish" in Part II of the new Schedule of Latimeria chahannae, in other words Coelacanth. So far as I can gather, coelacanths are practically an extinct species. A few years ago I believe one was caught off the North-West coast of Madagascar. I believe some scientists consider that man is descended from the coelocanth. I am wondering to what extent countries who have coelocanths in their waters would be prepared to see them exported from their shores and imported into this country. I am rather intrigued to see that it is a species which can be imported into this country.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that we have included this in the Schedule only goes to prove how desperate we are to save our endangered species.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Plants the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 24, line 21, at end insert—
("This Schedule applies to the kinds of plant specified in the second column below—").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Items the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph 5.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment would lift from elephant hair bracelets the licence controls under this Bill. Our policy with regard to Schedule 3 has been to include items which
1126
are major parts or products of the species concerned and which are readily recognisable, and although elephant hair bracelets are recognisable by Customs, we feel on consideration that they are such a minor product of the elephant that licensing would be inappropriate. The controls remain on elephant tusks and heads, which are clearly more significant in terms of trade and are the parts for which elephants are killed. I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am really a little surprised at this Amendment I must confess that I am not an expert on the hair of the elephant—occasionally the hair of the dog that bit me last night, but the hair of the elephant is rather different. I am informed that this hair was indeed at one time used for making bracelets, and I suppose what has been done in the past may be revived. I should have thought it was unwise to exclude specifically from this list the elephant hair. After all, we know that at the moment the elephant is a very much endangered species; figures which were put forward not so very long ago suggested that in Africa elephants were being destroyed at the rate of between 5,000 to 10,000 a year. With a total elephant population of about 50,000, that would mean that elephants will not survive very long. Anything which in any way encourages the trade in parts of the elephant is undesirable. Having had this product inserted originally, I should have thought it wise to leave it in rather than at this stage to take it out. But I must confess that when it comes to detail I would leave it to those who are more expert in the hair of the elephant than I am.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, whether it is a possibility that the owner of an elephant is able, without injuring the elephant at all, to pluck hairs from various parts of the body and make them into bracelets as presents for his wives, aunts or children?
Lord MERRI VALE: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask why paragraph 8 was inserted? I know this is not part of the Amendment, but perhaps I might raise the point. Paragraph 8 reads:

1127
"Any tooth of any animal, if unworked or simply prepared, any part of any such tooth and powder and waste of any tooth of any animal."
Last April I was in Senegal where you can buy in shops the teeth of tiny sharks; they are mounted into little lucky charms which can be worn on a bracelet or round the neck, if one is so inclined. I should have thought these tiny sharks are caught in large numbers, and that to put an embargo on the importation on the teeth of such animals, mounted in very small mountings, seems rather unnecessary. The sharks have been caught anyway, and if one wants to use the teeth for decoration, why not?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the question as to whether a keeper can pull hairs out of an elephant without hurting the elephant. If the House feels very strongly about this and thinks that elephant hair bracelets ought to be left in, I would not push the Amendment to the ultimate. What we felt was that no one went out and killed elephants in order to get hair to make bracelets; elephants are killed in order to get tusks and heads. Perhaps this is just a by-product anyway. I am now advised by my advisers that elephant hairs can be pulled out without damage to the elephant but with much damage to the puller. Perhaps that answers the noble Lord's question. Leaving in paragraph 5 we felt meant including some trivialities in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.28 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORD Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("(except where the furskin is trimming only)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment in some trepidation because no doubt the noble Baroness knows far more about trimmings than I do. I find this proposal objectionable on two grounds. To me "trimming only" is far too vague a term in a Bill which is creating a criminal offence. Is a six inch square piece of fur on a coat trimming only? Is a piece of six inch square fur on a handkerchief case or some such other item trimming only? To me it appears very uncertain, and I do not feel that in a Bill of this importance
1128
we can stand anomalies. I can see no justification at all for excluding trimmings from control, whatever they may be. In any case, even in relation to large animals small trimmings could deplete the species if used in sufficient quantities. Even if the trimmings are offcuts, for which it might be assumed the animal would not have been killed, it is psychologically undesirable, in my view, to allow a market in small fripperies in an endangered species when large articles may be completely forbidden.
It is to be hoped that the scientific authority, when it comes to consider controls on newly endangered species, will take the view that goods made from them should be strictly controlled, regardless of whether it is generally believed that small items will not, in themselves, lead to the animals being killed. The rarer the animal the higher the value of even the small pieces of it, and the greater the damage of even one animal being killed for the trimmings. I would hope that the Government might accept in principle that we should protect endangered species by all possible means, and not allow a species to become extinct because of the lack of proper attention to legislation in small details. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this Amendment would extend the controls on furskin goods to cover items where the trimming only was from the fur of a specified animal. We have always appreciated that furskin coats, rugs, and so on are a very sensitive area of trade, but I do not feel that we can agree to the noble Lord's Amendment: first, because a trimming is, by definition, an extremely small area of fur, and the smaller the fur the greater the difficulty in the identification, and it would often be impossible to distinguish the species from which the trimming came and whether or not it should have been subject to a licence; secondly, the trimmings are only a byproduct of the furskin trade. Few people, I think, would kill a leopard simply to make collars, and it seems much more important to us to control the trade in skins and in certain made up goods in which the skin forms a significant part, rather than to try to deal with what is a comparatively insignificant area and one which would present considerable difficulties in recognition. I hope, in the

1129
light of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I must say that I do not think that the noble Baroness is her usual convincing self on this particular matter. Trimmings, of course, vary, because I do not know that there is any legal definition of the absolute extent. For instance, what is trimming on a glove is much smaller than trimming on one of your Lordships' mantles or robes. Surely, the point is that there are a number of beautiful furs which, merely because they are beautiful, are on animals which have been made nearly extinct, and because they are beautiful are also to be valued as trimmings on clothes. I think this fact means that you could get rare animals being killed just to produce the very rich trimmings for the clothes of very rich people, where there was a question of beautiful furs and beautiful skins. I take the point that the noble Baroness makes about them being difficult to recognise. But if they are not recognised there is actually no real problem. The point we are talking about is where we can recognise them, and I should have thought the noble Lord was right in this Amendment and that the noble Baroness ought to think again.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his support. I feel in some difficulty here because I am not sure of the strength of feeling of your Lordships in this matter. I shall withdraw this Amendment, but would seriously ask the noble Baroness whether she and her advisers would think once again about this matter. Meanwhile, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.34 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 27, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—

