Sitting of 12 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: I appeal for short supplementary questions and answers.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    ENVIRONMENT

      Short Tenancies
      Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to allow landlords to offer accommodation to tenants for short periods of up to one year without restrictive power of tenure, for the tenant.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Not unless I was convinced that any proposal which implied that tenants would not have the protection afforded by the Rent Acts had advantages that outweighed the obvious disadvantages to tenants.
      Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that there is a serious shortage of temporary accommodation? Is it not also clear that there are many people who are looking for temporary accommodation and a substantial amount of housing which would be made available if it were not for the very restrictive nature of present legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and see whether he can do something to ease the plight of those many families who are looking for short-term accommodation?
      Mr. Shore: I accept that there is a need for accommodation generally, and within that general need there is a need for particular people to have temporary accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's proposal has, in a sense, a superficial attraction in addressing itself to that
      1480
      need. The real difficulty is that I do not believe that one can easily work out proposals that would not lead to the progressive and rapid undermining of the whole system of security of tenure in the private rented sector.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Secretary of State aware that most authorities seem to be of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial to the supply of accommodation available to people seeking homes, particularly people seeking their first homes? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what information or what research he requires to be convinced one way or the other? If he can, that would give those who believe that it would be advantageous an opportunity to put the facts before him.
      Mr. Shore: I am certainly not aware of any overwhelming body of evidence in favour of the viewpoint that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed, but I would also say—this is relevant to the supply of and demand for relatively short-term occupation—that to my mind there is today in the private rented sector a high degree of turnover. I was struck by the fact that according to the 1976 general household survey figures an estimated number of more than 400,000 lettings and relettings took place in that year alone in the private rented sector.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposal were adopted every new letting would be on the basis of a one-year letting and rent regulation would totally disappear as a consequence, because no one would dare challenge the rent that had been proposed, for fear that his tenancy would not be renewed?
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very difficulty. I do not see how one can police such a system without unacceptable repercussions across the whole rented sector to which he referred.
      Mr. Rossi: Does the Secretary of State agree that figures have been canvassed which suggest, first, that there is a crude surplus of accommodation over families requiring it, and, secondly, that there are about 750,000 empty properties? If those two figures are correct, if the 750,000 empty properties could be brought into supply, problems of rent control and

      1481
      security of tenure would rapidly disappear. Would not it be right to encourage people with empty properties to bring them into use by telling them that if an empty property is let security of tenure will not apply to that new letting of property at present not being used?
      Mr. Shore: The whole question of which new lettings would be covered by the Rent Acts and which would not would be a very tortuous and difficult business.
      Mr. Rossi: Where there is a will, there is a way.
      Mr. Shore: A major survey on empty property is now being undertaken, and it will establish not merely the numbers of properties that are empty but the reasons. I think that this will give us a much firmer basis of fact on which to consider these questions.

      Theatres Trust
      Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the fact that the Theatres Trust has exhausted its own funds, if he will provide financial aid to enable the Trust to continue to perform its consultative role under the General Development Order 1977.
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): It was made clear when the Theatres Trust was established that public funds would not be available for it.
      Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were as well informed on this subject as he is on so many others he would not have given me that answer? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to receive a deputation consisting of Lord Goodman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the hon. Member for Canterbuy (Mr. Crouch) and myself, who will seek to explain to him the unusual circumstances which have arisen and which cause us to seek his aid in our task?
      Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend that I am reasonably well informed on the background to this matter, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard the request. As for the general position, I am also quite
      1482
      willing to clock again into the facts and consider the matter further, but the position is as I stated it at the outset.

      Housing Revenue Accounts (Deficits)
      Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the deficit on housing revenue accounts is now met from rents.
      Mr. Freeson: On the latest available information for a full financial year, the proportion of housing revenue account costs of local authorities in England in 1977–78 covered by rents was 56·5 per cent.
      Mr. Morris: Is not that a grossly misleading figure when the official figure produced in Cmnd. 6393, the White Paper on public expenditure, referred to rebated rents and was given as 43 per cent. and is currently 44 per cent.? Are we to understand from the Government that they have now totally abandoned the policy as laid down in that White Paper that after rebates the target should be 50 per cent., as further emphasised by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?
      Mr. Freeson: There is nothing misleading about what I have said, any more than it would be misleading to indicate the figures for rent allowances in the private sector. Certainly the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman for the aggregate rent income, following rebate, of about 44 per cent. is correct. I was speaking initially of gross rent income, which is what goes into the housing revenue account. As has been made quite clear many times in the House and elsewhere, the figures referred to in the White Paper on public expenditure were projections. They were not target figures.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not Labour in favour of maintaining the subsidies both for owner-occupiers and for council tenants? Is it not a fact, implicit in the question just asked, that Conservative Members and the Conservative Party are in favour of cutting council house subsidies and thereby deliberately raising rents for 6 million families?
      Mr. Freeson: I believe that one must draw that conclusion, and a much worse conclusion as well, because, in addition to that, it is the Conservatives' intention to cut back massively on investment in public sector housing. They have been

      1483
      asked their views on this several times and have never made their position clear. The question of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is also to be criticised because it reflects a lack of understanding of what goes into housing revenue accounts. They are not concerned simply with the cost of running existing estates, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
      Mr. Heseltine: Is it not quite clear that the Minister for Housing and Construction has been providing one set of figures in order to avoid giving the figures which the House has been seeking to obtain? Is it not true that the White Paper, Command 6393, about which the Minister has been questioned, set out quite clearly that the percentage of costs covered was 43 per cent., that it was the Government's intention that it should rise to 50 per cent. or over, and that the Government even went so far as to project a saving in public expenditure of £180 million a year to be made by 1978–79? Will the Minister now say that the figures included in the Government's White Paper are no longer to be taken as reliable?
      Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will either constantly not understand or constantly misinterpret answers that he has been given. The figures I have quoted, and which have been exchanged across the Floor of the House, are not new. Both figures, the gross rent income and the net rebated rent income, have been well established for some time. There is no question of not providing that information on the Floor of the House.
      As has been made clear previously to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, the White Paper to which he refers set down a series of projected figures. They were not target or policy figures. They were influenced, and will continue to be influenced—as will be the savings figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which has also been explained previously—by, for example, changes in interest rates. The changes in interest rates up and down over a period of time have already had a marked effect on the total level of subsidy paid into the public sector.
      Mr. Morris: I have had a grossly misleading answer from the Minister for
      1484
      Housing and Construction and will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
      Mr. Speaker: There is a formula for seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      House Building
      Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Shore: The figures for May were published on 6th July. After seasonal adjustment, there were 9,800 public sector starts and 11,300 completions in Great Britain. For the private sector the figures were 12,100 starts and 12,400 completions. While the public sector figures continue to be disappointing, the improvement in the private sector figures this year is being maintained.
      Mr. Skinner: But I think my right hon. Friend will agree that overall, over a fairly extensive period, the figures have been extremely disappointing, assisted by such an example as the Broad Meadows bungle at South Normanton in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend also accept that these policies have been assisted greatly by the inflicted cuts in public expenditure arising out of International Monetary Fund policy?
      Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that most of us on the Labour Benches recognise that we shall have an uphill battle to get the Tory local authorities to build more, and that he must see to it that the demand is made and that everything is monitored by his Department?
      Mr. Shore: I am aware, of course, that there were cuts in the housing programme following the IMF negotiations, but I think that the scale of the cuts ought to be borne in mind. Looking at the English public sector figures, I note that the public sector starts that we achieved in the highest year of our period—1976—amounted to 148,800. What we have budgeted and allowed for in 1977 and again in 1978 are figures which are only a very little short of that—137,000 in both years. The problem which is emerging is that what we have budgeted for is being substantially underspent due to many factors, and not least, in my view,

      1485
      to the fact that most of the district housing authorities are no longer in Labour hands.
      Mr. Budgen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the Government were to cut the central Government contribution to indiscriminate subsidies in the public sector, that would allow a cut of about 3p in the standard rate of income tax?
      Mr. Shore: I will not verify those figures. We can all, as it were, make our calculations, but the hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether the same people who were paying the increased rents would be gaining from the decreases in taxation.
      Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider the legality of the position which now exists in the London borough of Ealing since the Tories have taken over? Housing schemes which had been started, with contracts signed, are now to be stopped and considerable amounts of public money are to be paid in compensation to the private construction company. Will he consider whether that is right and proper and say whether he can do anything about it?
      Mr. Shore: I very much deplore arbitrary and abrupt changes in public housing provisions, which inevitably involve heavy costs for local authorities. If my hon. Friend will send me the details, I shall certainly look into the matter.
      Mr. Heseltine: When the Secretary of State seeks to put the responsibility for the reduction in public sector housing on Conservative authorities, what excuse has he for the 40 per cent. reduction in the city of Manchester's council house building programme this year as compared with last year, bearing in mind that it is Labour-controlled?
      Mr. Shore: I have been referring to the generality of district housing authorities—district councils, of which the great majority are in Conservative hands. There is no doubt that there are circumstances in Manchester which are entirely explicable. The hon. Gentleman will see a very substantial increase this year in Manchester, but we shall not see any substantial increase in London or in a number of other authorities which are
      1486
      controlled by the hon. Gentleman's party.

      Coastal and Offshore Environment
      Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the involvement of his Department in protecting the coastal and offshore environment.
      Mr. Shore: I have responsibilities in the fields of amenity, conservation, coast protection, oil and chemicals on beaches and discharges to coastal waters; local authorities, other Government Departments and other bodies such as water authorities also have important functions to fulfil.
      Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people who live on and around our coastline feel that it would be more appropriate if a Department with the title of his Department were not only to have more responsibility but perhaps the overriding responsibility for the increasing pressures on the coastline, particularly as the result of the activities of oil companies? The Minister has read out a long list of other Departments. Is he aware that the fact that there are so many other Departments involved means that anti-social activities, which may be in the minds of companies such as oil companies, can be carried out regardless of the public interest and one Department can be picked off against another? Will he, therefore, consider raising the overall question with the Prime Minister, so that we can get something done about it?
      Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has phrased the point in very general terms, and it is a little difficult for me to comment upon it. He must realise—as I think the House accepts—that there has to be a broad division of responsibility between that for oil which is released at sea, where, of course, the Department of Trade is in the lead, and that for those occasions when oil discharged at sea comes ashore. In this case we are very much in the lead, and we have considerable responsibilities, which we exercise in close consultation with the local authorities.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister take the opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work in coast protection done

      1487
      under the Coast Protection Act, which was introduced in this House many years ago by a Labour Government—it was introduced by me—to safeguard much of the coastline of this country?
      Mr. Shore: I believe that the protection of our coastline is a major function and responsibility, and I willingly acknowledge the very important contribution that my hon. Friend has made.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his responsibility, and his alone, to co-ordinate all matters relating to environmental safety? I have particularly in mind 33,000 people living on Canvey Island and the possible interaction between an excessive concentration of oil, gas and chemical storage on the one hand, and dangerous and hazardous cargoes in the estuary, on the other? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet grasped the fact that the Health and Safety Executive has just completed a report which proves beyond doubt that Canvey is the most endangered community in the country and yet arrives at the lunatic conclusion that there may be further oil refinery development? Will he arrange to make a statement on this subject before the House rises?
      Mr. Shore: I am not at all sure that I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, although I understand his legitimate concern for the people of Canvey Island. This report is a very thorough one and it is very valuable. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are a number of planning inquiries pending in which consideration of this report will, I have no doubt, be a very relevant factor.
      Sir B. Braine: But will the Minister make a statement?

      Coastal Erosion
      Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement of his policy towards prevention of coastal erosion.
      Mr. Shore: My Department examines schemes submitted by the maritime district councils under the Coast Protection Act 1949 to ensure that they satisfy certain requirements before loan consent is given and central Government funds are made available for grant. The most important
      1488
      of these is that the schemes should be technically sound and cost effective.
      I have no immediate plans for a change of policy.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The sooner we have a General Election the better.
      Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is behaving in a very intemperate way, which I hope no other hon. Gentleman will wish to emulate.
      Mr. Newens: Is it not both astonishing and appalling that in this day and age no central records are kept of the amount of land lost by coastal erosion? Is it not a fact that loss of land in one area may be caused by natural or man-made factors in another area controlled by a different local authority? Is it not high time that some steps were taken to keep a centralised record and to monitor what is happening, bearing in mind the tremendous ravages of the seas over the centuries, which, even today, are making their effect felt, particularly on the east coast in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk?
      Mr. Shore: I certainly acknowledge, as my hon. Friend says, that East Anglia in particular has suffered from coastal erosion. I also accept what he says about the desirability of having a national survey of our whole coastline. I am afraid that I cannot tell him when it would be possible for us to embark upon such a survey, but I shall certainly keep it in mind.
      Mr. Crouch: Can the Secretary of State say how the Government will conduct such a national survey when one part of the responsibility for coast protection and sea defences is in the hands of his Department and the other part is in the hands of the regional water authorities responding to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Does he not think that the time has come when the Government should consider that the protection of our coastal areas from erosion from the sea and damage from the sea through storms should be in the hands of one Minister and one Minister alone?
      Mr. Shore: This matter has been looked at previously and the general view has been that there is a distinction between flood control and coastal erosion. That is the basic distinction. I agree that at a certain point there is an overlap

      1489
      between the two. Whether this can be more satisfactorily sorted out in administrative terms or departmental terms is not exactly a matter for me, but, of course, I am quite willing to listen to any suggestion.
      Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in areas such as that of the River Severn, where there are problems of erosion, there is great difficulty in ascertaining responsibility for the problems of erosion? Does he not also acknowledge now that the costs of dealing with the problems of erosion are so enormous that we may have to consider some form of national scheme in order that the burden can be properly shared, as it is frequently beyond the capacity of riparian owners?
      Mr. Shore: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, there is a Government grant scheme, which is on a sliding scale, which can actually rise—depending upon the circumstance of the authority and the demands placed upon its ratepayers—to 79 per cent. of the cost of the work.
      Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Minister pay tribute to the work done by voluntary associations at present, in view of the shortage of funds available for coastal protection? Will he say what the cutback by the Government has been in the last four years in terms of funds available for coast protection?
      Mr. Shore: Yes, as a matter of fact I can help the hon. Gentleman with that figure. The expenditure in the three financial years 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977–78 was £6·1 million, £5·4 million and £5 million. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that far from there being a cut-back in this current year, it has been increased to £11·9 million.

      Housing Policy (London)
      Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the leader of the majority group on the Greater London Council to discuss housing policy.
      Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.
      Mr. Dykes: Could the Minister try a little harder? As the policy of homesteading and council house sales promoted by the GLC under Conservative
      1490
      control is now so manifestly and overwhelmingly popular among the members of the public, should not the Minister be more positive and have a meeting with the GLC and give full encouragement to these two key twin elements of the new GLC housing policy?
      Mr. Freeson: From time to time, Ministers, including myself, meet the leader, as we meet leaders and chairmen of other local authorities, on housing and other matters. I have no present plans to do so, and I have no reason to do so on the grounds that have been put to me. I would make only this comment: there has been a lot of huffing and puffing and windy talk about homesteading and other great successes. So far, I understand that about 100 houses have been sold under the homesteading scheme in London.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be desirable for him to meet the leader of the GLC, because he would then have the opportunity of pointing out to him the effects of the policy to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred? In the words of an official of the GLC, in response to a request for a transfer for a family in very acute housing need, the GLC replied:
      "I very much regret that the position as far as houses"—
      Hon. Members: Reading.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am quoting.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to quote at Question Time.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: An official of the GLC pointed out that the position in terms of houses has become very much more difficult as a direct consequence of the GLC's homesteading scheme and the fact that 50 per cent. of the houses that became vacant had to be sold, so that transfers became infinitely more difficult.
      Mr. Freeson: I do not think that the point with which my hon. Friend is justifiably concerned arises from the homesteading scheme, for the reason of the figure that I quoted. Certainly there is growing concern about the number of properties that are standing empty in London and in some other local authority areas where indiscriminate policies are being pursued. It is estimated that there

      1491
      are now several hundred such properties in London and in other authorities as a result of indiscriminate policies.
      Perhaps I should make the further point that although I have no plans to meet the leader of the GLC at present, my right hon. Friend has plans in hand to meet the chairman of the housing committee of the GLC to discuss policy matters.
      Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister bear in mind that the figures that he gave to the House a few minutes ago in respect of homesteading are misleading, to the extent that 500 applications are now being processed, and this is a very different impression from the 100 completions to which he referred? When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the housing committee, will he congratulate him on being able to achieve the sale of 1,000 council houses since the Conservatives took control of the GLC, and will he also congratulate him on reducing the figure of 1,800 squatters who were involved in GLC properties when the Conservatives took power to a figure, now, of only 450?
      Mr. Freeson: I cannot comment much on the last figure because I do not know the details, except to say that I believe that a good many of the so-called squatters—as, indeed, is the case with a number of other local authorities in London—were in fact licensees, using the terms "squatter" rather incorrectly.
      On the first matter, about the rate of sales, I should like to make two brief points. First, there is no cause for congratulation when indiscriminate policies are being pursued which do not take account of the kind of situation rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). Secondly, for all the talk about the "sale of the century" and—what is it?—a target of 10,000 by March 1979, which is only a few months away, I see no reason why even the GLC Tory leadership or the Opposition Front Bench should congratulate themselves on the results of their huffing and puffing during the last year or so.

      Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
      Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now approve the proposed scheme of improve-
      1492
      ment of Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.
      Mr. Shore: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 14th June, I hope to announce my decision on this scheme shortly.
      Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend accept that yet another month has passed and that this delay is now becoming a disgraceful example of insensitive hesitation? Since the environmental prospects and economic future of South Yorkshire are being treated in a quite unacceptable manner, does he understand that the patience of South Yorkshire and its hon. Members is not inexhaustible?
      Mr. Shore: I do not accept from my hon. Friend that it is either disgraceful or insensitive. On the contrary, I consider it to be careful and responsible. We are hoping to come to a decision very shortly.
      Mr. Durant: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is a very imaginative scheme? Surely by this time the Government should have a positive policy on this matter, which is important to the whole future of inland waterways in this country.
      Mr. Shore: I am very much aware that it is a very long time indeed since there was an investment in Britain's canal system. Therefore, it is important—I attach great importance to this—that we should back a scheme which really has a reasonable chance of success.
      Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend, with his usual sensitivity, examine very carefully the effects of such a development upon the ports of the Humber and, in particular, the port of Hull, and what it might mean in terms of loss of jobs and the consequent loss of use of important public investment over the years? Will he bear in mind very carefully the effects upon the development area?
      Mr. Shore: In thinking through the case for such a canal scheme, we shall have to consider all the relevant factors, including the generation of new traffic and the possibility, of course, of a switch of traffic from other facilities. But all these matters—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising one of the many complexities—must really be thoroughly worked out.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member on this Question.
      Mr. Stan Crowther: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of support among members of the general public for this scheme in South Yorkshire? Does he accept that we understand the difficulties that have been created by the very sharp attack made upon our right hon. Friend the Minister of State by the Select Committee? Is it not now time to let bygones be bygones and get on with the scheme, which is manifestly in the interests of the economy of South Yorkshire?
      Mr. Shore: I am very much aware of the support that exists for the project in the South Yorkshire area and, indeed, more generally on the part of those who are interested in the development and better use of inland waterways. However, my hon. Friend must not assume in any way that we are bringing to bear anything other than an honest consideration of all the facts. We want to establish the best possible judgment on this project.

      Water Rates
      Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that all regional water authorities encourage their consumers to pay their water rates by monthly instalments.
      The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): As the hon. Member will appreciate, we have no powers to direct the water authorities in this way. However, when I met the water authority chairmen on 9th May, I urged them to accept payment by instalments where there would otherwise be hardship. I am glad to say that they assured me they are all prepared to operate such a charging policy.
      Mr. Durant: When the Minister has a further meeting with the chairmen of water authorities, will he talk to them about the possibility of using the Post Office as a method of payment of water charges? This would help a number of old-age pensioners. Accepting that direct billing is a good thing, will he discuss with the chairmen the formula that they have now worked out, in which I think
      1494
      the standing charge is far too high and works against the small household, the old-age pensioner and that type of person?
      Mr. Howell: I have already discussed with the chairmen the question of using the Post Office. Indeed, I am glad to report that a pilot scheme along those lines by the north-west authority is working very well. I assure the hon. Member that it is being watched by the other regions, too.
      I am well aware of the difficulties over direct billing to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. I am afraid that they are inherent in the Water Act 1973, which excludes the Minister from direct intervention in the method of charging used by water authorities.
      Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to point out that the reorganisation of the water authorities by the Conservative Party has been one of the greatest disasters of all time? Is he aware that, as a result of the reorganisation, my constituents and many others are suffering considerable consequences in the form of higher charges and direct billing? Will he do something to ensure that these water authorities, many of which are highly inefficient, are brought under some sort of democratic control?
      Mr. Howell: I shall go further than my hon. Friend in saying that the reorganisation of local government, the reorganisation of local authority health services and the reorganisation of water services, taken together, have proved to be catastrophic and an absolute disaster for the country.
      Concerning the water authorities, we presented a White Paper to Parliament, and it would be our intention early in the next Parliament to produce proposals at any rate, through the National Water Authority, to get the industry back into some sort of efficiency, with some degree of national parliamentary accountability.
      Mr. Alison: Presumably, however, the Minister's intention in the White Paper, and this further reorganisation that he now proposes to improve the previous reorganisation, is to produce a reduction in the rate bills. Will he undertake, therefore, that there will actually be a

      1495
      reduction as a result of the further reorganisation, which was the point raised by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart)? Also, in respect of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), can the Minister advise us whether the instalments that he has been asking the chairmen of water authorities to introduce will be, as my hon. Friend asked, monthly instalments?
      Mr. Howell: The Post Office scheme can be based on weekly payments, which I think all of us would agree would be a very good thing indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difficulty about any further reorganisation is that it is impossible to calculate its total effect, but I am quite certain that in practical terms it will produce much more efficient control of the water industry than there is at the present time.

      Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
      Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the working of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Freeson: The Act has helped many homeless people, and that is satisfactory. Our main guide to its detailed working is the statistical information to be published shortly and to be discussed with local authorities and voluntary bodies.
      Miss Lestor: When my right hon. Friend discusses this with local authorities, will he pay particular attention to the Slough Tory authority which has by resolution decided to put as restrictive an interpretation as possible upon the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and has already been censured by the local ombudsman for the way in which it is failing to deal with homeless families in my area?
      Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly take account of that and will take the opportunity, as soon as I can, of reading the local ombudsman's report on this matter. I am aware of the concern expressed about this local authority's conduct in certain respects. I can only hope that it will reflect further and ensure it is basing its conduct on a civilised approach to the use of the Act.
      Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister also get officials in his Department to look into the quality of some of the buildings and hostels used for homeless people on temporary stay? Some of them are of a dreadfully poor quality and have a most depressing effect on the people who have to go to them.
      Mr. Freeson: I certainly take note of the point, but no inspectorate system is available to us to use in such matters. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about particular matters that he has in mind, I shall certainly consider them further.
      Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the procedures in cases where there is a dispute between authorities over responsibility for homeless people? Is he aware that in my constituency there is one family which has now been in temporary accommodation for over 10 months because local authorities are unable to agree who is responsible for the rehousing?
      Mr. Freeson: The Act has now been operating for about seven months. I am generally satisfied that the scheme that was agreed in the context of that Act, for joint arrangements between local authorities, is working reasonably well. We are due to review the matter, and if there are a sufficient number of cases of difficulty which show a common pattern, requiring further thought about the way the Act is operating, I should like to consider them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will also write to me with details so that I can take these matters into account.
      Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister aware that a number of local authorities that have a relatively high proportion of employment to offer as compared with other areas, or authorities that are particularly attractive areas in which to live, are complaining that mobile homelessness is causing problems with regard to their general waiting lists? Will he consider giving a reallocation of resources to local authorities which have those problems, one of which is Slough?
      Mr. Freeson: Judging from the hon. Gentleman's rather defensive observations, I am afraid that he cannot be aware of the procedure that is already adopted. The answer is that this factor

      1497
      is already taken into account when we do the housing investment allocations. It is a matter for the local authority to include the data in its submission to us, against the background of whatever policy it is pursuing. We certainly take it into account.

      Public Footpaths (Herefordshire)
      Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the series of local public inquiries into the footpaths of the old county of Herefordshire will be completed.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Although it has taken a long time to get the programme of inquiries under way, the Department and Hereford and Worcester county council have recently agreed on a timetable which will result in an inquiry being held every 12 weeks. Even so, with 11 inquiries to go, this means that it will be early 1981 before the exercise is complete.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. Is he aware that it is now over a year since the first of these local public inquiries took place, at Ross-on-Wye? Will he undertake to keep behind this programme all the way along the line so that long-standing sore points, such as the public footpath HB1, at Hampton Bishop parish, can be resolved for good and all?
      Mr. Howell: This is an excellent example of the value of Questions. When I saw the hon. Gentleman's Question I asked why it was that we had not yet had the inspector's reply on Ross-on-Wye and Whitchurch. I am assured that the delay is exceptional and that we shall now get it in a matter of weeks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall personally ensure that there is an immediate decision as soon as possible after that. The Hampton Bishop inquiry arises from a dispute between the parish council and the landowner concerned. I do not think that the county council or the Department come into the matter until that dispute has been resolved.
      Mr. Flannery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem goes much wider than Herefordshire and that, for instance, the Ramblers' Association is deeply concerned about the loss of old footpaths, many of which go out of use due to farmers putting wires across them, and so
      1498
      on? Does his Department give any guidance to associations such as the Ramblers' Association on how they can best consult local authorities in order to preserve these footpaths?
      Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this problem. In the White Paper on recreation, which we recently issued, we made it quite clear that the Government regard access to the countryside and the maintenance of rights of way on pathways as being of tremendous importance. I can assure the House that if it draws our attention to any cases of malpractice we shall look into them immediately.

      Air Pollution
      Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further policy initiatives his Department proposes to take progressively to reduce the levels of air pollution in urban areas, especially London.
      Mr. Denis Howell: In conjunction with the Clean Air Council, we are constantly looking at ways of progressively reducing the levels of air pollution, with the needs of urban areas particularly in mind. We are considering the proposals of the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, including those for air quality guidelines, and for new powers for local authority control of industry. A thorough review of monitoring is in hand and we have a continuing programme of research into air pollution problems.
      Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that that answer does not go far enough in relation to this serious problem? Is his Department aware of the report from the GLC some time ago which showed that air pollution levels on many London streets are now at least double the recommended levels of the World Health Organisation? In view of the fact that the Clean Air Act 1956 covers only air pollution from fixed sources, such as factories and domestic premises, will the Minister consider legislation to see that it is extended to motor vehicles, which are the real source of the problem?
      Mr. Howell: I am well aware that this problem is associated with the intake of lead into the system—
      Mr. Forman: And smoke.
      Mr. Howell: Yes, I know, but it also involves lead. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a staged programme, in partnership with the EEC, to bring down the lead content in petrol. I can tell the House that we have just agreed to finance three further research projects on atmospheric pollution, at a cost of £150,000. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the matter as seriously as he does. Furthermore, the Control of Pollution Act, when fully implemented, will enable local authorities to have further control of the whole range of these problems.
      Mr. Hooley: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about these new research projects and their funding, but does he agree that it is well established that the lead level in petrol is a serious air pollutant and a serious contributor to the hazards of lead poisoning? Why cannot we speed up the process of coming into line with our European neighbours, who have long accepted a lower level of lead in petrol than we are prepared to accept?
      Mr. Howell: That is not quite true. We have fully accepted—this has been debated in the House—the EEC programme. I think that there have been two reductions in the content of lead in petrol during the life of this Government, and we are committed to at least one or two more, certainly to be in line with our European partners. But we cannot do it overnight. We have to serve adequate notice on industry, and there are also balance of payments considerations to be borne in mind.
      Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that in recent years the Royal Commission has not had the impact upon public opinion which perhaps it should have? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when considering the future membership of that Commission, to try to find people from outside who are good at communicating the views of the Royal Commission, instead of just experts?
      Mr. Howell: I do not accept that at all. I think that the Flowers Commission has had an enormous impact on public opinion generally over a whole range of problems.

      Building Industry
      Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further discussions he proposes to have with representatives of building and construction industry employers regarding the nationalisation of the building industry.
      Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet leaders of the building industry in the near future.
      Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I have regular meetings with representatives of the construction industry and I shall be seeing leaders of the organisations in the group of eight on 28th July. Since I have no proposals to nationalise the building and construction industry, I see no reason why this item should feature on our agenda.
      Mr. Neubert: Can the Secretary of State explain why his hon. Friends are so upset at the prominence given by the current poster campaign about the Labour Party's plans to nationalise the building industry? As the General Election approaches, would not he and they wish for that policy to be given as much publicity as possible, including such details as the likely initial costs of up to £2¾ billion and subsequent annual costs of £½ billion—or is it that since the recent national survey has shown that four people out of five do not want any more nationalisation, the Government at least have changed their mind?
      Mr. Shore: I have no comment to make on the rather extraordinary arithmetic which the hon. Member has put before the House, but, quite naturally, all responsible persons, including virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends. deeply resent tendentious advertising in constituencies—advertising which seeks, as it were, to upset and disturb people about proposals which are certainly not in the programme of this Government and which are being discussed in the NEC of the Labour Party. If we were to retaliate in kind and take up all over the country, for example, the proposals put to the Conservative Shadow Cabinet by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in which he

      1501
      proposed the denationalisation of half a dozen of our industries, including selling off the BNOC, dismantling the NEB and turning our pits into miners' co-operatives, the Tories, too, would feel slightly upset.
      Mr. McCrindle: In a genuine attempt to seek information on behalf of my constituents, may I ask the Secretary of State why, as a Socialist, he is clearly in favour of public ownership of the construction industry while as a member of the Cabinet he is either non-committal or, dare one assume, opposed to it? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, whether he attended the Labour Party conference when it was decided that this should become Labour Party policy and, if so, whether on that occasion he voted for or against the proposal?
      Mr. Shore: My major concern—and it is the major concern of Government supporters—is with the efficiency of the construction industry, as it is with many of our other industries. It is with the security of its employees. It is also with maintaining as high a level of employment in the industry as we possibly can. We shall always be prepared to consider measures which promote those ends. I think that that is probably sufficient answer to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party has never called for the nationalisation of the construction industry? The policy statement approved by the Labour Party conference called for a measure of public ownership by the establishment of a national building corporation, by the development and extension of direct labour organisations, and by the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. It is an absolute lie that the Conservative Party and the employers, through their campaign CABIN, are trying to put about the country, which will in fact have a reverse effect, because the people are not stupid and will recognise when lies are being told by the Opposition.
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right, of course. It is an absurd propaganda activity which is being engaged in by the Opposition. I might add to what my hon. Friend said about what was in the proposal that, as it was presented to the Labour Party conference last year, it said specifically, at the end, that
      1502
      "The present statement and the background document which accompanies it represent only an interim report to the party."
      That is often the case. Matters are always considered seriously and thoroughly between the party and the Government.
      Sir Walker-Smith: The original Question relates to employers. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether UCATT is as yet on record in regard to this matter and, if so, to what effect?
      Mr. Heffer: Yes. It supports the NEC.
      Mr. Shore: I cannot deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in detail—
      Mr. Heffer: I can. I am a member.
      Mr. Shore:—but I know very well that the unions concerned would subscribe to my general definition of purpose in the construction industry, that we should take all measures to deal with the uncertainties of employment, that we should promote decasualisation, that we should try to maintain a more even work load, and that we should do all in our power to bring down the level of unemployment. The House may be interested and even pleased to know that this month, for the first time in two or three years, unemployment figures have fallen well below 200,000, to about 177,000.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: Why should the big building employers be so upset about the proposals to permit corporation direct labour departments to tender for building contracts in neighbouring authorities? Is it the fear that this will put their own quotations in danger and also draw attention to the 133 price rings now operated by private firms in the building industry?
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to what has long been the policy of this Government, which is to seek to put an end to the unnecessary restrictions placed upon direct labour organisations and also to put them upon a manifestly fair and competitive basis.
      Mr. Rossi: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) introduced the proposals contained in this document "Building Britain's Future", he spoke of the "step by step public ownership of the construction industry"? Therefore, when the Secretary of State

      1503
      meets representatives of this industry, will he assure them that he would never allow these proposals to become the policy of any Government of which he was a Minister?
      Mr. Shore: I thought that there was a consensus in all parts of the House that we never used the word "never". If the Opposition had used the word "never", they would have been in great difficulties when they had to nationalise Rolls-Royce and UCS a few years ago.

      Land Reclamation (Birmingham)
      Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfield with the programme for land reclamation in Birmingham.
      Mr. Freeson: Since the order on 8th June specifying the Birmingham inner city area as a derelict land clearance area, the Department has asked Birmingham city and West Midlands county councils to extend their programme of sites eligible for grant. So far 18 schemes have been approved this financial year, costing £63,000.
      Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that, in view of the total lack of water-based recreational activities in the north Birmingham area, the Department ought to give speedy consideration to any proposals from the West Midlands county council's planning department to convert the disused quarry at Queslett—150 acres in my constituency—for recreational purposes rather than allow it to be used as a dump for 3 million cubic yards of rubbish, and thereby use it to the public advantage?
      Mr. Freeson: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this, and certainly the idea of the recreational facilities and plans to which he has referred sounds attractive. However, the future use of this site as part of the reclamation scheme is, in the first instance, a matter for the local authorities concerned, and we have not yet had any proposals submited to us. Naturally we shall consider them very carefully when they are received.
      Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that a good start has been made on this programme in Birmingham but that ultimately
      1504
      the question of the ownership of land is extremely relevant? Is he aware, further, that the leader of the Birmingham city council has written in robust terms to the chairmen of nationalised industries requiring them to bring forward their land for use? This is an extremely important matter in Birmingham. Will the Minister support the leader of the council by including a letter personally to them—perhaps enclosed with the notification of their increased pay—asking them to respond vigorously in this respect?
      Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. Member referred, but I think that he has rather truncated the history of this matter. Some months ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in touch with the chairmen of all the nationalised industries about getting surplus land, especially in partnership authorities, listed and made available to local authorities as part of our efforts in the inner city programmes. When this exercise has been completed we shall consider the position with regard to the programme authorities.
      Birmingham has been a subject of correspondence between myself and the leaders of the county and city councils, and also a subject for discussion in the partnership committee machinery. I hope that we will get results. I am watching certain sites very closely, and if difficulties are experienced over negotiations I will not hesitate to involve myself.
      Mr. Litterick: Could the Minister tell the House the extent to which the Tory council of Birmingham has underspent the financial allocations made to it for land acquisition, while at the same time blaming the Government for the fact that areas of the city outside the centre are being deprived of resources by that council?
      Mr. Freeson: That is a very wide-ranging question. The position on land acquisition for housing purposes cannot be separated from the investment programme activity of the local authority as a whole in housing generally. In 1977–78 the Birmingham city council underspent its housing investment allocation by about £5·5 million. That might not necessarily relate to land acquisition. Under the rules of procedure laid down, it is open to the council to add that figure to the 1978

      1505
      allocation under what we call the 10 per cent tolerance.
      On the general question of land acquisition—this is outside housing for the local authority—we have indicated to local authorities generally and to the partnership and programme authorities in particular that wherever possible they should be prepared to use CLA resources and procedures to bring land into use for commercial, industrial and environmental purposes.
      Mr. Heseltine: It is now some months since the Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of the nationalised industries about the release of land in the inner cities. What has happened in the meantime?
      Mr. Freeson: We have had a good response from most of the chairmen. There is one outstanding nationalised industry which is still doing a listing of land available in these areas and is probing the possibility of negotiation on disposal of those sites. If the hon. Member writes to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will be provided with more details in correspondence.