("Aonyx

Enhydra

Genetta

Lutra

Martes

Paradoxurus Pteronura")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I again wish to be slightly pernickety because I wish to withdraw the third line up, Martes; so I am moving the Amendment as printed with the exception of Martes in the third line from the bottom. I am doing this because I am keen that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government or insisted on by the House. All the rest of the species are the otter family, and I do not want the House to be told by the Government that Martes are not all that important, and therefore to cloud the issue with another species.
This Amendment would have the effect of adding to the Schedule of products to be controlled the skins of all otters, and it is with these otters that I think we should all be concerned. The imports of otter skins in 1975 numbered just under 23,000; in 1974 there were only 15,000, so it can be seen how the figures are going up. Certainly just under half, and probably more than half, came from endangered otters which are in Appendix 1. These Appendix 1 animals should not be allowed to enter commercial trade and, as the Bill stands, the live otters would not be allowed for importation for commercial purposes. They are the giant otter; the La Plata otter; the Southern River otter, all from South America; and the Cameroun clawless otter from Africa.
Customs and Excise have, we understand, hitherto insisted that only products that are really recognisable may be controlled under this Bill, and they quote the letter of the Convention which indeed states that readily recognisable products shall be controlled. We should not, however, forget that the Convention also allows us to go further than the letter of the Convention. First, let me say that we are not convinced that these furskins are not recognisable since the fur trade prizes the South American furs above others because of the colour, lustre, and general quality of the fur. I would suggest that as they can recognise them, we can learn to do the same. Secondly, it is a shameful situation if we stick so closely to the letter of the Convention that we allow a skin trade of this nature to exterminate, as it well may, even one species of otter.
Finally, I believe that this Amendment would to some extent circumvent this

1131
problem because it places all otter skins under control. Thus all will be licensed and the honest dealer—and they must represent at least 50 per cent. of the trade —will declare his skin for what it is. If he is dishonest, it is more than probable that the goods made from that contraband skin will be recognised sooner or later in some prestigious store, and may then be seized. One or two cases of this nature would be sufficient to deter most retailers from carelessly taking otter skin goods from furriers. I urge the House to accept this Amendment. I would also suggest to the Government that, at the meeting of the parties in November, the words "readily recognisable" be modified to avoid those who wish only to abide by the letter of the Convention using it as an excuse for this kind of loophole. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this Amendment would extend to the otter the controls on furskins under Schedule 3. Our existing controls cover all the heavily spotted furs and those of a few other species which, together, form a readily recognisable group. But otters are a much more complicated proposition. Not only is it extremely difficult to distinguish the skin of one otter from another, but I am advised that it is no easy matter to tell an otter skin from that of any other brown animal furs. There is a substantial trade in the skins of the common species of otter so that, if all otter skins were controlled, Customs would be faced with a very considerable identification problem. I must advise against trying to enact legislation which those on whom the duty will fall know full well they cannot operate.
There is also the point that, in assessing whether it is justifiable to burden the legitimate trade with licensing requirements, we must have some regard to the relative proportions of the common and of the endangered species. As I have said, there is a substantial trade in common otter skins. Many of us find that repugnant and want it stopped, but that is not what this Bill is about. We would not consider it justifiable, at this time, to require licences for all species, when only half a dozen are endangered.
I appreciate the importance of trying to stop the trade in the skins of endangered
1132
species of the otter, and, if the noble Lord is prepared to accept this, I am willing to take the matter back to examine further the possibility of controlling the import specifically from those countries where the endangered species are found. I do not think at this stage that I could go further, but I am willing to have consultations with the noble Lord on those lines.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has told me. I do not ever like being told that because something is hard to do, it cannot be done. I take the point made by the noble Baroness and I accept her offer. Bearing in mind that there will be time for discussion in another place, albeit somewhat rushed, I will, on her words, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert (" and anything made wholly or partly from that fabric.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, briefly, this Amendment deals with the vicuna. I accept that the principle of what the noble Baroness has said applies to this as well, but I draw attention to it just to hear what she has to offer by way of answer. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this Amendment would result in a ban being placed on goods made from vicuna fabric as well as the fabric itself. I have every sympathy with the aims of the Amendment. It is obviously desirable to try to control manufactured parts of any endangered species, but the problem throughout in implementing the Convention has been to identify parts and derivatives that are readily recognisable and which can be specified precisely so that traders know what they can and cannot import. It would be unacceptable to control all manufactured items; we should need to define the items, such as coats, which we intended to control. We should also need to find out whether vicuna fibre can be detected without damaging the coat, and to find out more about the pattern of trade.
The Amendment is, I am afraid, somewhat unacceptable as it stands, but if the

1133
noble Lord is prepared to withdraw it, I will give the matter further consideration. I can assure him that it is our intention to add further items to Schedule 3 whenever we know that we can overcome the recognisability problem.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("orders Crocodylia, Lacertilia and Serpentes") and insert ("class Reptilia").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("Lacertilia and Serpentes") and insert ("Squamata and Testudines and anything made wholly or partly of that hide, skin or leather.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is obvious that this Amendment could not go through as it is, the House having agreed to Amendment No. 26. However, it would do one or two things which are not in the Government Amendment
because—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I was instructed—I am afraid that I omitted to mention it—that if Amendment No. 26 were passed I would be unable to call No. 27. Perhaps the House will accept my apologies for having missed that point.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: It is rather unfair, my Lords, in that it was not pointed out by the Chair or by anyone at the point when Amendment No. 26 was moved that I would not be able to speak on this subject at this point.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I am entirely at fault and I apologise to the noble Lord and the House. I should have done so when I called Amendment No. 26 I am afraid that I failed to do so.
In the Long Title:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 30:
Line 2, after ("items") insert ("and trade in them").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a direct follow-on in the Long Title of the Bill—the House having passed Amendment No. 5—which becomes necessary, and I do not think I need say more than that.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted because it is essential to define accurately what is the purpose of the Bill, and the trade is very important.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 31:
Line 2, after ("items;") insert (" to confer on the Secretary of State power to restrict by order the ports at which live animals may be imported;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the passing of Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.46 p.m.