MEDICAL FACILITIES (LIVERPOOL)
Mr. Loyden: 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 consideraation, namely,
"the availability of heart investigation and surgery in Liverpool".
The Liverpool area health authority is suffering from a lack of facilities to meet the needs of patients suffering from heart complaints. Copies of press statements have been sent to you, Mr. Speaker, indicating that lack. Patients awaiting heart investigation and surgery are actually dying while they wait.
I have written to the Secretary of State, asked Questions in the House and gone through the normal channels of the House in order to bring this matter to the attention of Ministers concerned. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has not seen fit to reply, except to say that he would write to me on some occasion. I have not received a reply.
1506
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you should take account of this situation in considering whether to adjourn the House and permit us to debate the matter. Recent developments indicate the importance and seriousness of the question, because an attempt has been made by the private sector of the Health Service to undermine the NHS on Merseyside by offering opportunities for patients to be removed from Liverpool to private hospitals in London where they can receive surgery that cannot be carried out on Merseyside. This is a sad reflection on the National Health Service on Merseyside.
Looking at the Government Front Bench, I think that it is a disgrace that no Minister is there to respond to the questions that are being raised about the area health authority. This is a most important matter for us all, because it involves the lives of people. Surgeons and qualified medical people in the area have made it patently clear that there is an urgent need for action.
In these circumstances, the House should adjourn to debate this matter. I am sure you will consider, Mr. Speaker, that as a Back-Bench Member I have made all the normal approaches but to no avail. No replies have been forthcoming from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) did me the courtesy of notifying me this morning that he would seek leave to raise a matter of specific and urgent importance under Standing Order No. 9, namely,
"the availability of heart investigation and surgery in Liverpool".
He indicated also that press cuttings were available for me.
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said this afternoon and have also taken account of the exchanges in the House yesterday on this subject. I have no doubt about the seriousness of the matter.
However, the hon. Member knows that it is not for me to decide whether a serious matter is to be debated but whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night. I am directed to take account of all arguments and the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provision

1507
of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling on the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I feel that I should point out that I, too, have written to the Secretary of State and have tabled four Questions on the same subject. I hope that in view of my hon. Friend's complaint about lack of replies, the Secretary of State will give the full information tomorrow on what is obviously a disgraceful state of affairs of the lack of facilities for heart surgery on Merseyside.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting in his seat, could he take account of the very important points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and give Government time for such a debate?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant, as I always am with hon. Members who are anxious to make a point. But these are really not points of order for me.

STUDENT UNIONS (VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP)
3.38 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the voluntary membership of student unions, student associations and student representative councils; to make consequential provisions with respect to the membership fees and charges of those bodies; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to increase and enhance the image and stature of all students in the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members pay lip service to young people being given genuine responsibility and independence, but when it comes to a proposal to do something definite about this, they find themselves unable to honour their principles for all sorts of extraordinary and irrelevant reasons.
At present all students at universities, polytechnics and most other institutions of higher education are compelled to join their local student unions. That is repugnant to anyone who believes in the genuine freedom of the individual. But the purpose of my Bill is not merely to moralise on the rights and wrongs of the closed shop as it affects students but to draw the attention of the House to the misuse of some of the £14 million of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money spent annually by a minority of students who manipulate and control Britain's student unions.
Every student at university must pay an annual fee of up to £50 to the university authority, which passes it on to the student union. The fees of most students who receive maintenance grants are paid by the local education authority where their parents reside. The purpose of these funds, theoretically, is to enable services, clubs and societies to provide for the students' leisure, welfare, recreational and social activities. For example, if a student plays rugby football, the rugby club should be provided with a student union grant to provide facilities for the students to play the game.
Let me examine the reality in a university with about 5,000 undergraduates. The student union receives indirectly from the taxpayer and the ratepayer 5,000 times, say, £40 a year. This money is

1509
distributed to various clubs and societies by the vote of the student union general meeting. These meetings claim to decide what 5,000 students collectively desire, but they are usually attended, by political activists numbering no more than 150 to 200. Such student politicians rarely, in my experience, represent the silent majority of student opinion and, politically, they make certain hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appear like members of the landed gentry.
I have examined in some detail the student union budget at the University of Reading, and I thank the undergraduates at that university for supplying me with figures which would make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's eyebrows flutter with incredulity.
Is the House and the country aware that at Reading University this year, £7,705 is being given to 64 clubs and societies? Let me tell the House about some of these societies. For example, £85 of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money is being given to a society to promote homosexuality. Are there so many homosexual students at Reading University that public funds must be spent to sustain such activities? Another £200 is being paid to a group of students to allow them to play war games with toy soldiers and a further £95 has been given to GAFIA. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you think, as I thought, that GAFIA is a society that promotes classical learning, but you would be wrong. It is the Get Away From It All society.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: Why does the hon. Gentleman not join?
Mr. Winterton: The activities of this society, unlike my own, remain a mystery, but there is no mystery about who pays the £85 for these students to get away from it all. The taxpayer and ratepayer cannot get away from this expenditure. In addition, £95 is given to a group of stduents to keep bees. It may be milk and honey for some of the students at Reading University, but it is the taxpayer and ratepayer who get stung for the bill.
I have been in touch indirectly with the university authorities at Reading and they claim that they maintain a close control of the student union books and
1510
say that they regard the union officers as highly responsible. The registrar said that he was satisfied with the system of student union finance at the university. That should be put on the record, because that is the view of the authorities, but I am not satisfied and nor are the taxpayers and many of the students at the university.
Hon. Members may think that Reading is not typical of all universities, so let us go to Essex, as I did on 11th May to address a public meeting. When I arrived, I was confronted with my image plastered all over the campus. Across the posters that showed photographs of me was doubed in red the word "Eliminate". That was not all. Underneath the photograph were words that I would not care to repeat, even in the House. This sort of material was provided by funds given to an organisation at the university by the National Union of Students and, therefore, came from the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country. While some are driven to do unpleasant things to prevent me from promoting my principles, I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether it is right for public funds to finance the poster that I am now holding and other similiar activities.
I have intentionally not given details of the NUS handouts of public money to guerrilla and terrorist organisations and liberation movements because that raises, perhaps, too many emotions. My Bill seeks to end the sort of abuses that I have outlined to the House, not by withdrawing or withholding funds but by adding the students' union fee to the students' maintenance grant. In this way, it will be possible for the individual student to decide how to spend the money on his or her leisure pursuits. The student will be free to join or not to join the NUS, the rugby club, the Conservative, Labour or Liberal clubs or the bee-keeping society, but no student will be compelled to pay for something that he opposes or does not support.
The House can take heart from the lead given by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, who has written to all State governments instructing them to prepare legislation to make the membership of student unions voluntary. Many hon. Members have indicated to me that they share my views on this matter and I know there are some in other parties who may join me in the Division Lobby if necessary.

1511
It is not only the taxpayers and ratepayers who are looking to the House to take a stand on behalf of students—it is the students themselves. They are crying out for an end to the abuse of public money spent in their name. They want proper accountability and genuine democratic control. The undergraduate population of this country does not have the time or the inclination to keep a check on student unions. Undergraduates wish to pursue their studies and they have a lot of work to do. They are as anxious as we are to eliminate wastage, but they do not have the time to indulge in the intrigues of student politics which are dominated by lifelong students on sabbatical—and how sabbaticals have increased in recent years:
If we cannot trust students, who, as adults, we deem capable of electing governments or fighting for their country, to spend their union fees as they, individually, would wish, there is little hope for the future of our country, which depends on these young people.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Beith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to oppose this Bill, which misguidedly seeks to destroy the basis on which student unions in most universities provide a wide range of facilities for students. Catering, sporting, welfare, health and academic facilities are provided by student unions, all of which are open to all students and are under the direct control of the students themselves. That, primarily, is what a student union is all about.
If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spent less time visiting political societies in order to make the speeches which attract the interest he described and paid a few visits instead to the more normal activities of most student unions, whether to the bar of Newcastle University students' union or the chapel of the Birmingham University students' guild, he would find the student unions to be a much more workaday affair than his colourful description suggested.
1512
Student unions have always been based on automatic membership. In most instances fees are paid by local authorities through the grant. Even in universities where there are voluntary unions, such as the union societies of Oxford and Cambridge, the college common rooms and sports clubs claim an automatic subscription, which in most universities goes to the student union.
It would be impossible to provide facilities on the scale available in most student unions on the basis of voluntary membership suggested by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The student turnover is too rapid to make that possible. It would not be possible to offer any reasonable security to the large numbers of staff employed by student unions to provide services. Any year-to-year planning would be impossible. In many universities charters would have to be changed, or statutes changed, to allow students to be excluded from unions of which they are automatically deemed to be members when they enrol on a course.
Universities regard student facilities as an essential part of student life. If the automatic membership system were destroyed, or had never existed, the whole matter would have to be dealt with in a different way. The same facilities would have to be provided by the universities themselves, and funded directly from public funds without any student involvement in running them. That would have been a great loss. It is far preferable that a large area of student activity is under direct student control. There are hon. Members in all parties in the House who know that such experience can be good training in responsible committee and leadership work. That element should not be left out of consideration.
The vast proportion of union expenditure gmes on welfare services, sport, cultural activities, social facilities provided by universities and on necessary equipment, staff and administration. In many universities funds for political activities are ultra vires. In universities that have such funds they represent only a tiny proportion of the whole. The expenditure that student unions channel through the NUS for representation purposes mostly finds its way into campaigns undertaken by the NUS on such issues as students' grants and the position

1513
of overseas students. They are extremely responsibly carried out.
I hope that Conservative Front-Bench Members and Ministers will agree with me that the presentations that have been made by the NUS on behalf of student unions on grants, overseas students and the issue before us have been responsibly carried out and handled properly and sensibly.
Students determine the manner of the expenditure. It is their right to use the procedures of their unions to determine such decisions. The accounts involved are professionally audited. In many instances they go to university courts or councils, on which there are many outside representatives who may ask questions.
I was fascinated to hear some of the details of the accounts of the University of Reading. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not pay more tribute to the funds that are directed by that union to pay speakers' expenses at carefully judged rates and to pay meeting room expenses for meetings of societies apart from those that he mentioned—for example, the expenses of the Anglican Society, the Catholic Society, the Change Ringers, the Methodist Society, the Scout and Guide Club and, of course, the Conservative Association, which benefits to the tune of £66.
The most curious feature of the hon. Gentleman's move is that there is a review in progress of the financing of student unions that was instituted by the Government. A discussion paper has been issued which has been the subject of comment by the NUS and other student bodies. It seems that the Bill is attempting to pre-empt that consultation and to impose an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the matter without the consultation that is already taking place. It is an extremely undesirable way in which to proceed.
The proposal is opposed by the NUS, by the Union of Liberal Students and by other student bodies, including the Federation of Conservative Students. I am in possession of a pamphlet published by none other organisation than Conservative Central Office of 32 Smith
Square. It sets out in a reasoned and careful way the disadvantages of the proposal that is being put forward. It states:
"The whole issue of union financing has been marked by vagueness, prejudice and sheer ignorance of the facts."
In a kindly and helpful way it is said:
"This is not the fault of any particular individual but merely the accumulation of years of reaction to extreme left-wing controlled unions by MPs and students alike, who have found it convenient to pick on one or two abuses and thus condemn the system as a whole rather than investigate the whole scene with a view to constructive criticism."
The Federation of Conservative Students comes out strongly against the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It points out that one of its effects could be to hand over some student unions directly to the extremists of the Left, which the hon. Gentleman, counterpart of them though he seems to be, is setting out to oppose. His proposal would place student unions into the hands of those who have money and their own resources or the political enthusiasm to take up voluntary membership, rather than ensuring that the union is the property of all university students.
On an issue such as this we must have the opportunity afforded by the Division, which will take place shortly, to know lust who is speaking for the Conservative Party. Is it the voice of higher education represented by the hon. Members for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), or is it the voice of the hon. Member for Macclesfield? Is the hon. Gentleman's proposal to carry the stamp of support of Conservative Members? I expect to have the support of not only Conservative Members but those in other parts of the House in maintaining a system that has worked extremely well in universities over many years and of which I have never heard criticism from any other quarter.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nominations of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 227.

Division No. 259]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Bulmer, Esmond

Bell, Ronald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Burden, F. A.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Budgen, Nick

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Cockcroft, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Cope,John

Kimball, Marcus

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Farr, John

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Fell, Anthony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shepherd, Colin

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fox, Marcus

Lawson, Nigel

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lloyd, Ian

Spence, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCrindle, Robert

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marten, Neil

Tebbit, Norman

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mayhew, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Griffiths, Eldon

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Morgan, Geraint

Warren, Kenneth

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Whitney, Raymond

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nelson, Anthony

Wiggin, Jerry

Hodgson, Robin

Neubert, Michael

Younger, Hon George

Holland, Philip

Normanton, Tom

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Osborn, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

Jessel, Toby

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Mr. Michael Brotherton.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

MacCormick, Iain

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Ashley, Jack

Evans, John (Newton)

McElhone, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Maclennan, Robert

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Bates, Alf

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Beith, A. J.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Magee, Bryan

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Bidwell, Sydney

Forman, Nigel

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Maynard, Miss Joan

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mikardo, Ian

Bradley, Tom

Golding, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gould, Bryan

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Graham, Ted

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Molloy, William

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Grocott, Bruce

Moonman, Eric

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Buchan, Norman

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Buchanan, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Newens, Stanley

Canavan, Dennis

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Noble, Mike

Carmichael, Neil

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Oakes, Gordon

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hayman, Mrs Helene

O'Halloran, Michael

Clemitson, Ivor

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Onslow, Cranley

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Heffer, Eric S.

Orbach, Maurice

Cohen, Stanley

Henderson, Douglas

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Coleman, Donald

Horam, John

Pardoe, John

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Park, George

Cormack, Patrick

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Parker, John

Cowans, Harry

Huckfield, Les

Parry, Robert

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pavitt, Laurie

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pendry, Tom

Crawford, Douglas

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Perry, Ernest

Cronin, John

Hunter, Adam

Phipps, Dr Colin

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Prescott, John

Cryer, Bob

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Davidson, Arthur

John Brynmor

Price, William (Rugby)

Deakins, Eric

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Radice, Giles

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Reid, George

Dempsey, James

Judd, Frank

Richardson, Miss Jo

Dewar, Donald

Kelley, Richard

Rifkind, Malcolm

Doig, Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dormand, J. D.

Knox, David

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lambie, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Dunn, James A.

Lamond, James

Robinson, Geoffrey

Dunnett, Jack

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Edge, Geoff

Lestor, Miss John (Eton & Slough)

Podgers, George (Chorley)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rooker, J. W.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Litterick, Tom

Roper, John

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Loyden, Eddie

Rose, Paul B.

English, Michael

Luard, Evan

Ryman, John

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Hugh

Sandelson, Neville

1516

1517

Sedgemore, Brian

Strang, Gavin

Watkinson, John

Selby, Harry

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Watt, Hamish

Sever, John

Swain, Thomas

Weetch, Ken

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Weitzman, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Thompson, George

Whitehead, Phillip

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Whitlock, William

Silverman, Julius

Tierney, Sydney

Wigley, Dafydd

Silvester, Fred

Tinn, James

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Skinner, Dennis

Tomlinson, John

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

Torney, Tom

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Tuck, Raphael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Snape, Peter

Urwin, T. W.

Woodall, Alec

Spearing, Nigel

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Woof, Robert

Spriggs, Leslie

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Stallard, A. W.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Stoddart, David

Watkins, David

Mr, Bryan Davies.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  FINANCE BILL
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee),further considered.
  FINANCE BILL
    Clause 9

      REGISTRATION
      4.7 p.m.
      Mr. John Cope: I beg to move amendment no. 44, in page 8, line 10, leave out "£8,500" and insert "£9,500".
      This is a simple but important amendment dealing with the level above which a trader pays value added tax. This level is known as the registration level. It is the cloud base of the tax. Below it the trader is clear, but once he is above the level his operation enters the foggy regions of VAT forms, the special scheme for retailers and so forth.
      In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would raise the registration level to £10,000. The innocent bystander might have assumed that as a result of that and of the Bill which implements that promise, those traders with a turnover below £10,000 would be out of the tax and that those with a turnover over £10,000 would be in it. But that is only true for new businesses. An existing business which is already registered must remain registered unless its turnover falls below £8,500. The effective cloud base for all existing businesses is not £10,000 but £8,500.
      The principle of the provision is not new. It goes back to the introduction of VAT in 1972. The limit then for new registration was £5,000 but if a trader's turnover fell below £5,000 it could not be deregistered until turnover fell below £4,250. At the beginning of the tax the effect of this provision was different. Nobody was registered before 1972 so nobody with a turnover under £5,000 needed to register.
      Today every trader with a turnover of over £7,500 is registered. Those with a turnover of over £8,500 cannot deregister unless the amendment is carried. Without the amendment every trader with a turnover of over £8,500 will still be en-
      1520
      meshed in the tax. The £10,000 limit will apply only to new or fast-growing companies.
      My hon. Friends and I have gone some way to try to meet the Government in the hope of persuading them to accept the amendment. We propose a deregistration level of £9,500. In other words, we have proposed that the original deregistration margin should be lowered from £750, which it was originally, to £500. If unamended the Bill proposes to increase it to £1,500.
      If the amendment is carried, I do not expect that a vast army of traders will deregister only to reregister again very soon on having gone over the £10,000 limit. I do not believe that there is a vast army of so-called yo-yo traders who go in and out in this way. Traders would remain registered voluntarily if they were likely soon to exceed the £10,000 limit, and they would know as well as anyone whether that would happen. It would be most helpful if the Financial Secretary could give us the numbers of traders who in the past have gone in and out again in that way. I do not believe that the number is as large as it might at first seem.
      It has been increasingly realised that the so-called compliance costs of VAT—the expenses involved to the taxpayer, to the registered trader and to his customers in filling out the forms and so on—are very high, particularly for traders with a small turnover. In many such cases the compliance costs are higher than the tax collected, and great attention is being paid by the Customs and Excise and others outside to finding ways of simplifying the tax. In its wisdom the Chair did not select new clause No. 62 which I and and one of my hon. Friends tabled which would have gone a long way to simplifying the tax. That, however, is another matter which I had better not pursue too far.
      Lest anyone should be concerned, I do not think that anything in the Common Market rules relating to VAT inhibits us from raising the deregistration limit, the effective cloud base of the tax, not only to £9,500, as proposed by the amendment, but to £10,000 or even more if we wished.
      My hon. Friends and I, in proposing the amendment, have sought to be

      1521
      reasonable. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and that it will commend itself to the House.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: The Scottish National Party has always sought in this House to raise the basic threshold at which VAT becomes payable. When it stood at £5,000 we sought to increase it to £7,500. When it was £7,500 we sought to raise it to £10,000. Now it is £10,000 we would wish to raise it further. As usual on most matters connected with these Bills, we were opposed by the Government, and the Conservatives abstained. I am delighted that the Conservatives are apparently prepared to press this matter to a vote.
      This issue concerns a vital part of industry—the small entrepreneur and trader. We have all heard horrific stories from our constituencies of chemists and other small traders burning the midnight or Sunday afternoon oil working out VAT returns. I accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) about the number of yo-yo traders, or at least the lack of such people. I agree that they are unlikely to be a marked phenomenon.
      The point here is one of principle. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give us an indication of what the amendment would cost. I am sure that the amount would be very small. Goodness knows, the cloud base of £9,500 is low enough. We shall be happy to support the amendment.
      Mr. Tony Newton: I, too, support the amendment. It is relevant to an argument that I advanced in Standing Committee on the general issue of qualification for deregistration from VAT. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) has concentrated on the annual figure for deregistration—the fact that turnover has to fall to £1,500 below the £10,000 registration figure. As I explained in Standing Committee, to the surprise of some hon. Members, a more complicated situation could arise because of the difference between the annual deregistration limit of £8,500, and the quarterly deregistration limit which is £2,500—exactly a quarter of the annual registration limit.
      1522
      I apologise for the complexity of the argument, but it is necessary to put these facts to show that it is possible for a trader to be for several years below the annual deregistration threshold of £8,500 but, if he has a seasonal trade, occasionally to rise above the £2,500 in one quarter. The effect of having a relatively high turnover in one quarter of the year can be to keep him permanently trapped inside the VAT system. He is below the annual deregistration limit, but because he is not consistently below the quarterly limit he is forced to remain registered.
      4.15 p.m.
      It may be said that my case is farfetched and that it is but a theoretical possibility. However, I have a constituent to whom this has happened. He was below the annual registration and deregistration levels. However, his trade was seasonal, and in one quarter every year he rose above the quarterly deregistration limit and he could not escape from the system. The Customs and Excise demanded substantial sums from him for payment of VAT over a number of years. His problem was ultimately resolved because the Customs and Excise adopted a reasonable attitude after I had written to it about the matter. Earlier changes in the VAT figures rescued him from his plight.
      One way of dealing with this situation is to narrow the gap between the registration threshold and the deregistration threshold. My hon. Friend's amendment would help and I am glad to support it.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I wish to support the amendent and to associate myself with the arguments whicht have been advanced, particularly that put forward by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). I shall offer the Minister an example from my constituency which is similar to the horrors described by the hon. Member for Braintree. My constituent was a taxi proprietor. He was an honest man and, being uncertain whether he would exceed the £10,000 limit and not wishing to break the law, he registered. He did not achieve the amount of turnover for which he had hoped and he has since encountered difficulties. He has had to reduce his car fleet from two vehicles to one, and now he

      1523
      finds that the one advantage he had anticipated of shedding the complexities of VAT will not be achieved.
      It is the fair man who will be penalised. That must be a bad principle to guide the Inland Revenue. I should like some clarification. What does the Inland Revenue do to put such injustices right? Normally if tax is overpaid or underpaid in one year the matter can be adjusted in subsequent years by claims either way. Is there not some method of putting this right, or is a taxpayer to be kept in a permanent trap? It is impertinent to use the possibility of a few people being yo-yo traders as a yardstick for a section of some of the most industrious workers in society.
      In Scotland, the self-employed and small business sector is vital to combat depopulation. There are six times as many small traders per head in Scotland as in England. If they go out of business in a small community, the whole community suffers. If a small shop closes, a village can die. If the garage stops selling petrol, there is no village because no one wants to live there; then there are no children, so the school closes.
      All over the great valleys in my constituency I could show the Financial Secretary such villages and communities. He would be as saddened by them as I am.
      As a class, these people have many penalties to bear. They are already tax collectors and form fillers for the Government. To penalise them still further will increase not only depopulation but unemployment. They are discouraged from taking on more staff if they are permanently worried about these matters. The picture is bad enough already without making it worse. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the plight of people such as my constituents.
      Mr. Richard Page: In supporting the amendment, I think that we should initially consider it in a slightly broader context. At first sight, it does not seem overwhelmingly important, but if we consider it as a strand of the rope which ties the hands of our small and middle-sized businesses, we can see that it is vital to slacken the strand or to break it altogether.
      1524
      The small and medium business, the self-employed and the professional man make a contribution to our GNP without which our economy would collapse. This sector is important, but we are not as successful here as the rest of the EEC, where smaller businesses dominate the economy and make a far greater contribution. Thus, our smaller businesses need to be encouraged and revitalised to provide the expansion of our economy and, hopefully, the future improvements of our hospitals, schools and social services which are so vital.
      In that light, the amendment becomes far more important. It should be one of a series of relaxations in this area. Now that the Government are converted to the cause of smaller businesses, I hope that they will allow the necessary relaxation when it comes to the vote.
      I wish that we could follow the example of the Continent and give this sector a far snappier and "with-it" title. They use the expression EMSU—the European Middle and Small Business Union. Such a name would help to bring the importance of this sector home to our people.
      This sector is the only one able to provide the growth of manufacturing and services which is needed to feed our economy. For too long we have slavishly followed the cult of "big is better" instead of "small is beautiful". Nationalised industries and big companies are busily reducing staff and going briskly down the road to more and more automation. The small point raised in the amendment could help the growth of employment and productivity, and thus eventually the improvement of our social services.
      It has already been said that small companies and individuals affected by the amendment are the seed corn. That is a corny expression, but we should look to this area to provide the fresh fields of activity by means of which our economy will grow.
      These businesses fall effectively into two groups. The first is the small corner shop run by a widow to augment her pension or by one partner while the other goes out to work. The second group comprises the self-employed man charging directly for his labour or someone struggling to launch his own business.

      1525
      It is unlikely that we shall see vast employment prospects in the case of the small shop, and here I support the amendment purely on grounds of economy. In the extreme case of £10,000 turnover, assuming a gross profit of 30 per cent., the difference in VAT amounts to tax on the difference between £1,000 and £700. Bluntly, it is not worth the midnight oil for the trader or the VAT inspector's time calling once a quarter to pick up about £25 a month. In that light, is it worth all this trouble about registration or deregistration? We must be far more liberal and lax in this matter. In those figures, I have not taken into account the fact that most corner shops sell many zero-rated items.
      We must give the second group—the self-employed and the small business man struggling to start—every encouragement, opportunity and hope. We must remove these obstacles. It is not worth making people fiddle around with a few pounds VAT late at night if it is prejudicing the country's future. We should let the tree grow before we start picking the fruit. I hope that the amendment will help this sector to grow.
      Mr. David Price: I support everything said by my hon. Friends and by the two Scottish National Party members. It is clear to all of us that even now the VAT threshold is too low. The public are ant to forget that the threshold relates not to profitability or to personal income but to turnover. Average male industrial earnings are £80 a week or £4,000 a year. If one makes a net profit on turnover of 10 per cent., one needs about £40,000 turnover to get the same personal income. That is worth remembering.
      Secondly, the sheer cost of administration of small taxpayers is not worth the candle. This effect goes all through our affairs. If the Government are serious about trying to reduce bureaucracy, they must be generous on the margin of taxation.
      Thirdly, the other aspect of the same coin is the de minimis rule. The sheer cost of administering the bottom of the pyramid is vast compared with the amount of revenue involved.
      Finally, there is the amount of "aggro" that this causes among people who have
      1526
      the greatest difficulty in coping with the complexity of VAT anyway.
      These are entirely convincing reasons for the Government to relent. The amendment would not give much away. It would merely raise the deregistration point to nearly the same as the threshold. It seems a modest concession and I can see that the Financial Secretary is about to accept it.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): We have had a useful debate, but many of the points made—valid though they are so far as they relate to hon. Members' knowledge of their constituents—have been concerned with the registration limit, which is not before us today. That limit has been raised in this Finance Bill to practically the highest level permitted under the Community rules.
      Hon. Members have been mainly concerned about the gap between the level for registration and the level for deregistration. We have substantially increased the registration limit from £7,500 to £10,000 and the deregistration limit rather more, proportionately, from £6,000 to £8,500. Our reasons for doing so are largely the reasons that hon. Members have given.
      The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), in a reasonable and useful contribution, put a point that I should like to emphasise. I believe that as people learn to understand VAT, its terrors will diminish. Some people wish rightly to deregister and we want them to do so, but for others it would be wrong to deregister because there are certain advantages for some people in staying registered.
      4.30 p.m.
      The obvious advantage of registration is in respect of sales to other companies and individuals who are registered for tax and who can receive allowable inputs in respect of purchases from registered traders but cannot do so in respect of unregistered traders. This is slowly becoming more widely understood.
      We have seen this understanding growing in the reception given to recent changes. In October 1977, as a result of raising the registration and deregistration limits, 43,000 traders were able to derigister. Out of that figure, only 9,000

      1527
      actually derigistered. As a result of the provisions of this Bill, 90,000 will be able to derigister, if they wish, and we expect that about 13,000 out of that figure are likely to derigister. This is an indication that the desire to derigister is nothing like as great as it was when the tax was introduced.
      Mr. Nigel Lawson: The Minister mentioned a figure of 90,000 as being entitled to derigister. As I understand it, that is on the basis of the £8,500 derigistration limit. If this amendment were to be agreed and the deregistration limit were to be raised to £9,500, how many more would be entitled to deregister?
      Mr. Sheldon: These are only rough estimates and I do not wish to be held to them precisely. However, the figures could amount to 20,000 more deregistrations, out of a total of 1,400,000 trades registered for VAT.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) said that a number of people were burning the midnight oil working out their VAT. Naturally, there will always be some people who are in the early stages of their business, so the hon. Gentleman made a valid point, but the simplifications which have been introduced, particularly the latest, will reduce these administrative difficulties and increase comprehension. I see this as essentially a declining problem, although it will remain with us.
      Let me give a little of the background. In 1972 the deregistration limit was fixed at 20 per cent. lower than the registration limit. That proportion was maintained up to the publication of this Bill. In this Bill we increased the deregistration limit proportionally more, so that it is only 15 per cent. lower than the registration limit. That means that we have narrowed the gap in proportional terms. The reasons why have alreardy been adduced in this debate.
      Mr. Cope: The Minister is correct to say that the gap in proportional terms has been narrowed, but has been vastly increased in financial terms. In cash terms it has been doubled since 1972.
      Mr. Sheldon: That argument would not commend itself to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). In indexation terms it is probably best to talk in percentages so that we can obtain a more
      1528
      direct comparison. In real money terms, as well as in percentage terms the gap has been narrowed. The deregistration limit gives an option to certain traders. Some may wish to deregister, and some may have the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) who referred to the yo-yo traders who go in and out of VAT registration. But there are problems involved in narrowing the gap. As one increases the deregistration limit, there will be people who feel that it is an advantage to deregister but who subsequently find they have to come into registration.
      Mr. John Pardoe: The argument is not about the gap, but whether there needs to be a gap and whether the arguments for the gap are valid. It may be that they were valid in 1972, but are they still valid today? Since the Minister made such a point about the fact that so few of those who can go in and out actually do so and the fact that they stay in and register, is it not likely that few traders will go in and out even if there is no gap at all? What estimate has he made to that end?
      Mr. Sheldon: I shall be coming to that point. I agree with many of the hon. Member's comments. Our assessment is that under the arrangements we have proposed, about 10 per cent. of all traders who are able to deregister will reregister at a subsequent date. Therefore, 10 per cent. of those traders will be bridging that gap. The purposes of the gap is to prevent large numbers of traders going in and out of registration. The larger the gap the more one stops people going in and out. On the other hand, the smaller the gap the more one allows people to deregister.
      Therefore, we have a compromise between the desire for a big gap to avoid people coming in and out of VAT liability and the desire for a small gap in order to get as many people as wish to do so to deregister. If people are uncertain whether to deregister, I would point out that some people have deregistered and have subsequently found that they should not have taken that step. That produces more problems for them and for their advisers.
      There are benefits of registration which are becoming more widely understood. As people become accustomed to VAT,

      1529
      and as these benefits are understood, I believe that it may be right to move in the direction of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) so that the gap grows narrower and narrower and may even be extinguished. By making a first step towards narrowing the gap and towards its eventual possible extinction, we have made a useful move. I believe that it should stand.
      Mr. Lawson: We have had a useful and brief debate. It is a debate about the very smallest business men of all. We are referring to one-man business—the single trader. The fact that they are in that category entitles them to no less care and attention from the House of Commons than we give to any other category of business man. Therefore, it was encouraging that my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), Braintree (Mr. Newton), Workington (Mr. Page) and Eastleigh (Mr. Price), and no fewer than two Members of the SNP, took part in this debate.
      The Minister made a curious statement in his closing comments. He said that we should move in the direction of narrowing the gap further, and possibly eliminating it altogether. But we have already had put before us an amendment which will have that precise effect. It will narrow the gap betwen the threshold of registration and the deregistration figure from £1,500 to £500. Instead of accepting it, the Minister apparently is not prepared to do so.
      That is very surprising. I suspect that the yo-yo trader is a largely mythical beast. The trader who is always popping in and out of registration, because his turnover is oscillating around the £10,000 figure as it now is, is an unlikely figure. It is too much trouble for him; it is not worth his while. After all, he is not forced to deregister. If he thinks that he will come back into registration, he will not go through the palaver and bother of deregistering.
      The Minister said that studies showed that 10 per cent. of people might deregister and then reregister, but that does not tell us about the number who do that. I think that the numbers will be very few.
      Whereas this is something mythical, what is real is the trap mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brain-
      1530
      tree and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. People are caught in this trap. The raising of the deregistration figure is the simplest way of avoiding that trap. Having got below the registration figure people are compelled to remain registered because the quarterly requirement is too high to enable them to deregister.
      I think that it is worth mentioning the history of this matter. The Conservative Opposition moved a new clause last year to raise the threshold of registration for value added tax to £10,000. Unfortunately, that was not accepted by the Government. Indeed, it was defeated because on that occasion the Liberal Party insisted that the threshold should be £7,500, not £10,000. Because the Liberal Party was not prepared to support the £10,000 threshold, the small business sector was forced to wait until this year before the Government—they often pick up our ideas a year later, but this time they will not have the opportunity to do so because they will not be in office—emerged with the £10,000 threshold.
      Mr. Pardoe: At no point in any of his speeches on this matter have I ever heard the hon. Gentleman ask how many extra bureaucrats would have had to be hired last year to raise the threshold to £10,000. Since I was given that specific reason, I settled for £7,500 and did so in two steps. Is the hon. Gentleman interested in reducing or increasing the numbers of bureaucrats?
      Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will explain—preferably on some other occasion—why the numbers of bureaucrats required for the £10,000 threshold one year should be different from the numbers required for the £10,000 threshold the next year. The truth is that the more people who are out of VAT, the fewer bureaucrats are needed and the smaller the compliance costs. If fewer traders are registered for VAT, clearly we need fewer people to collect the VAT from those traders. I should have thought that was clear, even to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
      Presumably the Government—a year late, as I said—decided to raise the VAT registration threshold to £10,000 because they wanted fewer people registered. The Government said that they wanted to go as far as they could, consistent with the

      1531
      sixth directive of the European Community. Yet here is an opportunity, by accepting the amendment, for another 20,000 traders to be deregistered—that was the Financial Secretary's figure—and that is wholly within the terms of the sixth directive. There is nothing in the sixth directive which would prevent the Government from doing that. Yet they have decided not to do it.
      I believe that the Financial Secretary's argument was wholly inadequate. Indeed, it was largely self-contradictory. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South will press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 255.

      Division No. 260]

      AYES

      [4.46 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Loveridge, John

      Alison, Michael

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Arnold, Tom

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Galbraith Hon T. G. D.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      MacGregor, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Banks, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Bell, Ronald

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Madel, David

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Benyon, W.

      Gorst, John

      Marten, Neil

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Maude, Angus

      Biffen, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Blaker, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Body, Richard

      Grieve, Percy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Moate Roger

      Brittan, Leon

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro, Hector

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hannam,John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan Geraint

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Buck, Antony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Channon, Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Newton, Tony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Normanton, Tom

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Holland, Philip

      Nott, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hordern. Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Cockcroft, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Osborn, John

      Cope, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Corrie, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Crouch, David

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      James, David

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Jessel, Toby

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Raison, Timothy

      Durant, Tony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rathbone, Tim

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Reid, George

      Elliott, Sir William

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rhodes James, R.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Knox, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Fell, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Stanley, John

      Wall, Patrick

      Scott, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Walters, Dennis

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Watt, Hamish

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wells, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Whitney, Raymond

      Silvester, Fred

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sims, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Trotter, Neville

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Spence, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Younger, Hon George

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wakeham, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Sir George Young.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Dormand, J. D.

      Judd, Frank

      Allaun, Frank

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Anderson, Donald

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kelley, Richard

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunn, James A.

      Kerr, Russell

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ashley, Jack

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alex

      Lambie, David

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lamond, James

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      English, Michael

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Bates, Alf

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Bean, R. E.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Litterick, Tom

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Flannery, Martin

      McElhone, Frank

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ford, Ben

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Bradley, Tom

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Magee, Bryan

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      George, Bruce

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Buchan, Norman

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Golding, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Gould, Bryan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Campbell, Ian

      Gourlay, Harry

      Meacher, Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Molloy, William

      Coleman, Donald

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Moonman, Eric

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Corbett, Robin

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Cowans, Harry

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hooley, Frank

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Horam, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Noble, Mike

      Cronin, John

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cryer, Bob

      Huckfield, Les

      Ogden, Eric

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Padley, Walter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Park, George

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parker, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Parry, Robert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      John Brynmor

      Pendry, Tom

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Perry, Ernest

      Dempsey, James

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Prescott, John

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      1534

      1535

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Radice, Giles

      Silverman, Julius

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Snape, Peter

      Watkins, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Watkinson, John

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Weetch, Ken

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stallard, A. W.

      Weitzman, David

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stoddart, David

      White, James (Pollok)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Rooker, J. W.