FISHERIES POLICY
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why they consider 6 per cent. the right amount for our share of the herring caught in the North Sea; why they have gone along in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission with an overall catch which they know to be too high; why they have claimed only a 12–50 mile exclusive fishing zone when the fishing industry wants 100 miles and almost everybody else including the United States, Canada, Norway and Iceland is laying claim to 200 miles; why they think ships which cannot catch foreign trawlers are going to be able to defend this zone; what is so far the cost to the taxpayer (including repairs to the ships damaged) of the 4th cod war; and in general, what is their fisheries policy. The noble Lord said: Although my Unstarred Question relates very largely to an endangered species, I wish to put it into its political context right away by quoting something said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the House of

1135
Commons on 28th April last. He was asked whether he thought that the harmonisation of foreign policy in the European Community was one of the top priorities and whether it was possible. His answer was that it was one of the most fruitful lines of development in the Community and he said:
"Indeed, it was in the belief that that was possible that I first became a supporter of our entry into the Common Market."
There then follows the word "Interruption" in Hansard, and the Foreign Secretary continued:
"I am still, on the whole, a supporter as long as the EEC allows the fisheries policy to come all right".—(Official Report, Commons, 28/4/76, col. 370.)
That is a measure of the gravity of the situation posed by the fisheries difficulty we have at the moment, and I go along with that formulation. My purpose in raising this Question is not to obstruct or hinder or annoy the Government. I deliberately put all the barbs and pins into the Question so as to show the Government the way I would be going, but I will try to keep them out of my speech; my purpose is to help the Government if possible to adjust to a new world. I regret that I shall not be here next week when the Opposition have made a larger and related subject the subject of their Wednesday debate; it was put down after my Question. They did not mention the Community aspect in their Motion and I hope that today we can draw from the Government some facts which may be useful in the Opposition debate next week.
We are considering all these things against the background of the fact that we are importers of food and that world supplies of food proportionately to world population are diminishing. We have no alternative therefore but to protect our own local supplies of food, not only to keep ourselves alive, but because if we do not it will force us, being a rich country, to import food from others who have a better right to it than we have. It is out duty to eat what we can find on our own soil and in our own seas close to us and not to insist on bringing in food from poorer parts of the world. Against this background, I find British fishery policy at the moment illegible and incomprehensible. It is like a series of marks on a page which is clear in print
1136
but it does not fall together into a recognisable whole, and I hope that the Government can help us today to see what a recognisable whole there is. It seems to have three aspects. In UNCLOS, the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Her Majesty's Government at the moment favour the 200-miles exclusive economic zone, EEZ for short.
At UNCLOS, we are for EEZ. Iceland has taken a 200 miles EEZ and, there, we appear to be strongly against it. In the third place where these matters are discussed, in Brussels, at the Headquarters of the European Economic Community, it is hard to discern what our policy is. Let us take for an example—though there are others—the North Sea herring. The scientists of ICES, which, though not ideal, is the most international and probably the least biased organisation for fish stock assessment which we have in the world today, have said that there should be no herring fishing—and I repeat that—whatever in the North Sea in the second half of this year.
On 6th May, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi tacitly endorsed that when, in answering a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, he said:
"The proposed catch of North Sea herring—
that is, the agreed catch—
"is more than the stock can safely stand."
Nothing could be clearer. We then have to come to the question, Why is it that we appear to have gone along with the proposal that the North Sea catch in the second half of the year should be 73,000 tons? It was 87,000 tons in the first half and 73,000 tons in the second half. What happened in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission when that question was put to the vote? Did this country vote against it in the knowledge of the ICES advice and knowing that it was more than the stock could bear? If not, why not? Did it abstain? If so, why? Or did it vote for it, and if so, why, why and why again?
I put a concrete question to my noble friend: according to the best advice available to the Government and since we know that the catch is excessive, when will the North Sea herring become extinct? It is simply a question of trend extrapolation. Will it be 1980 or 1990? Before we

1137
start calculating, let us remember that it is not only the herring catch which kills herring; it is also, as I see the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, knows, the sprat catch. Sprat fishermen, who are allowed to catch 650,000 tons of sprats in the North Sea—that is about 10 times as much—are allowed, within that catch, up to 10 per cent. of baby herrings; that is, they are allowed to take something roughly equal to the total herring catch in infancy and before breeding as if they were sprats. That is double the official total. That means an extra 65,000 tons of herring—and baby herring at that—which are permitted to he taken annually. The inspectors who at present, with some trepidation, doubt and inefficiency, are allowed to board the vessels of other fishing nations in the North Sea on behalf of this or that country, are allowed to sample the catch of each vessel to see that it contains what it is permitted to contain. Do you know what proportion of the sample of the sprat fishermen's catches they are allowed to look at? Two kilos. On each ship which they board, they are allowed to take two kilos and have a look to see what is the proportion of baby herrings among the sprats. If such a sample of a catch were ever brought to court in any country, I believe that we can imagine the difficulty which that court would have in deciding whether or not it was a sufficient sample. Of course, the inspector would know that before he took his two handfuls to look at.
The Government have agreed in the North-Eastern Atlantic Fisheries Commission to a proportion of the North Sea catch of herring for this country of 6 per cent. I wonder what we should all have thought our proportion ought to be. The main littoral States of the North Sea are Britain and Norway, and Denmark has quite a bit. Of course we immediately want to turn to see who gets the rest. If we only get 6 per cent. of the herring out of our own sea, who gets the rest? These proportions are some-what traditional. We find that our 6 per cent. equals 9,700 tons. Iceland, which is nowhere near the North Sea, gets a little less—9,200 tons. The Soviet Union, which is also nowhere near the North Sea, gets a little more—10,500 tons. Norway, which has a North Sea coast about equivalent to ours and a population which is about a tenth of ours, gets
1138
23,000 tons—two and a half times what we get—and Denmark including the Faeroes gets 51,000 tons—nearly 10 times what we get. These are ridiculous proportions in all human, economic and political common sense.
However, the fact of the matter is that the Norwegians and the Danes do not use herrings to eat, as we do. They use them to make into animal fodder in order to breed those battery fed pigs which taste of fish when bacon is made out of them. Here, also, I have a question for the Government: what measures have we tried to use to dissuade the Norwegians and the Danes from raiding the food chain half-way up and making this grossly uneconomic and distorted use of it? The human consumption at the end is something like 10 per cent. of what it ought to be in nutrition value.
Let us look for a moment at what happens elsewhere. We have this over-fishing in the North Sea. We ourselves agree—Mr. Hattersley has agreed—to an amount which we know signals extinction for the total catch and we agree to take 6 per cent. of it, which is about one-eighth of what Denmark takes. If we look at the herring fishing in the North-West Pacific—the biggest possible jump we can take—that is shared between Russia and Japan. The Soviet Union has imposed on the zone under its control a 50 per cent. cut in the herring fishing. There is no question of half measures there. I am not complaining that there has been no reduction in North Sea herring catches, but only that the reduction has been very slow. If we look at the North-West Atlantic—that is, the East coasts of the United States and Canada—we find that those two countries, faced with overfishing which was not nearly so grave as the over-fishing which we have, have both claimed de facto their 200-mile EEZ already and, under that, have negotiated with the Russians—because the Russians were the main culprits there—a reduction of 40 per cent. in the permitted catch. This was done in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Commission. They got what they wanted by being a little bit firm against the Russians. The Russians got what they wanted by being a little bit firm against the Japanese. Have we got what we wanted? I wonder.
On the question of the 200-mile zone, can my noble friend foresee the time when we and Ireland may be alone in the North Atlantic with no legal rights because we do not take a 200 mile zone to protect ourselves against the incursions of the Soviet Union, Japan and Korea? I shall not repeat again what I have often said to your Lordships, that one of the big Central Atlantic fishing fleets at the moment is Korean. The way the Ministry of Agriculture and the Foreign Office are going, it looks as though we shall. But I should like to take this opportunity of showing your Lordships—and this will be difficult for Hansard—two pamphlets. On the left, is the annual report of the Department of Energy for last year, 1975, and on the right is that for this year, 1976. Your Lordships will see that, on the left, the Department has taken a Continental Shelf of rather modest proportions and that, on the right, they have annexed half the North Atlantic because of Rockall. They have made that change within one year while the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have not made the corresponding change.
The point here is that the ability of unhabited islands to generate a Continental Shelf annexable by the owner of the island is just as much under discussion in UNCLOS as the ability of uninhabited islands to generate the EEZ in the waters superjacent to the seabed. We have an annexationist policy under my right honourable friend Mr. Benn, and we have a recessional policy under my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley, and I do not know which way to look, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to tell me. At present it looks as if the Government regard oil as more important than food, if they are prepared to pre-judge the results of UNCLOS by taking the Rockall Continental Shelf.
Let us now turn to what the British Government have taken as regards fisheries. They have claimed in Brussels a zone, a coastal belt, of national control ranging between 12 and 50 miles, and suggested a quota system beyond that. I have several questions here. First, how does this fit with the Treaty? It appears to me quite clearly to contradict the Treaty of Rome, and possibly the
1140
Treaty of Accession; and let me freely admit that the Treaty of Rome contradicts itself in many respects, including respects relevant to this Question. But how can one reconcile that with Articles 7, 58 and 222 of the Treaty of Rome? I will not bore the House by reading them, but they need looking at.
Furthermore, how long is the 12 to 50 mile deal for the control of fisheries proposed? Articles 100 to 103 of the Treaty of Accession envisage many changes in the fishery situation between 1978 and 1982. Article 102 in particular says that the Commission must propose, on the basis of studies and surveys, a new fisheries deal for all Community nations by 1978—six years from accession. This has not been done; it has not even begun to be approached yet. It is quite clear that the surveys called for have not been done; all we have from the Commission is a single working document referring to the figures for the 1973 catches only. There are no details of trends, no history, or no observation of what goes up and what goes down.
I am labouring this frankly abstruse point about the 15 to 50 miles in the Community context versus 200 miles in the UNCLOS context because the ownership of resources in the waters of EEZs will be exactly the same as that of oil under, and lobsters on, the seabed in Continental Shelf law; that is to say, total State ownership—or so at least everything that has so far happened at UNCLOS seems to suggest. And here is my punch question, my Lords: are the Government taking proper account of the fact that within the EEZ, which we tend to want, all natural resources will belong to the coastal State?—that is to say, there will be no difference between the fish in the water, the lobsters and the sand on the seabed, and the oil and the gas beneath it, about which everybody from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to the present Government have proclaimed their pride of ownership. The Government's discussions in Brussels about fish seem to envisage the fish having, in some way, a different status. Can the Government explain this difference in approach, given that the Treaty of Rome does not allow one Member State or the Commission to appropriate the property of another Member State; and these fish, if we take an EEZ, will be our property?
My Lords, I turn quickly to the last two points in my rather over-long Question. Let us consider the Jura-class boats. As we all know, these are boats, or rather large ships, which will carry no helicopter and will have a maximum speed of 16 knots, and a cruising speed of 13 to 14 knots. Soviet trawlers not fishing but getting away, can make 20 knots, as against 16 knots. The Government said at earlier times that it does not matter if they cannot catch the Soviet trawlers; all they need is to have very good sea-keeping qualities for rough weather and to be able to detect vessels fishing at low speeds. I ask the Government: what about Iceland? Is that what we ourselves have found in the cod war—that the Icelanders have been content to detect vessels fishing at low speed, and then pursue the matter in some international or national court? Have they not, on the contrary, cut our warps and engaged in collision tactics, and so on? What reason have we to expect that trawlers which can go faster than our own defence vessels, and belonging to a not-too-friendly Power, will adopt any different tactics from those which the Icelanders have in the North Sea? I should also remind the Government that the Canadians were able to get what they wanted in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Commission only by boarding and examining no less than 300 fishing vessels in order to discover how the existing regulations were being flouted; and Jura boats could not do that.
Lastly, I turn to the question of the cost to the taxpayer. We do not know about this; we should like to know. We know that 16 frigates—16 separate ships—have been involved in the cod war up until 9th March this year. I think that others have been involved since which were not there before. Eleven of them were damaged between 25th November and 6th April, and more, we know, have been damaged since. We know that the cost to the taxpayer of chartering civilian vessels is £74,000 a week. Can the Government give us a global estimate of the cost of this cod war?
I believe that at this point Ministers should be being affable in Iceland and severe in Brussels. The threat to the British fishing industry does not come nearly so much from the 200-mile declaration of Iceland as from the natural, not
1142
culpable, ignorance by Brussels of fisheries and fishery management. I do not blame Ministers; I blame those who have, over the years, failed properly to inform Ministers.
7.7 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I rise to speak for a few minutes only because for over half a century I have been closely connected in public life with the fishing industry. I have already told your Lordships that when I was a Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire for 34 years we used to export over 1 million barrels of cured herring every year to the continent of Europe and to the Soviet Union, and that brought in a considerable income. But they were cheap. One could still buy in this country six herrings for a few pennies. They have now become a luxury fish, and this is absolutely outrageous. I do not know all the causes of the disappearance of the herring from the North Sea, but I know that in my time there were two great fishings: one in the summer out of Fraserburgh and Peterhead, and one in the autumn out of Yarmouth and Lowestoft. They were tremendous fishings. We were able to export herring all over the world, and did.
I went down to them both every year, and it was a fascinating sight. Both these fishings are now extinct. Fraser-burgh and Peterhead—from the point of view of herring—and Yarmouth and Lowestoft are dead ports, and the stocks have steadily diminished over the past few years. Some of this must be due to gross overfishing, especially of immature fish and sprats for industrial purposes. No Government in this country have done anything about it at all. Since the war, successive Governments have had no fisheries policy of any kind; and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised this subject this evening, because perhaps we might get from the Minister some explanation of what the Government have in mind about the future of the fisheries industry.
When Mr. Khruschev came to London, I was introduced to him. He said, "Your salt herrings are no good without vodka". I said, "I quite agree; you give us the vodka and we will give you the herrings". In due course a large order for herring came from Moscow. We could not fulfil