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Whitlock, William

      Roper, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Rose, Paul B.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Ryman, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Woof, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tierney, Sydney

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Selby, Harry

      Tilley, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Sever, John

      Tomlinson, John

      Shaw. Arnold (llford South)

      Tomney, Frank

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 20, at end insert:
      '(4) In paragraph 11 of that Schedule (discretionary registration) the existing provisions shall become sub-paragraph (1) and after those provisions there shall be inserted—
      "(2) Where the Commissioners refuse to act or to continue to act on a request made by a person under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, they shall give him written notice of their decision and of the grounds on which it was made.";
      and in section 40(1) of the said Act of 1972 (appeals) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted—
      "(gg) any refusal to act or to continue to act on a request under paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to this Act;".'.
      The object of the amendment is, first, to require the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, if they refuse a request for voluntary registration to a VAT trader, to
      1536
      give the reasons for their refusal in writing, and, secondly, to make the refusal appealable to a VAT tribunal.
      The amendment serves to make clear both that a decision will be given in writing and that there is a right of appeal to a VAT tribunal. This meets the undertaking I gave the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) in the Standing Committee debate.
      Mr. Lawson: It is regrettable that the last Division was lost as a result of the Liberals' abstention, but at least we welcome the honouring of the undertaking the Financial Secretary gave upstairs in Committee in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). We welcome the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      BAD DEBT RELIEF
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: I beg to move amendment no. 112, in page 8, line 31, after 'and', insert 'either'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 171, in page 8, line 33, leave out become insolvent' and insert 'defaulted in payment thereof'.
      No. 113, in line 33, after 'insolvent', insert:
      ';or
      (c)(i) in the case of a company, a receiver has been appointed under the express power contained in debentures or a trust deed or by court; or
      (ii) in the case of an individual or body corporate, the person liable to pay the outstanding amount has entered into an arrangement with his creditors.'
      No. 45, in line 40, at end insert:
      '(a) the Inland Revenue have agreed that the outstanding amount is irrecoverable for income tax or corporation tax purposes; or'.
      No. 46, in line 40, at end insert:
      '(a) the outstanding amount is less than £1,000 and has been agreed by the Inland Revenue for the purposes of income tax or corporation tax as irrecoverable; or'.
      No. 172, in line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
      '(a) he has obtained judgment for the outstanding amount and satisfies the Commissioners that he has taken all reasonable steps to recover the amount but has not recovered it.'.
      No. 114, in line 41 after '(a)' insert
      'in the circumstances in subsection 1 (b) of this section.'
      No. 115, in line 43 at end insert'
      'or
      (aa) in the circumstances in subsection 1(c) of this section, he has provided proof to the Commissioners that a receiver has been appointed or sufficient details of the arrangement to show that he is unlikely to receive the outstanding amount within two years.'.
      No. 173, in page 9, line 25 leave out subsection (4).
      No. 47, in line 41 at end insert
      'or a receiver is appointed'.
      1538
      No. 174, in page 10, line 5 leave out subsection (6).
      No. 116, in line 6, at end insert
      'or in the circumstances in 1(c)of this section a receiver is appointed or an arrangement made'
      No. 117, in line 7, at end add—
      '(7) Where a claim has been made under this section and the Commissioners have made a refund of tax and subsequently the claimant receives money or moneys' worth from the person liable to pay for the goods or services, the claimant shall be deemed to make a taxable supply at that time equal to the amount received less the value added tax that would be payable on such taxable supply.'.
      Mr. Stewart: Clause 10, to which this amendment and the other amendments in the group refer, provides relief for VAT on bad debts, but in a rather limited way. It is limited to cases of formal insolvency. This has raised the possibility that there may be some very unfortunate side effects because of the incentive to creditors to put companies into liquidation.
      The purpose of the six amendments, nos. 112–117, is to provide for an alternative to formal insolvency, in the shape of receivership or arrangements with creditors. These are very technical matters, and therefore I will, if I may, say a word or two about their effect.
      The amendments are intended to widen the provisions of the clause so that the regulations apply to a second class of persons, other than when the debtor is in formal insolvency, this new class being those in the hands of a receiver or where an arrangement has been made.
      To do this, it is necessary to introduce a paving amendment, no. 112, at the end of subsection (1)(a), to insert the word "either". This has the effect that if the circumstances in paragraph (a) apply, and either those in paragraph (b), where a person is insolvent, or in the new paragraph (c), provided by amendment no. 113, then relief can be given.
      Similarly, in subsection (2), it is necessary to provide that in addition to a person proving an insolvency, allowance is made for the situation in which receivership or a deed of arrangement occurs.
      Amendment no. 114 limits the matter to cases where a person is insolvent. Amendment no. 115 introduces, at the bottom of page 8, a paragraph to deal with the receivership point. The circumstances in paragraphs (b) and (c) at the

      1539
      top of page 9 would then apply whether insolvency or receivership had occurred.
      On page 10, subsection (6) as it stands can apply only where insolvency occurs, and therefore it is necessary to insert further words to deal with the receivership or arrangement. That is covered by amendment no. 116.
      Finally, amendment no. 117 seeks to introduce a new subsection on page 10 to provide that where a claim has been made but a person subsequently recovers money, he pays part of that to Customs and Excise in the form of VAT, and in determining the rate of VAT he would be treated as making a "taxable supply" at the time when he receives the amount. Since the rate of value added tax could be different at that time from the time when the debt was originally incurred, it could be argued that the Government would lose money if that provision were not inserted.
      I apologise for that rather technical introduction, but underlying this there is a very important general point. As I have said, limiting to insolvency the circumstances when VAT on bad debts can be relieved appears to us to be too narrow. In Committee, Conservative Members proposed a number of alternatives which would have widened the scope, either to make any debt which was allowable for income tax also allowable for this purpose, or where a debt was irrecoverable to the satisfaction of the Customs and Excise. Another proposal concerned the position where judgment had been entered for a debt and six months had elapsed without its being recovered. A further possibility was where the conditions for insolvency existed but a petition had not actually been presented.
      These were all ways of trying to get round a point which clause 10 insists upon, that is, that for bad debt relief to be obtainable, the company should be put into liquidation. This, as many have pointed out, is naturally an incentive to creditors to pursue debtor companies into liquidation. It was objected that perhaps 8 per cent. VAT is not a very great incentive to put a company into liquidation, but very often a company in difficulties may have one very substantial creditor. This is particularly the case with small companies which supply to perhaps one major firm. Even
      1540
      though their overall operations may not be very large, they could easily have debts running into tens of thousands of pounds, therefore 8 per cent. of that might be better than recovering nothing, if this course were not followed. I will not repeat the technicalities that I mentioned in Committee, but I refer any hon. Members, interested in the difficulties which are put in the way of the receive, to the Official Report at columns 165 to 166.
      A receiver has the ability to exclude personal liability to himself for the affairs of an ailing company, but this appears to cease once a company goes into liquidation. As the law now stands, a receiver may well be able to resist a petition for the winding-up of a company, with the support of other creditors, but it will become considerably more difficult to do so if clause 10 as it stands comes into play.
      This could have important consequences for employment, because the effect of a compulsory winding-up is to terminate that company's contracts with its employees. From then on, the receiver could continue to trade only by assuming such contracts personally; therefore he would make himself liable not only for redundancy entitlement but also for claims for unfair dismissal and all the obligations of the Employment Protection Act 1975. There would be very greatly increased difficulties of sustaining a company in being in such circumstances and, indeed, of saving jobs and preserving the company's trading connections and goodwill, let alone giving it an opportunity of being nursed back to health.
      The requirements of clause 10 appear to ignore the very important alternative to liquidation which is provided by receivership or moratorium, and that is a deed of arrangement in the case of an individual. This has in past years saved many hundreds of companies and individuals, from Rolls-Royce to Britten-Norman. I think it is fair to say that the principle of receivership is that a going concern has a higher value than one in a position of break-up. There are many cases, going back as far as Earls Court during the war, where businesses have run into liquidity problems and the banks have appointed a receiver, who has then

      1541
      been able to steer them back to profitability without going into liquidation.
      The route of using receivership is used and known and, I believe, favoured in Government circles. Following our debates in Committee, I wrote to the Financial Secretary on this very point on 23rd June 1978. The practical scope and position of a receiver is particularly relevant to the options available to Government when considering proposals for assistance to companies in financial difficulties. Recent examples include West Coast Tanneries in Millom and Rivington Carpets in Bolton. In each case assistance was given to purchasers who were able then to provide the extra management and financial backing which the predecessor business had lacked. As a result, a number of jobs were saved, which would not have been the case if the receiver had ceased to trade.
      When we are considering the point of cost, we have to offset the cost to the Customs and Excise of widening the scope of clause 10 against the obligations which the Government will have to assume for social security payments and other outgoings if more companies are forced into liquidation.
      There was a very important letter in the Financial Times last Thursday. It was signed by the partners of five of the leading City firms of accountants. They said, among other things:
      "For corporate debtors the clause will be destructive of asset values, productive capability and employment. In the case of private individual debtors the effect is equally regrettable. The debtor will be required to be made personally bankrupt before relief is granted and the alternative of a deed of arrangement with creditors will not qualify."
      Those are serious words from an authoritative source, and I hope that the Government will take the point very seriously.
      Finally, I make a small point about timing. The vast majority of companies which enter into receivership pass within two or three years into liquidation, although in the meantime it may well have been possible for the receiver to preserve and to sell a viable business out of the wreck of the company. It follows that in the majority of cases the relief which is being proposed in the Bill would be paid anyway in the long run even if the clause is not to be extended to include
      1542
      receivers. To that extent the cost to the Revenue is only one of financing the difference in time.
      Although this is a technical and complex point, I think that the principle is urgent and important. If we do not remedy this situation now, it has the potential of causing far-reaching damage.
      Mr. Graham Page: Clause 10, which purports to give relief for bad debts, would be welcome if it really carried out that purpose, but the restrictions on the use of the clause are so great that I doubt whether it will be of any real benefit. It is restrictive because in order to prove the bad debt, the creditor has to prove that the debtor is insolvent. Further in the clause, the creditor can prove that insolvency only by showing that he has sent the individual bankrupt or has wound up the company.
      Perhaps I may refer to a later clause, clause 41, without debating it but merely quoting part of it. It is a peculiar thing that when we are talking about bad debts in relation to capital gains tax, they are described in this way:
      "the inspector is satisfied that any outstanding amount of the principal of the loan has become irrecoverable."
      That, of course, is the general rule in taxation in proving bad debts and having them allowed against profits. But I cannot see why there should be this great distinction between normal tax law and VAT. One knows, of course, that the Customs and Excise are laws unto themselves, as it were, but they really do not need all this protection that is given to them in the clause, as they could be otherwise satisfied that the debt is irrecoverable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) has, in his usual way, set forth very clearly compromise proposals—that one should go halfway and that if a receiver is appointed or if a deed of arrangement is made, that should be sufficient. With great respect to him, however, I do not see any reason why one should even go that distance in compromise. I therefore call attention to amendment no. 171, in which the insolvency could be proved merely by default. This is going straight back to the ordinary tax rules, and I hope that they will be accepted.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Neville Trotter: I declare an interest in that I have acted as both receiver and liquidator in a number of unfortunate cases. There are, in fact, about 1,000 companies a year which end up in the hands of a receiver. They tend to be companies of a substantial nature because the debenture holder, who normally appoints, will not do so unless there are substantial assets. I believe that it would not be right to say that a receiver can normally save the company in its existing form. What he can often do is to save the business and transfer that business into more competent hands for the future. One of the effects of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) said, is that employment is continued. I should have thought that that would be a consideration of great concern to the present Government.
      Again, speaking with experience of these matters, I believe that my hon. Friend was absolutely right in saying that a receiver is very unwilling to continue to operate after a liquidator has been appointed because the receiver is then personally liable.
      Therefore, I fully support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend and I believe, as an accountant, that all members of my profession who have experience of these matters would do the same.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has highlighted the problem here—namely, Customs and Excise. I hate to say it, but I think that all of us in the House accept the fact that the Inland Revenue goes about its business in the most sophisticated and civilised way. Anyone who remembers the correspondence between the late A. P. Herbert and the inspector of taxes, which was carried on in verse in the columns of The Times, about a tax bill that he felt he could not or should not pay, will realise that provided one plays according to the rules of the game, the Inland Revenue carries on its business in a fairly civilised way.
      However, one can hardly say the same about the Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise were set up to deal with piracy and smuggling, and they have not really got this approach out of their blood yet. I
      1544
      agree that in dealing with the Inland Revenue the citizens of this country probably adopt a fairly sophisticated approach. The most law abiding citizen, when faced with the Customs man, immediately believes that smuggling is almost legitimate. So perhaps there is an approach on the part of the citizen to the Customs and Excise that is different from his approach to the Inland Revenue. This is reflected in the way that the Customs and Excise go about collecting their debts.
      I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) has proposed a thoroughly reasonable compromise. I should like to see him being a lot more reasonable. I am very conscious of the fact that when I was an undergraduate I used to get letters from the Society for the Protection of Trade. I remember a friend of mine papering all the walls of his room with letters from that society. These were about bills from traders which were unpaid, and I should have thought that if the trader was proceeding to take the necessary steps to recover his debt by referring it to the Society for the Protection of Trade in order to collect that debt, that ought to be a sufficient reason for the Customs and Excise not to demand that the debt should be paid.
      As I understand it, VAT is a tax on the invoice. It is not a tax on having sold the goods. It is not a tax on having made a profit. It is a tax on having invoiced the goods. There is nothing immoral in taking the maximum amount of credit from any trader who is mug enough to give it. Traders are extremely stupid in the way that they grant credit, and they deserve everything that is coming to them in that way. But what is totally immoral is for the Customs and Excise to take money from a person when he has not actually got it.
      Parliament used to feel very strongly about no taxation without representation. I feel extremely strongly about the immorality of the Customs and Excise seizing debts and attempting to take money from someone who has not actually got it. I entirely support my hon. Friend and I wish that he had gone further with his amendment.
      Mr. Pardoe: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) was referring to the Inland Revenue in a

      1545
      previous age. I am not sure that I would draw this rigid distinction between the civilisation of the Inland Revenue and the ferocity of the Customs and Excise. Certainly the Customs and Excise earned their reputation in Cornwall in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They were little better than brigands. Some of my constituents have the same view of officers of the Inland Revenue today. I fear that they may have been infected by the manners and habits of the Customs and Excise. Certainly A. P. Herbert's correspondence, civilised as it was, and even rhyming as it was, happened a long time ago. I am not entirely convinced that the Inland Revenue would know how to rhyme today.
      I welcome the bad debt relief in the Bill. It always seemed crazy, to anyone looking in from outside who had not taken a detailed part in the formulation of VAT, that a man could be taxed on what he had not received. The hon. Member for Gainsborough is right. It is when one considers that it is not a tax on a sale or a tax on a receipt, that one realises that it is neither an expenditure tax nor a sales tax, but is an invoice tax.
      It was for that reason that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), I think, defended at some length, in the original debates way back in 1972, the principle that the Customs and Excise should be able to keep the money even though the man had never received the goods. We have to ask why a Conservative Government then, with all the advice that was available to them, decided that bad debt relief of any kind at all was impossible—and they did.
      The argument is pretty strong. I must admit that at times I have even been convinced by it. But in the last few months I have managed not to be convinced by it. There is a very strong case indeed for doing what the Government have done, and I am delighted that they have done it. But the problem, which in 1972 caused the Conservative Government to do what they did is that a whole host of fiddles could creep in if one were not able to define the bad debt very narrowly indeed. It was on this point that in 1972 the argument took place. Interestingly enough, it was on this point that the Conservative Party's own discussion document on VAT and
      1546
      bad debt relief centred. That discussion document came to the conclusion that it would have to be a bad debt proved by insolvency which would be relieved and that if one went wider than that, all these various fiddles would creep in.
      I am convinced by that Conservative Party discussion document. The Inland Revenue appears to have been convinced by it, and the Government appear to have been convinced by it. I think that the clause as it stands in the Bill is a great advance on the VAT which we had before. I wholeheartedly welcome it. I do not think that we should go down the road of these amendments, because there are a host of things which unseemly characters will be able to do. Some hon. Members may actually welcome that because it would ensure that the taxpayer got even with Customs and Excise. I might even be fairly sympathetic to that view, but I do not think that we should do this. Instead, I believe that we should accept the bad debt relief as provided for in the Bill.
      Mr. John Wakeham: While I welcome the relief from VAT given for bad debts in this clause, I must say that there are aspects of the clause which make me more unhappy than virtually any other aspect of this Finance Bill. I cannot see what sense there is in making a man bankrupt when there is no money to be obtained. This seems to be entirely out of spirit with the times. Unless there can be a very good reason for it, I am not at all satisfied. The same applies to liquidations. What sense is there in liquidation when there are no assets to arrive at?
      If there had not been well established over a long time—I do not accept that this will result in a great many fiddles—a perfectly satisfactory system for dealing with bad debts in our income tax and corporation tax legislation, which could be perfectly well used in this particular case, I would then accept that there could be an argument in favour of what the Government propose. However, we have a precedent which is perfectly satisfactory.
      Indeed, I looked up the position under the old purchase tax arrangements, because a great deal of what is contained in VAT legislation has sprung from purchase tax. So far as I can discover,

      1547
      it is quite clear that in purchase tax there was no statutory provision for bad debts. But an extra-statutory concession was available. From researches that I have made over the last 24 hours, I know that there are known examples of extra-statutory concessions which would have been far less restrictive than the arrangements for VAT made statutorily under this clause.
      Mr. David Mitchell: In those extra-statutory arrangements which in practice exist, would my hon. Friend include the practice which goes on in a number of companies which, when they see a bad debt coming, issue a credit note so that no VAT becomes liable on transactions? Since I understand that that is fairly widespread, I do not know whether the Minister intends to condone it by putting into law or whether my hon. Friend includes it in the extra-statutory arrangements.
      Mr. Wakeham: As far as I understand it, the position is that a credit note, which is put through the books purely in order to get VAT back in this fashion, would not be a valid transaction. I think that a credit note, which is an adjustment of the invoice price arrived at in circumstances to assist the debtor and so on, would be legitimate. That is obviously a way in which some people have quite properly dealt with this problem. But the area between what is allowed and what is not allowed is narrow, although it is quite clear. I certainly would not condone a system whereby artificial transactions were put through. Everyone faced with this situation ought to take proper advice as to what arrangements he can legitimately make. Therefore, I condemn these very restrictive proposals, not only because they do not compare well with income tax but because in practice they do not even compare with what was available under the old purchase tax arrangements.
      When he replied in Committee, the Minister used as his principal argument the question of cost. He said that under the concessions in the Bill it would cost £35 million and that if he were to concede what we had asked for it would cost £100 million. While I know that the Financial Secretary would not have worked out these figures himself, and that he has to accept a great deal of what is
      1548
      given to him, I believe that we ought to look for a minute at the implications of what he is saying, because I find that it strains my credibility to the utmost.
      He is saying that there would be an extra £65 million of concessions. When we are talking about an 8 per cent. VAT, it is not a very complicated sum to work out that that represents £800 million of outstanding debt upon which some relief on VAT would be obtained because it is a bad debt. Is the Minister saying that people are unlikely to claim these debts by putting companies into receivership or making debtors bankrupt? Is he saying that these debts will be written off and that this particular relief will not have to be given by the Revenue? I find that figure incredible, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give me a further explanation as to how it was arrived at.
      There are one or two practical points which have not yet been covered. We have already made the valuable and significant point with regard to receivership and the effect on employment. The same point can be made in relation to the ability to organise a moratorium in appropriate cases. In many companies many difficult situations are dealt with by unofficial moratoria of one sort or another. These, too, will be thrown into great difficulty by this legislation where this relief is available only in cases of bankruptcy.
      Thirdly, there is also the question of the additional work which will arise in the Official Receiver's office. In particular, I wonder whether the Minister can give us some explanation as to the effect on companies which are struck off under section 353 of the Companies Act. Many of these companies are struck off because they are defunct or because there is no point in pursuing debts of one sort or another. For example, in 1976, 28,296 companies were struck off in this way. Many of them were defunct and many of them had debts outstanding which no one was bothering to pursue. In the same year the Official Receiver was appointed a liquidator in respect of only 1,906 of those companies.
      How many more companies will now have to go through compulsory liquidation, which will fall upon the Official Receiver and produce additional costs which will fall on the public Exchequer, because someone is now pressing to wind