1143
it. The herring had begun to disappear, and since then it has disappeared steadily. There is a moderate herring fishing industry off the West Coast of Scotland, but most of the herring fishermen as I knew them have abandoned it and have given up, and have gone over to inshore white fishing. The other day I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, about the recent agreement, which I thought was a certain advance. In reply he said it was open to great objection, because the quotas fixed for herring were too high. I was surprised at that, because I really thought we had made an advance. But in reply to another question he said that the quota system was not really the right answer—zoning was the answer. Quotas, he said, were very difficult to enforce, whatever figure you fixed. It may be that he can tell us something about that this afternoon.
All I know, my Lords—and I am sad—is that the herring industry, which I played a part in building up, has now practically disappeared; that herring, which I love, are too expensive; that the herring fishermen have thrown in their hand; and that Fraserburgh and Peterhead are done as fishing ports, and also Yarmouth and Lowestoft. It was such fun in those days. My constituents then consisted mainly of small farmers, crofters and fishermen. They were all poor, and they were all happy. I went up to my old constituency the other clay to have a look. The oil is coming in to my constituency through Cruden Bay and St. Fergus. The pipes are being laid. Aberdeen is like a "hick-town" in Texas 50 years ago. Some people are making a great deal of money; others are faced with colossal rises in prices for everything. None of them is happy. I know we have to do it, but I am sad when I think of what oil is doing at this moment to the North-East of Scotland. Sooner rather than later it will pass, and then they will have to go back to farming and fishing, and they will be happier.
I want to say one word about the white fishing industry, which is also important. I wish the Government would give up this ridiculous cod war against Iceland. It is foolish and it is dangerous, because the Icelanders have right on their side. What they are striving to do is what we should all strive to do—conserve the
1144
stocks of fish with a view to their rehabilitation. It is dangerous because it threatens the whole NATO Alliance, upon which we depend absolutely for our defence. Stop this grabbing, these frigates and these gunboats, and the bullying—because it is bullying—of the Icelanders because they are weak. It is all they have to live on, and they are trying to preserve their way of life and their way of living.
I cannot understand the fishing policies of successive Governments since the war. In fact, they have not had any policies at all. I sometimes think that we ought to have a Ministry of Fisheries, because they have not much to do with agriculture, and I think the combination of the two is rather a mistake. I view the present situation with concern and sadness, because I have seen what was once a very great industry dying for the last 10 years.
7.16 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I intervene because I have been moved as most of us would be by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I come from his part of the world, too, and I sympathise with everything he says about the old herring fishing days—and it is not entirely nostalgia. It was real, it was meaningful, and it could still be. We are now faced with a situation which has got so completely out of hand that it has nothing to do with human beings, with the people who put out to sea in ships. It has nothing to do with them: they are the victims of the circumstances; they are the victims of the policies; they are, as somebody in your Lordships' House said the other day, the victims of the vacuum cleaners. If you go out to fish with vacuum cleaners and pick up the small herrings and the baby sprats, then what is to happen? But the thing which appals me—and again I follow the noble Lord, Lord Boothby— is that I cannot see the sense of this Icelandic war. Do not think I am unpatriotic; I am not, but I have not got that degree of blind patriotism. What I do not see is how we can be consistent or pretend to be consistent. At the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference—I have just come from it—we are on record as supporting the 200-mile limit. This is what the Icelanders are claiming. It is true that in legal terms they are out of court because it has not been confirmed or