      1549
      up a company in order to register a debt as a bad debt which is already known to be a bad debt? Indeed, one might ask the Financial Secretary what will happen to companies which are struck off under section 353 of the Companies Act anyway. Will people be allowed to get relief for debts against a company which has been struck off in that way? I do not think that the legislation covers that.
      5.30 p.m.
      I accept the principle of granting bad debts relief for VAT. I think that the Government ought to look again at the terms and conditions, which clearly are very unsatisfactory. If they do not look at them again fairly quickly, my guess is that they will be forced to do so, because the first time that they encounter a receivership in respect of an industry which is politically and socially important, the unsecured creditors will press the Government hard, knowing the difficulties which the receiver will be put into, to get some sort of satisfactory solution.
      The Government are not facing the reality of what they are doing by leaving this amendment to the law in such an unsatisfactory state. If they do not do it now, they will be forced into doing it when it will be much inconvenient for them. They should face the logic of what they are proposing in giving bad debt relief in the first place by doing the job in a proper and equitable manner.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: This debate, inaugurated by the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart), has concerned itself substantially with the effect of bad debt relief on firms which finding themselves in trouble, might be more liable to be put into liquidation than into receivership. I am aware that receivership is held by many people to offer the best chance for recovery of bad debts.
      Clause 10 was introduced following representations made last year and the subsequent debates on the Finance Bill. It allows bad debt relief only in cases where the debtor has been declared bankrupt or where the company is being wound up. We have made it clear that there would be problems about extending the relief further than that.
      This amendment seeks to provide extension of this relief. Amendment no.
      1550
      112 and those amendments grouped with it extend the relief to all cases where the debtor enters into an arrangement of some kind with the supplier. Amendment no. 117 proposes that where the debtor is in receivership or where there is an arrangement, the creditor who gets bad debt relief should repay the VAT element of the relief he has received in any subsequent dividend. Obviously this is based on a tax-inclusive system of claims on the debtor.
      I note the examples which were put forward by the hon. Member for Hitchin. Any decision to press for winding up of a company is bound to result from a mixture of different motives. Part of the mixture is bound to be a basic commercial judgment about the possibility of reviving the business; if there is any hope, it will always be the intention of the creditors to assist as much as they can without compromising their own financial position. However, in cases where there can be no possibility of the business continuing in its existing form, it will be argued that a successful receivership offers the best opportunity for the continued existence of the company. These major decisions will continue to be taken in the way in which they are normally taken now. But it will be argued that because of the 8 per cent. VAT element given in clause 10 it might be marginally better to press for liquidation in order to get a slightly larger dividend than would otherwise be available.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out that the 8 per cent. was a marginal increase and that there was the added risk of losing potentially larger dividends, and I do not think that there was any incontrovertible argument against that.
      The major factor in constructing a bad debt relief scheme—and it is one of which we have to take account, because we are dealing with about 12,000 liquidations a year—was that we needed a simple form to administer so that those who wanted to get bad debt relief would not have an immensely complicated task to obtain that relief, perhaps resulting in more than the midnight hours that we heard of in an earlier amendment. A simple scheme would cut out a great deal of work and effort not only by those claiming the relief but also by the liquidators or receivers

      1551
      concerned, and the Customs and Excise, too.
      What we have proposed is essentially a very simple scheme with little formality and little delay in payment. The scheme works on the principle that the claim by a creditor to the liquidator is to be for a tax-exclusive amount of debt, with the full refund coming from Customs and Excise by way of the value added tax on the debt itself. The refund is obtained very easily by entering a credit on the very next VAT return. If the creditor receives a dividend, nothing needs to be paid to Customs and Excise because the original claim itself was tax-exclusive. We were pleased that at least on this aspect of the value added tax we had achieved a worthwhile simplicity of operation which could deal readily with a large number of potential claims.
      It would be possible, of course, to have tax-inclusive schemes, because the dividends will be low under a liquidation and the Treasury might therefore be able to forgo the VAT element in such dividends. But the dividends available in receiverships and the dividends available in arrangements may be much higher than in liquidations. Therefore, in a tax-inclusive scheme, repayment of the VAT element of dividends would be required of the trader.
      If we include voluntary arrangements by debtors and their creditors, not only do we have the financial disadvantages to which I have just referred but we are also deprived of certain basic checks in the scheme. These checks were adverted to by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, when lie pointed out the possibility of collusion. In a deed of arrangement, which can be just a number of individuals getting together to agree about the nature of the debt itself, these difficulties can arise.
      So we had to have a scheme which retained some simplicity. Without it, we have to come up with an entirely new scheme to take account of these problems.
      The fact that a receiver has been appointed to a company does not mean necessarily that all its debts will turn out to be bad. The receivership may be a success, and then, for the purposes of granting relief, it would be necessary to
      1552
      define what exactly constitutes a bad debt. Creditors would then qualify for the relief only to the extent that that debt fell within that definition.
      In a similar way, entry into an arrangement does not necessarily imply that ultimately there will be any bad debts. Following a moratorium, of course, the debt could be repaid in full. An interim dividend payable under an arrangement may be succeeded in time by further dividends or even by the entire debt being recovered. In those circumstances, substantial sums of public money would have been paid out unnecessarily.
      It is quite impossible to extend the present proposals to include only receiverships and arrangements. There are other forms of arrangements which would have to be monitored and which cannot be defined satisfactorily.
      We then face the alternative of comprehensive relief, to which I am much attracted. It would provide for the repayment of value added tax in any bad debt. As I mentioned in Committee, the difficulty is the cost of such a scheme—it could be a further £60 million—and we would also be denying those who wished to make claims for bad debt relief the essential simplicity to which I have referred.
      I turn to amendment no. 113. This does not define an arrangement, and it would apply not only to compositions under the Companies Act but also to informal arrangements—moratoria and so on—which tend to be far more prevalent. Indeed, it could be argued that acceptance of any bad debt by a creditor is tantamount to an arrangement. If the creditor says that he calls this debt a bad one, then there is little to distinguish that statement from an arrangement, as it is normally defined. It would be administratively costly and quite impractical for the commissioners to satisfy themselves in advance in each such case about the condition in amendment no. 113, that the creditor is unlikely to receive the outstanding amount within two years. For the Inland Revenue to make a qualitative judgment of that kind does not provide the basis for satisfactory legislation.
      Mr. Wakeham: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the Inland Revenue does make that judgment now for income

      1553
      tax purposes? Why cannot Customs and Excise do the same thing?
      Mr. Sheldon: In this case we shall be making disbursements of public money, and asking for an analysis of a kind that Customs and Excise are not fitted to do. This would require immense administrative effort, and there would be serious difficulty in ensuring that the VAT element in any ultimate dividend was refunded. The position for VAT is not comparable with that for direct taxation because in the latter case the amounts recovered are automatically included in the taxable profits for the financial year in which they are recovered.
      Finally, the wording of the amendment is such that it could be interpreted as covering receiverships and arrangements already in existence, and would so increase the cost of the relief.
      Amendment no. 45 proposes that, in addition to the formal insolvency criterion, relief should be given provided that the Inland Revenue agree that a debt is irrecoverable for income or corporation tax purposes. The amendment would introduce even further complications where the debtor was declared insolvent because the supplier could either defer his claim until the Inland Revenue had agreed that the debt was irrecoverable, or, if he wished to obtain the relief earlier, try to prove that this was an insolvency case and claim for the tax exclusive amount of the debt. There would be two choices open to him. Depending upon which course the supplier used, his claim on the debtor could be either on a tax exclusive or a tax inclusive basis. The confusion that this would cause among traders and those responsible for administration would be almost insuperable.
      Amendment no. 46 looks attractive on the face of it because it deals with non-insolvency debts not exceeding £1,000. It has some of the appearance, if not the reality, of a de minimis provision. In fact, of course, the amendment would have the same disadvantages of amendment no. 45 in its administrative effect. Amendment no. 47 covers the same points as amendment no. 112.
      I deal now with amendments nos. 171 to 174, and the arguments put by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
      1554
      Here the test for relief is obtaining a judgment, and after that satisfying the commissioners that the creditor has taken all reasonable steps to recover the amount. The problem here is that many more claims could be made on this basis. Then, of course, there is the problem of past debt and the distinction between old and irrecoverable debt.
      The House must decide which of the two paths we should go along. We have produced in clause 10 a simple scheme that has the attractions of a trader being able to obtain a refund of the VAT which he has been called upon to pay. This can be done very simply, very easily and at reasonable cost. The other alternative is to produce a comprehensive scheme—expensive, very complicated and needing a much greater administrative effort by Customs and Excise, but meeting most of the arguments put forward by hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
      What we have done is to produce a first step with which I think we should be satisfied at this stage. I take serious note of the argument about the fears about companies going into liquidation. I think that these fears have been exaggerated, but I have listened to the arguments and I do not deny that there might be some effect in this direction. Therefore, I propose to ask Customs and Excise to monitor very closely the effect of clause 10 in practice and I shall see that they maintain close contact with bodies which specialise in receiverships so that they can learn quickly whether the clause were to affect them in the way suggested. We would stand ready to take action if this appeared to be necessary.
      Mr. Graham Page: What about the case of a company which is struck off without there being a creditors' voluntary winding up or even a court order in some cases? Surely there would have to be some extra statutory concession in such a case.
      Mr. Sheldon: Most companies that are struck off are struck off because there are no trading records. It does not affect the question of liquidation as a rule. If there were problems, we could deal with them in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Rees: I sense that the Financial Secretary is a little uncertain and uneasy about his position. He has conceded that the Customs and Excise will need to monitor very carefully the clause if it is enacted unamended. I suspect that if he were pressed he would recognise that there is considerable force in our arguments deployed in the course of this short but very useful debate.
      We are appreciative that the Government have taken on board at last, in deference to representations, many of them made in the course of debates over the past few years, that there should be relief for bad debts in VAT. The Financial Secretary has commended clause 10 on the basis that the scheme proposed is cheap and simple. But if the principle that there should be relief for bad debts is acceptable, I do not believe that the question of costs should weigh with us unduly. It would be wrong to say that we accept the principle to a degree but that we will circumscribe it to meet some preordained budget. Either one believes in the general principle of relief for bad debt or one does not.
      I was particularly impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) who demonstrated that there cannot be as much of a discrepancy as that between £35 million and £100 million—the figures given upstairs. Indeed, the Financial Secretary was bound to concede that those figures are based at best on inspired guesswork. I do not attach too much weight to them.
      Therefore, the Financial Secretary is forced back on to the argument of simplicity. He says that insolvency is precise, it is easily understood and can be determined as a matter of law. Also there will be no difficulty with Customs and Excise or for the registered trader. One would concede that simplicity is important in a way, but I do not see that the various alternative proposals which have been embodied in the amendments debated this afternoon also lack simplicity. Also that simplicity which the Financial Secretary prays in aid is of such a narrow kind that, as he is bound to admit, a great number of bad debts, on any normal commercial use of the term, will be excluded.
      1556
      As has been pointed out in a great number of very able and lucid speeches from this side of the House, the consequences of clause 10 if unamended will be extremely unattractive, if not to say impracticable. The Financial Secretary was bound to concede that, since he has said that he will instruct the Customs and Excise to monitor the consequences of this clause if it is passed unamended.
      I do not want to go over the ground covered so admirably by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understand that the Financial Secretary is constitutionally responsible for both the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise, but he does not seem to know what his right hand or his left hand are doing, because the Inland Revenue has managed to operate a had debt relief scheme of the simplest possible sort for many years. It has been in operation since about 1847 and has not occasioned the Inland Revenue or the taxpayer many problems.
      I do not seek to draw any distinction between the benevolence and competence of the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise. I leave that to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who evidently has a closer acquaintance with pirates than I have, though I also represent a coastal seat. I do not want to get involved in interdepartmental or inter-constituency rivalries.
      I credit the Customs and Excise with as much experience, competence and benevolence as has the Inland Revenue. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North described all tax gatherers as publicans and sinners, but I am prepared to credit both arms of the service with the same qualities. I do not believe that those in the Customs and Excise fall short of the qualities of their bretheren in the Inland Revenue and I believe that they would easily be able to operate a system of relief based on the principles that have long been accepted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
      In an endeavour to meet the arguments of the Financial Secretary, although we are not over-impressed with them in Committee, we put down a variety of amendments based on receiverships, moratoria and other such matters. Had the right hon. Gentleman shown any disposition to meet us on those matters or, in the words of his right hon. Friend the Minister of

      1557
      State, to give an undertaking to introduce comparable amendments in the next Finance Bill, I would have counselled my colleagues not to press any of our amendments to a Division.
      The Financial Secretary said that he had moved a step forward, but it was the faultering, half-step that he has moved so often, and I do not believe that he has taken on board the extremely cogent arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends against clause 10. We have pointed out the extremely unattractive consequences, the problems over the number of insolvencies and redundancy payments and all the complications involving companies that have been struck off under section 353.
      In order to mark our disapproval of the Government's point of view and to inject a note of urgency into our debates and into the monitoring activities of the Customs and Excise, we should go back to the Inland Revenue position which is
      best set out in amendment no. 171. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart), notwithstanding the elegance and eloquence with which he moved amendment no. 112, to withdraw it and to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to press amendment no. 171 to a Division.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: I cannot resist an invitation put in such terms and, in order to make way for my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 171, in page 8, line 33, leave out 'become insolvent' and insert 'defaulted in payment thereof'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 284.

      Division No. 261]

      AYES

      [5.55 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hannam, John

      Alison, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsfprd)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Arnold, Tom

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hastings, Stephen

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Awdry, Daniel

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hawkins, Paul

      Baker, Kenneth

      Durant, Tony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Banks, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bell, Ronald

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hicks, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Emery, Peter

      Hodgson, Robin

      Benyon, W.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Holland, Philip

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hordern, Peter

      Biffen, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Farr, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Body, Richard

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Forman, Nigel

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Brittan, Leon

      Fox, Marcus

      James, David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Jessel, Toby

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Jopling, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Buck, Antony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Goodhart, Philip

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gorst, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Channon, Paul

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Knox, David

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Lamont, Norman

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gray, Hamish

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cockcroft, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Lawson, Nigel

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Cope, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      Lloyd, Ian

      Corrie, John

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Loveridge, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Luce, Richard

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Spence, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      MacGregor, John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Sproat, Iain

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Percival, Ian

      Stainton, Keith

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stanley, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Madel, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Marten, Nell

      Raison, Timothy

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Maude, Angus

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rhodes James, R.

      Trotter, Neville

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mills, Peter

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wakeham, John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Moate, Roger

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Monro, Hector

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wall, Patrick

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Walters, Dennis

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Morgan, Geraint

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wells, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Neave, Airey

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Neubert, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Newton, Tony

      Shersby, Michael

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Normanton, Tom

      Silvester, Fred

      Younger, Hon George

      Nott, John

      Sims, Roger

      Onslow, Cranley

      Sinclair, Sir George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Osborn, John

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Mr. Peter Morrison.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Flannery, Martin

      Allaun, Frank

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Anderson, Donald

      Crawford, Douglas

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ford, Ben

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cronin, John

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Ashton, Joe

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Garrett. W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      George, Bruce

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Golding, John

      Bates, Alf

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Gould, Bryan

      Bean, R. E.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Deakins, Eric

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dempsey, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dewar, Donald

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bradley, Tom

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dunn, James A.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Henderson, Douglas

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hooley, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Eadie, Alex

      Horam, John

      Buchanan, Richard

      Edge, Geoff

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Campbell, Ian

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Huckfield, Les

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Carmichael, Nell

      English, Michael

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Cartwright, John

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Hunter, Adam

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Corbett, Robin

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Cowans, Harry

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      1560

      1561

      John Brynmor

      Newens, Stanley

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Noble, Mike

      Stallard, A. W.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ogden, Eric

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Judd, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stoddart, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ovenden, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Kelley, Richard

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Kerr, Russell

      Padley, Walter

      Swain, Thomas

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Solton W)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Pardoe, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lambie, David

      Park, George

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lamond, James

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Parry, Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thompson, George

      Lee, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Lestor, Miss John (Elton & Slough)

      Perry, Ernest

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Tierney, Sydney

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Prescott, John

      Tilley, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Tinn, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tomlinson, John

      Luard, Evan

      Radice, Giles

      Tomney, Frank

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Torney, Tom

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Reid, George

      Tuck, Raphael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Urwin, T. W.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      McElhone, Frank

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Watkins, David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Watkinson, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Watt, Hamish

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Weetch, Ken

      McNamara, Kevin

      Roper, John

      Weitzman, David

      Madden, Max

      Rose, Paul B.