1145
reaffirmed. But what are we doing? We are playing the game of "dodg'em," like children, in the Arctic. We are bumping each other. For what?—for time to reconcile something which in terms of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference should be at this moment reconciled. The whole thing has gone to blazes—the Conference. We shall be back arguing again in New York in August; but what is manifestly clear is that nobody there—except myself—disagrees about the 200-mile limit. Everybody accepts it. Everybody has been bought and sold on it. The one thing you can say about the 200-mile limit is that it is the greatest freak of international law which exists. It is totally and completely meaningless. But we are committed to it. The Icelanders on their own basis have taken a stand on it. The Congress of the United States have passed a law, and the President has signed it, which conies into operation next year and which claims the 200-mile limit for the United States.
My Lords, 200 miles is what? What are we talking about? This is what drives me crazy—really crazy. Are we talking about what is the behaviour of fish—where they go, where they come from, who catches them, who eats them? The answer is that 200 miles is totally and completely irrelevant. What the Icelanders are talking about are the edges of the shelves, the banks and so forth, where the fish manifest themselves. What we are complaining about here, what my noble friend Lord Kennet has been complaining about, is the disappearance of the herrings and the mackerel and so forth. They are an entirely different set of circumstances. Where do they come from and where do they go? We had a classic case two years ago, the complete collapse of the Peruvian fishing industry to the extent of 12 million tons a year. The biggest fishing industry in the world was Peru's. The only things they caught were anchovies. They did not eat them; they did not give them to their own people. They fed them to stock in America, to the pigs, to the battery-fed poultry and the stall-fed cattle. It was third stage—at three removes from—human consumption. Then it collapsed. Why? Peru had already claimed the 200 miles. They were the first. Peru claimed their 200
1146
miles, as did Colombia. This was their patrimonial sea, as they called it. The U.S. did nothing about it; they paid the fines of the tuna fishers who were caught. Peru claimed their 200 miles because they were protecting their fisheries. They brought in all kinds of restraints and restrictions against overfishing—and, in fairness, it must be said that they did a real job in controlling overfishing in Peruvian waters.
Then came El Nino, which means the Christchild. It is so old in South American tradition. It is part of the folk lore. It happens! Somewhere in the Western Pacific Sea, thousands of miles away, a hot current generates and comes in over the Humboldt current which brings the nutrient to the surface to produce the anchovies—and the guana from the seagulls. This was the equivalent of a land drought. It just swamped and killed off the nutrient of the anchovies. It was nothing to do with the 200 mile limit, it had little to do with overfishing. The Peruvians might just as well have put a claim on the entire Humboldt current. That is the only way to control it: to take over Nature! You cannot draw fences in the sea. There is no way.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interject? Would he not also agree that part of what went wrong was that an international commission of fisheries experts suggested a maximum catch level and the Peruvian Commission said, "Oh, they are pessimists. Let us up it by 10 per cent." The Government said, "They are only scientists." and they upped it by another 10 per cent. So this is a lesson for the politicians.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: Yes, my Lords, for the politicians to keep out of science. I would agree in large part; but it was the natural circumstances which were something completely different. The catastrophe was not the degree of overfishing. Here you have the problem in the ocean itself—and that is what we are supposed to be talking about at the Law of the Sea Conference: how the foresight of mankind can see a way in which to overcome these things which we are now blundering into and handling so stupidly. The answer is that until we get some real understanding of how

1147
we are going internationally—I extend the whole thing—from Brussels to Reykjavik to Washington and to Ottawa, where are we going to find sense in this situation which says "you must cooperate or else". We ought to be talking about what is happening to the fish. How much do we know about what happens? We know there was a situation with the pilchard in which simply a cold spill-over from the Arctic, from the Wycliffe Thompson Submarine Range, drove the pilchard out of Cornish waters just as sardines have been driven out of California. All these things belong to a bigger system than we can legislate for. Beyond all question of doubt, we must sit down and think in these terms; and not in silly terms of how we can bump Icelandic trawlers.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the speakers' list. My excuse for intervening is that for 14 years I have been a director of a fishing port in the South-West. There, we have been fortunate-and I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie Calder—because unexpectedly, due to climatic and weather changes, we have been enjoying in the last few years a most extraordinary increase in the shoals of mackerel. This has increased the number of trawlers at our berths from 11 to over 90; and it has encouraged a lot of poaching from ships from the Continent-particularly the enormous factory ships which the noble Lord mentioned, which are far bigger than any of our trawlers, sucking in the shoals with sonic equipment. Unbelievably, their experts can tell whether they are in a shoal of sardines or mackerel or whether they are over plaice. They know exactly what they are going to suck up. They take quantities in one catch equivalent to the catch for a dozen trawlers from our harbour. They poach frequently and on two occasions in the last year they have been brought in.
I would not expect an answer this afternoon; but there is one point of very real concern and disaffection in the South-West. Perhaps the Minister might consider it at his leisure. It is the matter of the penalties when Navy boats bring in these large ships. On two occasions we
1148
have had Russian ships arraigned and brought into Plymouth. On the first occasion they had taken tens of tons of mackerel. They were ordered to disgorge the mackerel on to the docks. It was a very hot summer's day. It was all very fine and a matter of much delight to the local trawlermen; but on that hot day the poor Queen's Harbourmaster had a steadily growing hillock of slithering mackerel which he must get rid of. He dare not sell it. This would have infuriated the local fishermen, who would lose their own market. He could not give it away; for the same thing would happen. The problem gave rise to many hours of frustration before the fish were sent to the Midlands for animal food.
On the next occasion, another boat was brought in with tens of tons of mackerel poached in the 12-mile limit. They were not going to have the same dilemma this time. All that they did was to give a rebuke. Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to find some effective penalty—perhaps holding in port for two or three days; or something that would be more effective than giving great problems to comparatively small ports if vast quantities of fish are unloaded, perhaps in hot weather, either at Plymouth or at Brixham or at any fishing port in the South-West.
There is another point on which I agree with the noble Lord. What good does a 200-mile limit do in the Channel? It is inoperative and impossible. We ourselves in the South-West are basking in very heavy catches of certain varieties of fish; but no one can forecast when the swarms may move away or when climatic conditions, or hot or cold streams, may eradicate them so that the trawlermen who come to the area find their catches are too small.
We need serious and urgent consideration by the Government of these problems for our fishermen all round the seaboard. I speak with knowledge only of that South-Western port. I would urge the Government to treat it as a matter of really serious urgency. Fishing has been one of the age-long and traditional occupations in this country and, as an island, we should strengthen and maintain it.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask

1149
her one question? Can she tell us why the pilchard—a delicious fish which comes from her part of the country—has, for all practical purposes, disappeared?
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I do not think it has wholly disappeared. Something in the trends of climate may have brought us the glut of mackerel and the decline in pilchards. Some are still caught, but there is a heavy demand to buy them from the Continent.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, on a point of information, the fact is that there was a cold water spill-over from the submerged Wycliffe Thompson Range which acts as the weir of the Arctic. A cold current came down the West Coast, chilled the North Atlantic Drift and pushed away the pilchards.
7.30 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for putting down this Question tonight. I am particularly grateful to him for spelling out so clearly on the printed Order Paper the details and different points that he was going to ask. I listened with great interest to the speech which followed by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I know what a great interest Lord Boothby has taken in this subject. As he said, he put down a Question only the other day. I have also listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. I will do my best to answer all the questions which have been raised.
There is one matter upon which we can all agree, and that is that the fishing industry is unique in the uncertainties and, indeed, sometimes in the danger, which it faces as a matter of course in supplying our food. Those who work off Iceland are of course beset by particular hazards at present, as has been mentioned by noble Lords. I will refer again later to Iceland, if I may. I hope noble Lords will agree with me in paying tribute to the whole industry for the way in which they have always faced up to their special problems. The Government are firmly of the view that the United Kingdom fishing industry has a key role to play in the provision of an essential part of the
1150
nation's diet. To this end, Her Majesty's Government are pledged to supporting that industry and maintaining the stocks on which both the consumer and industry depend, as well as securing arrangements for the access of our fishing fleet to the resources it needs.
We all recognize—at this time more than ever before—that there are a great number of uncertainties surrounding the future operating conditions of this great industry. Noble Lords have mentioned several of these issues already. First, there is the extension of fishing limits. International law on jurisdiction over fisheries resources is undergoing great changes at present. Widespread international support for a 200-mile limit has emerged at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, which has just adjourned a further session in New York, and which will resume, as your Lordships know, again in New York on 2nd August. The Government support this concept and hope that the Conference will reach agreement on 200-mile fishing limits in the near future as part of a comprehensive Convention. As my noble friend Lord Kennet has said, a number of important maritime States are preparing to extend their fishing limits whether or not international agreement can be reached beforehand. The Government have long recognised the clear trend towards extended fishery limits. I can assure the House that if other countries unilaterally adopt extended limits we will be ready to take whatever action is appropriate to protect our legitimate interests. But we continue in the firm belief that a really satisfactory solution can be reached only by international agreement, and we will continue to seek agreement at future sessions of the Conference.
I hope therefore that there is no misunderstanding of the Government's support for the concept of 200-mile fishing limits. It is the Government's intention to move in an orderly way towards the adoption of such limits, preferably as part of a comprehensive agreement on the Law of the Sea. This brings me to my second point, the question of the reappraisal of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interject a question

1151
which is a crucial one? He has said that if everyone claims 200 miles in a disorderly way before international agreement, the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to protect our interests. There are two kinds of steps that they can take, and they are contradictory. Do we mean we shall continue to fish under armed protection, as we do in the Icelandic 200-mile zone; or do we mean, on the other hand, the opposite policy, that we shall take a 200-mile zone of our own and keep everybody else out of it? We cannot mean both.
Lord STRABOLGI: I wonder whether my noble friend would be patient and allow me to develop my speech. I will try to answer all these various points.
My Lords, I was about to deal with the Common Fisheries Policy. When fishery limits are extended, the United Kingdom, with the wealth of fish resources around its shores, will contribute the lion's share of the combined resources of the Community; and we stand to lose more than any other Member State from the exclusion of our fishing vessels from their traditional distant water grounds. The adoption of extended fishing limits by maritime States will in any case lead to great problems for our industry, which will need to adapt to a reduction in distant water fishing opportunities and to an increased reliance on the waters around our shores, where the mix of catches will be different from that which it has traditionally taken. But because of the common access provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy we will not be able to benefit from the exclusive control of our own 200-mile zone, and that is why we are seeking modifications in that policy.
There is no question, therefore, about our support for extension of fisheries jurisdiction. But within these extended areas the proper division of resources requires changes based on two elements: a system of coastal belts reserved for the fishermen of the coastal State concerned; and a scheme for the division of the remaining resources under the jurisdiction of Member States which takes adequate account of the particular importance of fishing to the United Kingdom, and which is related to a system of conservation measures which can be properly enforced.
1152
On the question of the width of the coastal reserved belts which we are seeking, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office described in another place last Thursday the proposals which he put to the meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers in Luxembourg earlier last week. My right honourable friend made it clear there that a 12-mile exclusive zone, outside which Member States would have free access to each others' waters, as the Commission had informally proposed, would not meet our needs. In looking at the key areas beyond 12 miles, however, we had found that many of them lay within 35 miles and all of them within 50 miles. As the noble Lord has reminded us, the industry has indeed called for an exclusive belt of 100 miles. But in the Government's view this is neither a realistic nor a necessary demand. We must not see the question of the coastal belt as if it were an isolated issue, but we must have regard. I suggest, to the content of the Common Fisheries Policy as a whole whose principles we have accepted and which involves not just questions of access but marketing policy, structural questions and, increasingly, conservation of resources.
We are not of course dealing here with the question of whether or not we should extend our fishing limits to 200 miles. As I have already indicated, the Government support such a development as part of a comprehensive agreement—and I stress the word "agreement"—on maritime questions. The fish stocks in our potential 200-mile zone and in the waters adjacent to it are migratory, and their habitats transcend lines drawn on maps. The stocks of most species. as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has said, and particularly the stocks of fish such as herring and mackerel, can migrate over distances of many hundreds of miles in their development from larvae stages to juveniles, and finally to mature fish. In terms of effective management of fishery resources, therefore, this means that their exploitation must be a matter for international action. The question at issue is how the resources of those waters which will fall within the extended fishing limits of EEC Member States are to he divided and how, when Member States extend their fishing limits, the access provisions which the previous Government negotiated need