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Magee, Bryan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Whitlock, William

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ryman, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sandelson, Neville

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Meacher, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan 'Swansea W)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Selby, Harry

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sever, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee F.)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Woof, Robert

      Molloy, William

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Moonman, Eric

      Silverman, Julius

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 15

      CORPORATION TAX: OTHER RATES AND FACTIONS
      Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment no. 48, in page 12, line 12, leave out '42' and insert '40'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment no. 49, in page 12, line 14. at end insert—
      '(2A) For the financial year 1977 and subsequent financial years, if a company eligible for the small companies rate of corporation tax elects to forgo first year allowances and stock relief, they shall pay corporation tax at a composite rate of 25 per cent.'.
      Mr. Mitchell: In view of the printing strike the House may find it helpful if I set out the terms of the amendment.
      1562
      Amendment no 48 seeks to reduce the rate of small firms corporation tax from 42 per cent. to 40 per cent.
      I draw the attention of the House and the Minister of State to the fact that the amendment does not mention advance corporation tax. It is not intended to apply to ACT. If there should be any technical error in the drafting of the amendment, I shall be happy to assist by submitting a manuscript amendment if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared otherwise to accept the amendment.
      The amendment deals with two important matters. First, it is concerned with simplification. Secondly, it is concerned with the need to increase the level of retained profits by cutting the amount of Government take, especially from small businesses.

      1563
      I think that the Minister will find the amendment attractive to him. It gets him off a hook on which he has become impaled. He is a Minister in a Government who claim to be interested in and concerned about the problems of small businesses, yet the blanket increase in the national insurance surcharge has done immense damage to small businesses. The increase in the Government's take throughout the whole of the business community as a result of the new tax on national insurance is extremely serious.
      I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to find a way in which he may remedy the damage that has been done to the small business sector. The amendment allows him to arrive at the same conclusion but perhaps in a different way.
      The Small Business Bureau has been collecting a great deal of information on the effects of inflation and the cash needs of smaller firms. Small businesses in particular need extra cash to finance the cost of stock. When there is inflation the same volume of stock ties up more money. They need extra cash because of debtors. When a business has sold stock and is waiting to be paid there is more paper money involved in the same volume of sales. When firms venture into the export trade, which the Government wish to encourage them to do, the extended credit which is taken by an overseas buyer, used in 90 days instead of 30 days, means that substantial additional sums are required.
      There is also the important problem of replacement costs. I know that there are first-year allowances, but the problem for the small business is that if it purchased a printing press, for example, for £16,000 five or seven years ago it will cost £90,000 to replace. How does that business accumulate enough money and retain it in the business to meet the higher cost of modern equipment? If the Government are genuine in their desire to see an expansion of small businesses—and the job creation potential is enormous—they must ensure that the money is available to finance that expansion.
      All this means that more money is needed within the business community. But the contrary is happening. At a time when businesses require more money, the Government are taking more money from
      1564
      them. They are taking more money in the increased level of corporation tax. The first of our amendments seeks to take corporation tax back to the 40 per cent. level that it was when the Government came to office. It also deals with the special circumstances of the many less sophisticated companies.
      Since the Minister might be doubtful about the importance of increased working capital to enable firms to remain competitive, I pray in aid the EEC study which was reported fully in The Times of 26th June. A study of small grocery stores shows that lack of working capital, rather than competition from the multiple supermarkets, is in many cases the cause of small businesses getting into financial difficulties.
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): The hon. Member mentioned small grocery stores. I presume he is thinking of those that are incorporated.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am dealing, as did the EEC report, with businesses which are incorporated. There is nothing peculiar about grocers. The same financial principles, problems and restrictions apply to the grocery trade as they do to a multitude of other trades.
      From previous debates I suspect that the Minister is likely to reply as did the Chief Secretary when he was taxed about this on a previous occasion. He said that nobody pays corporation tax and that he did not know why we should be so excited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear from below the Gangway accord with what I have been saying.
      The truth is not that nobody pays corporation tax but that only the unsophisticated firms pay it. The sophisticated firms find ways round paying corporation tax, whether they are genuine or artificial. I pray in aid The Sunday Times report of last week which calculated that 13 out of Britain's top 20 industrial giants paid either no profits tax last year or only a nominal sum.
      Let us examine the position of individual companies in the large firms sector —the sophisticated companies. Allied Breweries with profits of £63 million, paid no mainstream corporation tax. BAT, with £374 million profit, paid £2 million. BP, which is half owned by the Government, with £1,784 million pre-tax profit, paid no corporation tax. The Ford

      1565
      company, with £122 million profit, paid no corporation tax. ICI, with £540 million profit, paid £12 million in corporation tax. Rio Tinto Zinc, with £279 million profit, paid no corporation tax.
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: This is an incredible and disgraceful state of affairs, particularly in the context of the profits that these large companies are making and the huge subsidies and grants that they are receiving from the taxpayer. For them not to make a contribution to the national Exchequer is extraordinary. Yesterday the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) and his hon. Friends wanted to tax unemployment pay. Previously they have suggested that tax should be imposed on a variety of other categories of people, including social security claimants. Will the hon. Member for Basingstoke now condemn in the same outspoken and forthright terms the large multinational and national companies which are making huge profits but making no contribution to the national Exchequer?
      Mr. Mitchell: The Government have decided that large businesses require the opportunity not to pay corporation tax because of financial pressures and the amount of money that they need inside their businesses in order to cope with inflation. This arises mainly in the area of stock relief. The unsophisticated smaller businesses that do not have access to costly technical and professional advice end up paying corporation tax.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member suggests that the large sophisticated businesses do not pay corporation tax because they are sophisticated and receive sophisticated advice. The reason why manufacturing companies, large and small, pay little corporation tax is partly the investment allowances and partly stock relief. There is nothing sophisticated about that.
      Mr. Mitchell: That illustrates my argument. To the Financial Secretary it is clear. But if he had done as I have done and gone around the country listening to groups of small business men and hearing what happens on the ground, he would know that many small businesses do not even claim stock relief. Many small businesses' accountants advised them not to claim stock relief.
      1566
      I can give the House an example from Wales. In one Welsh valley there are two accountancy practices. One accountant claims stock relief for all his clients. The other does not, on principle. He says that it is a deferred liability and he prefers his clients not to have deferred liabilities hanging over their heads. That is bad professional advice, but it is the reality of what is happening in Wales.
      In Birmingham an accountant said to me at a meeting that he had a client who had £370,000 of deferred tax liability and he proposed to pay off £50,000 of it because he did not like deferred liabilities on his balance sheet. The accountant asked me "What advice do you give to me to give to my client?" I am in no position to give professional advice.
      I could give further examples nearer to London of other accountants who have advised clients not to claim or who have gone along with clients who have suggested that they should not claim stock relief.
      There is an enormous difference between, on the one hand, the sophistication of the Financial Secretary and of hon. Members who are familiar with the legislation, and, on the other hand, the reality of what it is like outside in the ordinary small business world. A man who is good at making widgets may know nothing about the intricacies of stock relief and first year allowances.
      The proposition in the second amendment is that companies should have the option—but only an option—either to pay corporation tax with the existing reliefs in the way in which they do now or to pay at 25 per cent. and forgo the right to both stock relief and first-year allowances.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: In his amendment the hon. Gentleman is seeking to give the option to choose stock relief. If these people are so unsophisticated, what is the point of the amendment? They will not know whether to exercise that option.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to explain that any small business man faced with the option of paying 25 per cent. corporation tax instead of 42 per cent. will exercise that option if he is not sufficiently sophisticated to work his way round stock relief and first-year allowances. The Minister

      1567
      does not have to accept my word for it. If he will go out into the sticks he will find large numbers of business men who are paying corporation tax but who would not if they were advised by someone as sophisticated as the Minister.
      That explains why the second amendment should commend itself to the House. It simply provides that those who are good at their businesses but who do not have the benefit of expensive and skilled professional advice should be able to pay a much lower rate of tax. In doing so, they will release the funds necessary to enable the business to expand and provide jobs.
      This is the touchstone of the Government's sincerity, which will show whether they believe in the growth of the small business sector and the provision of jobs within it.
      Mr. Robert Edwards: I do not wish to delay the vote on this matter, but I must comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). From his remarks one would imagine that the Government were the enemies of the small business man, but it is the big multinational companies that are driving the small man out of business. The shortage of capital for small business men arises because the great consortiums of banks are controlled by the multinationals. The boards of our banks have an interchange of directorships with ICI and all the big multinational companies. It is they who have withdrawn the credit from the small business people. The small business men are now relying on the Government for money. The Government have offered them an alternative under the Industrial Common Ownership Act. If they want to continue with new ideas they can hand their shares in trust to their workers and start a healthy common ownership organisation.
      My friend the late Dr. Schumacher, whom I knew for 20 years and who sat with me on a common ownership organisation called Scott Bader as a trustee director, wrote a book entitled "Small is Beautiful" which is frequently quoted in the House by Conservative Members. But small has not always been beautiful. Some of the worst exploiters in this country have been the high street shopkeepers.
      1568
      I remember reacting in my youth and discussing with my friends a book called "The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist", in which a small decorating business was the worst exploiter of all.
      Do not let us exaggerate the case about small businesses. Some of these businesses are hopelessly inefficient. They do not need capital. If capital were pushed into them they would be taken over and their new ideas would be exploited by multinational companies which would usually strip their assets and close them down. That is happening in all of our constituencies, with good, old-fashioned businesses, where the owner dies and the son is not interested in carrying on. They either go broke and go into liquidation or are taken over by a multinational company. Often when that happens no money is put into them.
      Do not let us exaggerate the situation, therefore. No group of business men has had more assistance from the Government than have the small businesses. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
      Mr. John Loveridge: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who has done so much for the smaller business sector and whose work on its behalf has been recognised on both sides of the House. We are grateful to the Government for the concessions that they have given to this sector. They show that the Government heed the arguments that are repeatedly put from Conservative Benches. In supporting these amendments, I hope that we shall persuade the Government to accept them as well.
      All tax represents a seizure of someone's funds by the State, backed by threat of force. The Government have the power to take money from those who have it, and in this case corporation tax is money taken from small companies. My hon. Friend's amendment proposes that we should increase the differential between the amounts taken in tax from large and small companies from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. That is not much, but it represents a change in direction. Does it serve the Government's purpose not to give this extra tax relief to the small firm?

      1569
      When large businesses make profits they tend to put the money into mechanisation, and that cuts their requirements for labour. The same applies to State enterprises. If we are to conquer unemployment the most obvious source for that purpose is the expansion of small businesses.
      Let me take the example of a small mining area in which there is a pit closure because the seams are exhausted. That might mean 200 or 300 men looking for jobs but not wanting to move away from their homes. Two or three small businesses would be more likely than anything else to meet the demand for jobs in an area which is cut off from other areas. By moving into such an area those businesses would regenerate it. Secondary businesses would spring up and the whole of the village would be brought back to life.
      Retained profits, not promises of grants, motivate small businesses, more than any other factor, to move in in this way. They make it easier for these firms to expand and to help conquer unemployment. I hope that the Government will consider that aspect in considering the proposed increase in relief for the smaller business sector.
      Nothing could give a greater boost to the Government's capacity to sell gilt-edged stock to meet the public sector borrowing requirement than a boom in the small business sector. The message would carry throughout the land and even overseas. A 2 per cent. differential is not a great deal, but it would give a great incentive. Those running small businesses would feel that the Government meant to help and that it was therefore worth while expanding. It is vital for us to engender the will to expand.
      Small firms have a lesser propensity to import than do many of the large companies. Many of them are highly labour-intensive and when they expand they do not suck in imports on the same scale as do their larger counterparts. Thus, encouragement given to them helps the general economic capacity of the country to grow without the inhibitions caused by balance of payments difficulties.
      The Government must want an increase of demand so far as they can safely
      1570
      achieve it—even for electoral purposes. This is an opportunity for them not only to gain votes but to do so safely for the economy. I therefore hope that the Government will seriously consider whether this 2 per cent. reduction will benefit both them and the nation.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Pardoe: Of course any reduction in tax might be thought extremely attractive and any reduction for small businesses might seem even more attractive for the Liberal Party. After all—this should be emphasised again and again—this is the first Budget that has given real and positive discrimination in favour of the small business sector. That discrimination was a major plank in the agreement that my party signed with the Prime Minister 15 months ago.
      No one can deny that there is an astonishing list of concessions for small business men in the Budget. None of this was achieved by the Conservative Party. This is not a case in which the Government have accepted the arguments put to them from the official Opposition or by the Conservative Party's Small Business Bureau. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) has been talking about small businesses for as long as anyone can remember. It seems as though there has never been a time in the history of parliamentary democracy when he has not been telling people what should be done for small businesses. He has not had the blindest bit of effect on any Government so far—not even the Governments of his own party. They have never accepted one of his recommendations.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that, he does not have to take it from me; he can take it from his great guru of the business world, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who admitted in a speech two or three years ago that in recent years no Government of either party has done anything for small business men.
      Mr. David Mitchell: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the Government were defeated by the Opposition on a decision on the size of a small business for the purposes of the small business rate of corporation tax in the summer of 1974, to start with? I could list further things thereafter. Has he forgotten that?
      Mr. Pardoe: If the Conservatives had got the definition of a small business right in the first place, there would have been no need for that amendment. More has been achieved for small businesses in the last 15 months than was achieved by the Conservative Party in their three and a half years in power from 1970 or in the 1950s.
      Mr. Mitchell: There was the Bolton committee report.
      Mr. Pardoe: The Bolton committee was established by a Labour Government and it reported to a Conservative Government, who failed to implement the majority of the recommendations.
      Mr. Mitchell: No.
      Mr. Pardoe: Again, the hon. Gentleman does not have to take it from me. He can take it from Mr. Bolton himself, who has admitted time and again in the last few years that little was done by the Conservative Government to implement the Bolton report.
      Mr. Mitchell: Rubbish.
      Mr. Pardoe: I put discrimination in favour of small businesses very high on my list of priorities, not for the ludicrous reasons advanced by the Conservative Party but mainly because it is by the small businesses that the new products are created, and it is the injection of new products into world markets that is desperately needed. It might therefore be thought that I would welcome the amendment.
      However, a reduction in corporation tax for small businesses, or for any kind of business, is about the last thing that I would recommend as being any good for those businesses. As we all know, the rate of corporation tax is utterly meaningless. I do not know who is paying corporation tax. I can say that no one that I am involved with is paying it if they can possibly help it, and most of them can.
      There are now so many ways of avoiding paying corporation tax that any manufacturing company which ends up paying any substantial amount of its profits over to the Government in corporation tax either has a Conservative accountant who is completely useless as its adviser, or it is not attending properly to its business
      1572
      affairs. I therefore would not favour a reduction in corporation tax.
      Reducing the rate would not necessarily mean reducing the revenue—it would be difficult to reduce zero—but even if we were to reduce the revenue from corporation tax by this means, the money would have to be made up from somewhere else and we should have to choose between personal income tax revenue and corporate income tax revenue.
      When company finance directors sitting around in the City pat themselves on the back over how well they have been able to reduce their corporation tax bill, I tell them that all they have done is increase the personal income tax bill of themselves and their executives. Does the hon. Member for Basingstoke want personal income tax or corporate income tax brought down. Corporate income tax could go up in total and if we are to get personal income tax down, the corporate sector must start to pay a fair whack of the bill.
      The book by Mervyn King and John Kay has only put the icing on the cake of what we all knew was the situation for a long time—that the corporate sector is paying a ludicrously low amount of tax and that until it pays more, as it does in other countries, individuals will have to pay too high a proportion of the total tax bill.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) moved amendment no. 48, although he seemed to be more in favour of amendment no. 49, which he dealt with at slightly greater length. Perhaps I may deal with the former, nevertheless.
      Amendment no. 48, seeks to reduce the rate of corporation tax for so-called small companies from 42 per cent. to 40 per cent. The cost in a full year would be about £25 million, which would have to be added to the approximately £20 million which has been provided by the increase in the relevant profit level of these companies introduced in this Finance Bill. We should then be talking of £45 million.
      The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) said that what was necessary was the will for expansion—that we needed to provide the basis for expansion by small companies. I agree entirely,

      1573
      and that is what the corporation tax system does. That is why large and small companies pay very little corporation tax especially if they are in the manufacturing sector and if they are expanding—not only replacing their plant and machinery but increasing their business and therefore expanding their stock. If there is need for expansion, the incentive is built into the present system.
      That is why we have introduced—both Governments have agreed with this—generous investment allowances, and this Government introduced the stock relief provisions which have been of great help to all companies, large and small.
      Therefore, the reason that we cannot accept amendment no. 48 is partly cost—£25 million is not a small amount—but also that we believe that this reduction would not benefit those companies which are seeking to expand, certainly in the manufacturing sector, because they already pay little corporation tax. This is so not because they have sophisticated advisers. Nor is it true that companies in the Welsh valleys pay more because they cannot rely on their accountants. The reason simply is that the incentives exist and that if companies have that kind of expanding business, they get the incentives. If they are not expanding, they do not get them. I see nothing particularly wrong with that state of affairs.
      The hon. Member went on to amendment no. 49—
      Mr. David Mitchell: There were many service industries with the potential to provide many jobs. The Minister referred only to manufacturing industries.
      Mr. Davies: I found the hon. Gentleman's argument on amendment no. 49 extraordinary. It is an interesting provision. It seems to suggest that we should ignore stock relief and investment allowance and have a flat rate corporation tax. But the hon. Gentleman did not argue that point; he said that they were an unsophisticated lot, would not exercise the option anyway, and would pay the 25 per cent. corporation tax instead of bothering with stock relief and investment allowances.
      The hon. Gentleman did not argue the point—and I think that there is an argument
      1574
      on this ground, although I do not agree with it—that perhaps one should look at corporation tax in terms of a flat rate and not give any allowances on stock relief. A by-product is that the service industries will be in a less advantageous position because the industry does not get stock relief or investment allowance. However, again the hon. Gentleman did not argue that point. He made nothing of the fact that the present system does not give so much help to the service industries. I believe that that is the right policy, and that we should discriminate in favour of manufacturing industry and of investment in plant and machinery.
      I come to my final point on small businesses. This is the kind of debate to which we are treated by the Tory Party every year. It is a political exercise designed mainly to catch the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers and to satisfy various organisations. In reality, I believe that the decline in small businesses has little to do with taxation. It has more to do with the financial structure of this country—a structure which the Conservative Party supports and always has supported. It is partly because we have a sophisticated Stock Exchange, because we channel savings into these huge pension funds and life assurance funds, and because we have a centralised banking system which has lost most of its local roots that we have experienced a decline in small businesses—a decline that has not happened on the Continent. To pretend that by fiddling around with taxes one will help small businesses is ludicrous. As I have said, it is a Tory political exercise.
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke, in discussing amendment no. 49, recognised that there may be some difficulty in the imputation rate system. He kindly said that he had in his pocket a manuscript amendment to put the matter right. So far as I can see, the imputation system of corporation tax cannot work if one has a corporation tax rate below the advance corporation tax rate. It is inherent in the imputation system of corporation tax that the corporation tax rate must be higher than the rate for ACT.
      It may be possible to draft a convoluted amendment. If we examine the report of the Select Committee that dealt with corporation tax and consider the