1153
to be revised to deal with the new situation of a wider Community fishing zone.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked for how long was the 12 to 50 mile zone proposed to last. I can say that we are seeking permanent changes now in the light of the permanent adoption of 200-mile zones. The noble Lord also raised an interesting point about the comparison of the Continental Shelf and the EEC. The Department of Energy is interested in the Continental Shelf to which, under international law, we have undoubted rights. There are no international rights to a 200-mile zone for fishing yet.
I should now like to deal with the question of conservation. Equally important to coastal belts, therefore, is the question of the enforcement and policing of quotas and other conservation measures. Before considering the future position, I should perhaps deal with the points which my noble friend raised about the existing situation. It is true that all the important commercial fishery resources in the North-East Atlantic area have come under increasingly heavy pressure as a result of advances in fishing technology, and the drive to find protein resources for human consumption as well as for the manufacture of fish meal. Successive Governments have strongly supported the work of the conservation bodies such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in pressing for adequate international controls to safeguard and manage fisheries in a rational way. We are determined to see these measures work properly, and have been instrumental in securing the Commissions' agreement to quotas on stocks and restrictions on the gear that may be used to fish them.
We are particularly concerned about the rapid increases that have taken place in fishing for reduction purposes. As was mentioned by my noble friend, it is a very indiscriminate type of fishing, having essentially no regard for the age, species or quality of fish taken, and it can therefore be excessively wasteful if not used carefully and in a controlled way. We accept, of course, that some species of fish have little or no value for direct consumption. But the tendency in the past has been to fish for all of those species that were readily available, and substantial by-catches of
1154
human consumption species have led to the decimation of some stocks, such as herring in the North Sea, and pose a serious threat to others such as haddock and whiting. This is a deplorable waste of much needed fish, and the United Kingdom delegation to NEAFC has consistently pressed for measures to control industrial fisheries of this kind. I am glad to say that there is now a ban on industrial fishing for herring in the North Sea as well as stringent limits on the percentages of herring which may be taken in other fisheries, though these have not yet been accepted by Denmark. There are also new quotas to control the sprat fishery itself, much of which goes for industrial purposes. Effective measures to control the by-catches of whitefish have, however, so far been blocked. This is of great concern to the United Kingdom and we are pressing for the improvements which are needed to protect stocks.
The proposed catch of North Sea herring is indeed more than the stock can safely stand, as has been said, though the 1976 agreed catch level is nearer the limits proposed to NEAFC by its scientific advisers than previous catch regulation agreements have achieved. At the NEAFC meeting last month, the United Kingdom pressed for more stringent measures, including a ban on all directed fishing for herring in the second half of the year, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said. This was agreed by our industry who stood to lose the valuable autumn fishery. They were prepared to agree to this, if all other countries would too, in order to stabilise the stocks. It was to our great regret that some countries would not accept this formula.
My noble friend asked what the United Kingdom did regarding the vote on North Sea herring. My Lords, we abstained. We wanted a zero catch for July and December, as proposed by our scientists. The 10 per cent. rule is for individual landings. The quota covers all catches of herring, as by-catches and catches for human consumption. With regard to the sampling of catches which my noble friend mentioned—
Lord KENNET: Before my noble friend leaves that point, would he say why we abstained? Why did we not vote against it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is not usual in NEAFC to explain particular votes or attitudes which have been taken. This is a question of a whole negotiation, and I should not like to go further than what I have said.
Lord KENNET: My Lords—
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry; I am not prepared to go further than I have done. I have already gone further than my original brief said I could. With regard to the sampling of catches, two kilos is a minimum size of sampling only. It is up to the international inspectors to take whatever samples are necessary to establish a case which national Governments can act upon.
As to our national allocation of the agreed figure of 160,000 tonnes which is the total catch, our share is 9,700 tonnes which, as my noble friend Lord Kennett has said, is only 6 per cent. However, 6 per cent.—and this is a fact which my noble friend may not appreciate—is higher than our average share over the past five years, because these quotas are based on catches, not on coastlines or on anything like that, as my noble friend seemed to suppose. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the quota shares are determined on the basis of historic performance in the fisheries concerned: traditionally, in the North Sea area we have taken a small percentage of herring. In contrast, our share of the West Coast of Scotland total herring quota is over 50 per cent.
With the extension of fishery limits, coastal States will have a much more important role to play; and the noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to the importance of the control measures at our disposal. The Government recognise that the present fisheries protection arrangements will need to be augmented. Five new offshore vessels are under construction and arrangements are being made to provide additional air surveillance. This force will patrol both fishing grounds and oil rigs, and I am confident that together with the existing forces it will be adequate for the future. I am certainly not going to pretend that on their own the new ships which have been ordered would be able to police fishing in every square mile of our 200 mile zone, when established. It would be
1156
impossible for any class of ship to do that. What is important is that we should have the right combination of surface vessels, air surveillance and onshore controls such as statistical monitoring, to enable us to police our extended responsibilities adequately. Obviously it is equally important that the measures being policed themselves provide for easy enforcement. A great deal of work remains to be done on these questions—that I readily admit—but I can assure noble Lords that the Government are determined that practical and effective measures will be evolved.
I should now like to turn to the Icelandic dispute. Here it is the Government's aim to secure a negotiated solution from which both sides will benefit. Although Iceland's unilateral action in adopting extended fishing limits is illegal, our approach is not based on a narrow legalistic attitude. As I have said, widespread adoption of extended limits is on the way. But for this to be achieved fairly, it must be by international agreement and not by unilateral acts of force. We have always been prepared to recognise the Icelandic interest in the fish around Iceland's shores, but we must also consider the interests of our own fishermen who have operated there for centuries. In particular, they must be protected against the attacks of Icelandic coastguard vessels when carrying out their legal right to fish on what is still the high seas under international law.
As to my noble friend's question about the cost to the taxpayer of the current Icelandic dispute, I can tell him that the cost to date of chartering and operating the civilian defence vessels is estimated at about £1·6 million since last November when harassment began. Apart from some extra costs, the running costs of Royal Navy ships operating in waters off Iceland are broadly those that would be incurred wherever the vessels were deployed. Final and detailed repair costs arising from collisions between Her Majesty's Ships and Icelandic coastguard vessels will not be available until after work is completed in each case.
With regard to the point about the South-West and the landings of mackerel, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, I will, if she does not mind, look into that and write to her. However, I readily admit, on the general

1157
question of the South-West and the mackerel, that there has been no quota because, until recently, there has been nothing to be much concerned about. But I now agree that there has been so much over-fishing that the question of a quota will certainly have to be very seriously considered, and that is being borne in mind.
I think I can say, in general, that the Icelandic dispute is symptomatic of the complex of changes that are bound to lead to changes in the shape of our fishing fleet. There will be changes, too, in the quantities and varieties of the fish which they exploit. And socio-economic changes will follow for the industry's workforce and for those working in the ancillary industries. This is a testing time for Government and industry alike. It is our aim, with the help of the industry, to create the best possible conditions so that this great industry may respond and continue to catch the fish we need.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may go back over two quite specific questions. He was not able to tell us why we did not vote against the 73,000 tons herring catch in the second half of this year, instead of abstaining. But he did tell us that we wanted these Fisheries Commissions to be effective. I wonder how he reconciles those two statements. Secondly, he asked me to be patient earlier about what we will do, if people go on claiming 200-mile EE zones, to protect our interests. Will we claim our own, or will we invade theirs? I was patient, my Lords, but I heard no answer to that question.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on the question of the allowable catches, I think we must put this into perspective. When one thinks back to 1974–75, taking the summer period in each case, the total allowable catch then was 500,000 tons. We have now got that down to 160,000 tons, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was kind enough to say when I answered his Question. We think that a safe catch is 110,000 tons. We have not got it down as far as we can, but these are questions for negotiation. What went on at the conference in detail, I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend. I was not there, and I cannot say any more than I have said.
1158
With regard to his second question, I think it is a hypothetical one which I am not prepared to try to answer.

  COMPUTER BASED INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS
  COMPUTER BASED INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS
  TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD: PROPOSED BUS LANE
  TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD: PROPOSED BUS LANE