      1575
      experience of these matters in other countries, particularly France, it will be seen that what I am saying is correct. One cannot work a system of imputation corporation tax with a lower rate. That is a technical point, but it is another reason, together with all the other reasons that I have outlined, why I believe that amendment No. 49 is unacceptable.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Rees: The Minister of State injected a partisan, almost bitter, note into his speech when he said that this was an annual political exercise designed to catch the headlines. If that is the case, what was the point in appointing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to cosset small businesses? I believe that when the history of these times is written my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) will be recognised as having done more for small businesses than anything the Chancellor of the Duchy has done.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy has attempted to catch the headlines by making soothing and platitudinous speeches on visits to representatives of small and large businesses, but for all the practical results that those visits have achieved, the right hon. Gentleman might as well have stayed home and played bridge.
      The Minister of State said that the decline of small businesses had little to do with taxation. The decline is probably a complex phenomenon that we shall have to debate and go on probing over a considerable period of time. But if it had nothing to do with taxation, why has the Chancellor of the Duchy not claimed credit for various measures in the Budget? Furthermore, why has not the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) also claimed as a product of the Lib-Lab pact a gigantic package of fiscal reliefs for the small business sector?
      Mr. Pardoe: He has.
      Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman has done so, he is at variance with the other arm of the Lib-Lab pact. He obviously does not have his heart in the fiscal reliefs that we are told are being introduced.
      There are a number of misconceptions in this debate, largely due to the irrelevant intervention of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The hon. Gentleman is always better at wearing
      1576
      a bleeding heart on his sleeve than making a positive contribution to our debates.
      It is right, however, that the record should be put straight, even if rather briefly. The Chief Secretary's contribution to our debate in Standing Committee on 23rd May, when he said that the estimates for 1978–79 showed that total mainstream corporation tax would be of the order of slightly over £4 billion and advance corporation tax of £1½ billion, which is a not insignificant contribution to the finances of this country. Beyond that the hon. Member for Ormskirk overlooked the amount which companies, large and small, contribute in rates, employers' national insurance surcharge and VAT. It is not true to suggest that they are free-riders in the economy.
      I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—who has come in to grace our debates, would not subscribe to the view that the corporate sector does not pay its fair contribution. He stirs uneasily in his seat. We know that there is a slight divergence of view between that Minister and his right hon. Friends on exactly what should be done for the small business sector.
      The hon. Member for Cornwall, North made one of his usual arrogant and slightly ill-informed speeches. Obviously his back-up on this debate is not what it is on some of the others. Let us examine one misconception on the hon. Gentleman's part, namely, that none of the recommendations of the Bolton committee was implemented by a Conservative Administration. I remind the House that the first-ever Minister with special responsibility for small businesses was appointed by a Conservative Administration and that a Conservative Administration eased the close company rules.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: Headline-catching again.
      Mr. Rees: If any measure that benefits the small business sector is to be described as "headline catching", we shall not he able to move in any direction at all. Then, again, a Conservative Administration introduced the small firm rate of corporation tax, and introduced exemption to the smallest firms from training board levies. 'That is a not insignificant contribution by a Conservative Administration.

      1577
      The Minister of State has not proved very responsive on this occasion. He believes that a figure of £25 million is too much and says that he has done enough for small companies. I am not utterly persuaded that he has addressed his mind to the implications of capital transfer tax. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and his record on capital transfer tax will stand close scrutiny by those who represent and advise small companies. But there will be other occasions to debate that factor.
      I turn to the interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that there should be a flat rate. This is a novel suggestion.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: No, it is not.
      Mr. Rees: The Minister of State says that it is not novel, but he did not give the House any cogent arguments why it should be rejected.
      The Opposition recognise that this subject will have to be gone into in considerable depth. I am not in any way decrying the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I hope that the Minister of State has taken this suggestion on board and that he will ask Somerset House to look closely at it. It is not apt to be somewhat dismissive and to say that Somerset House thought about it and that there are certain difficulties. However, the Minister has not taken the House into his confidence.
      I believe that this was an original suggestion, but my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke may recognise that this is not the moment to reach a definitive conclusion on it. I think that the whole House owes him a great debt for having yet again given us the opportunity of debating the real problems of small companies. However, I hope that on this occasion he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. David Mitchell: In the light of my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      ALTERATION OF PERSONAL RELIEFS
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move amendment no. 95, in page 13, line 5, at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 12 of that Act (allowance for female housekeeper)—

      (a) the word "female", wherever it occurs, shall be omitted;

      (b) in subsection (1)(ii) after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "or the relative is a man who has claimed and been allowed that hither relief".

      (1B) In section 13(a) of that Act (allowance where claimant's mother or other female relative takes charge of his brother or sister)—

      (a) for the words "either his mother, being a widow or a person living apart from her husband, or some other female relative" there shall be substituted the words "a relative";

      (b) the words "mother or other" shall be omitted'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Government amendments nos. 96 and 97 and the following amendments: No. 74, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 12 (widower's or widow's housekeeper) the word "female" shall be omitted wherever it occurs.'.
      No. 72, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 13(a), the word "a" shall be substituted for the words "either his mother, being a widow or a person living apart from her husband, or some other female", and the words "mother or other" shall be omitted.'.
      No. 155, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 15, for the word "man" there shall be substituted the words "man or woman" and for the word "his" there shall be substituted the words "his or her."'.
      No. 156, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 16 of that Act (dependent relatives)—

      (a) for "£100", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "£145";

      (b) in subsection (1)(b) for the word "mother" there shall be substituted the words "mother or father", for the word "husband" there shall be substituted the words "husband or wife", and for the word "woman' there shall be substituted the word "person";

      (c) in subsection (2) for paragraph (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "the references in that subsection to the claimant's wife shall be construed as references to the claimant's husband";

      (d) subsection (4) shall be omitted'.

      1579
      No. 73, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      "(3) In section 16(2)(b) (Dependent relatives) the words 'unless she is a married woman living with her husband' shall be omitted.".
      No. 75, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      "(3) In section 17 (daughter's services) after the word 'daughter' the words 'or son' shall be inserted.".
      No. 78, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      "(3) In section 18 (blind person's relief), there shall be omitted the words 'throughout the year', wherever occurring, and the whole of subsections (3) and (4) below".
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: These amendments take up two matters that were debated upstairs in Committee. The first contains certain elements of sex discrimination which are present in the minor personal allowances on which we undertook to consider amendments moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). My right hon. Friend, in a later comment on these matters, announced our decision to bring forward amendments on Report.
      The next amendment relates to the conditions of award of the blind person's allowance on which I accepted the substance of an amendment in Committee also moved by the hon. Member for Braintree. It was defective in drafting and I undertook to come back with another amendment which is now before the House.
      These amendments remove from the minor personal allowances certain sex discriminatory features which we recognise as being inappropriate. But I should point out that our decision to bring forward these amendments does not imply any change in our view on either the relevance or the importance of these minor allowances. We are still by no means convinced that these minor personal allowances are justified in present day conditions. Therefore, the amendments proposed that the relief for a housekeeper will be available for a male as well as for a female.
      Regarding the child minder part of the allowance, at present the relative maintained by the claimant to look after a younger brother or sister must be either the claimant's widowed or separated mother or some other female relative. We propose to substitute the simple condition
      1580
      that the person maintained should be a relative. I do not think it is likely that these proposals will affect many of the claims that come before the Inland Revenue. The cost is likely to be negligible. However, these amendments will remove the sex discriminatory conditions of the allowances which have rightly been criticised as anomalous. I am happy to bring these amendments before the House.
      Mr. Newton: This is a variegated group of amendments, and it would be possible to speak on them at some length. However, in view of the wish of the House to make rapid progress I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
      The second half of Amendment No. 96 simplifies the blind allowance. It is a concession to an amendment that I moved in Committee and it is very welcome. It removes two extremely convoluted subsections from the Taxes Act. It does something—if only a little—to reduce the stupefying complexity of our tax system. Not least, it does a little to help some people who unfortunately go blind in the relevant year.
      Before leaving the question of the blind allowance altogether, I should like, in two sentences, to restate my view. This minuscule concession, welcome as it is, does not in any way change my view that there should have been a proper change to raise the value of the blind tax allowance. It is deplorable that it has not been altered in line with the fall in the value of money for some years. It was mean-minded of the Government to vote down in Committee an amendment that I moved to do just that.
      I should like now to refer to the general thrust of the amendments. Having spent some time yesterday and in Committee upstairs advocating various measures that would reduce the tax system's discrimination against women, I am glad that my comparable pressure upstairs to remove discrimination against men has also paid off in the form of these Government amendments. However, I should draw attention—I cannot forbear to do so—to the fact that the second half of Government amendment no. 95 is identical in effect to my amendment no. 72 and that my amendment no. 72 is identical to one which I moved in Committee but which was voted down on the orders of

      1581
      the Government Whips. Although the outcome of the procedure and the other steps that the Government have taken to implement amendments that I tabled upstairs is welcome, I must observe that the processes through which we have gone —first, voting down the proposal upstairs and then bringing it forward in identical terms as though the Government had just thought of it—are farcical.
      I should like to ask one specific question about the dependent relative allowance which is raised by some of these amendments. It has been suggested that an inadvertent consequence of the phrasing of the Finance (Incomes Tax Reliefs) Act 1977 has been retrospectively to reduce the threshold for the income limit of the dependent relative beyond which the person providing support to that relative can gain tax relief.
      The relevant phrases from section 2 of the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Act 1977 are:
      "So much of any pension or allowance … as is attributable to any general increase taking effect in the year 1977–78 shall be left out of account for all the purposes of income tax charged for that year".
      That was intended to be a relieving provision. It prevented from being taxed the pensions increase that took place last November. But the income limit for the purposes of the dependent relative's allowance is defined as being £100 above the level of the basic retirement pension. It has been suggested that the consequence has been to reduce, and therefore, for many people, to destroy, the tax relief under the dependent relative's allowances for last year.
      I tabled clauses on this matter which have not been selected. Indeed, I sent a letter on it to the Chief Secretary a few days ago. I should be grateful for some guidance on this matter, because I cannot believe that it was intended. If it has happened, I hope that the Government will seek some way to do something about it.
      Finally, I turn to the additional amendments in my name, nos. 155 and 156. In suggesting that the Government have done something to remove the discrimination between men and women within the tax system by these amendments, it appears that the Government have fallen well short of carrying through their policy in a logical way.
      1582
      Amendment no. 155 is directed to section 15 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, which states that
      "A man who becomes married during a year of assessment may by notice in writing to the inspector elect that his marriage be disregarded"
      for certain tax purposes. If he feels that it is to his advantage not to be treated as a married man in the year in which he gets married, for reasons which I shall not attempt to discuss, he may elect to be treated in that way.
      My amendment no. 155 would give the same right to a woman in the year in which she gets married. I can see no good reason why that should not be written into our law. The present provision seems a piece of petty and silly discrimination which we could quickly get rid of.
      7.0 p.m.
      Amendment no. 156 is directed to section 16 of the Taxes Act, the dependent relatives section to which I have already briefly referred, under which taxpayers can obtain certain relief if they are helping relatives, usually elderly or infirm, whose income is relatively modest—just a little above the basic retirement pension level. The level of these allowances is also out of date and should be increased, but they exist and it is not my purpose to make that argument tonight. My purpose is to say that section 16 is perhaps the biggest the most glaring example of discrimination remaining in the minor personal allowance clauses. In no way do the Government's amendments tackle this problem.
      There is discrimination in two respects. First, there is discrimination as regards the person who is giving the help. There is a higher tax allowance—£145—for a single woman who is helping a dependent relative than there is for a married woman living with her husband or for a man, whose tax allowance is up to £100.
      Secondly, there is discrimination as between different categories of people who can be helped in this way. Perhaps the clearest way in which I can put this before the House, because it is slightly complex, is to read part of the relevant paragraph of the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission on income tax and sex discrimination. It said:
      "The terms on which the allowance may be claimed also discriminates in favour of

      1583
      female relatives. If the dependent relative is the mother of the taxpayer (or his wife), then the allowance may be claimed as soon as the mother is widowed, separated or divorced and the taxpayer is providing support. In the case of the father of a taxpayer (or his wife), he must be incapacitated by old age or infirmity before he can be regarded as dependent upon any financial support which is being given.
      This section of the Taxes Act consequently makes a distinction betwen a state of dependency for each sex and, incidentally, means that the unmarried mother of a taxpayer is treated differently as she must also be aged or infirm in order to qualify for the allowance even if the taxpayer is supporting her.
      The assumption appears to be that only a married woman should be regarded as incapable of self-support and that others are expected to be self-supporting unless they are physically incapable."
      I appreciate that that is complex, but, however complicated it may be, it is certain that that discrimination and the discrimination between the persons providing help to dependent relatives is an antique part of our tax system which bears no relation to attitudes as between the sexes today and no relation to the Government's other amendments.
      My amendment would remove this discrimination. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) raised these relatively new issues of what might be called reverse sex discrimination in Committee upstairs. He deserves the congratulations of the House not only for having raised them but for having persuaded the Government to accent most of his points. But the one which the Government have conspicuously not accepted is that in amendment no. 156, concerning the dependent relative.
      It is curious that there is no explanation from the Minister why, having decided to end the discrimination against men in certain of the minor allowances, the Government apparently intend in the dependent relative allowance to perpetuate the discrimination I hope that on reflection the Minister will feel that he should accept amendment no. 156. Although I take his point that he is not convinced that the minor allowances should be kept, this is not the time to debate that matter. It is clear that so long as they remain on the statute book they should be the same for men as for women. That is a point of principle. As the Government have accepted it in
      1584
      practice on a number of the allowances, it is curious that when it comes to the dependent relative allowance the Financial Secretary is unable to accept it.
      The matter was first brought to my attention some time ago by a constituent who happens to be a badge messenger in the House and who is in precisely this position. He could not understand why he should be discriminated against in this way, when a woman with a dependent relative would receive a higher allowance.
      The position is very unsatisfactory. I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will feel that the amendment can be accepted. If not, I advise my hon. Friend not to press the amendment to a Division. Clearly, it is a matter to which we shall want to return in our first Budget.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Amendment no. 155 deals with the minor tax allowances. Under section 15 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, minor allowances are not lost as a result of claiming marriage allowance late in the tax year. If his marriage takes place late in the tax year, the extra allowance—£46 a month—might be less than the tax relief that a man would be able to obtain under his existing claims as a single person for the various personal reliefs—the housekeeper or child-minder or additional personal reliefs to which he may be entitled as a widower or unmarried. Section 15 of the 1970 Act provides him with the option of forgoing his marriage allowance for the first year of marriage and retaining those allowances due to an unmarried man under sections 12, 13 or 14 of that Act.
      However, since 1976–77 a married woman has been treated as single for the year in which she has married. That makes the amendment unnecessary, because she is already treated as single for the whole year in which she has married, unless her marriage takes place on 6th April. Generally, her marriage is already disregarded for tax purposes for the year of marriage, and she continues to receive any allowances to which she is entitled because she is a widow or unmarried. The wife is treated as a single person for the year in which she is married, and there is no problem.
      Amendment no. 156 has as it intention the elimination of sex discrimination from

      1585
      the dependent relative allowance provisions. At present it is worth £100 to a man and £145 to a single woman taxpayer. The amendment seeks to provide the same amount, £145, to all taxpayers and so to prevent any discrimination in favour of the single woman The present conditions are that the relative must be elderly or infirm unless she is the taxpayer's mother or mother-in-law and is widowed, separated or divorced for the claimant to qualify for the allowance.
      I find it difficult to understand the principle behind what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is seeking to achieve. I know his strong concern about widows. It is precisely to meet the problems of widows that this provision exists. Our whole attitude to widows, whose interests the hon. Gentleman pursues assiduously, is one element of sex discrimination of a kind, but a kind that we accept because it reflects the way in which other generations set their standards.
      That is the problem. It may be one that is diminishing with time. As tax matters always fall to be looked at anew in the light of changing social patterns, they will come under further examination.
      But the position of the widows, with which the hon. Gentleman concerns himself so much on so many occasions, is still paramount, and I am afraid that I am unable to accept his amendment.
      Mr. Newton: In spite of what I regard as the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the second half of the Financial Secretary's reply, in the light of the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) I shall not pursue my amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment no. 77, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 11(3) of that Act, the words after "agreement" shall be left out and the words "allowed to the person who has custody of the child" substituted.'.
      I can speak with great brevity as the point is one to which I have referred earlier in our debates. It reflects the worry of the Child Poverty Action Group, and other bodies concerned with one-parent families, about what happens, on the break-up of a marriage, about the
      1586
      distribution of the child tax allowances, and also about the very long delay which can arise in resolving these matters, sometimes causing very considerable hardship, when, even though the wife usually has care and custody of the children, the child tax allowance continues to be made available to the husband.
      The amendment simply seeks to provide that where there is a dispute about the child tax allowances, the relevant fact should be who has custody of the child. That would automatically take the tax allowances in the direction of that person. There is genuine concern about the point outside the House, and I hope that the Minister will give it proper consideration.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that the amendment is worthy of consideration, but I do not believe that it is worthy of acceptance by the House. It seeks to alter the rules for the apportionment of the child tax allowance where there is a double claim. It proposes that where the claimants cannot agree on how to divide the allowance, it should go fully to the person who has the custody of the child. The allowance is apportioned by the General Commissioners of Income Tax in proportion to the amounts provided by each of the claimants for the child's maintenance and education in the year concerned.
      Whatever might be thought of the merits of the suggestion that the child tax allowance should go, in the event of separation, to the parent with whom the child is living, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, his amendment refers to custody, and it really would not be satisfactory for this purpose. In a number of these cases the question of custody would not have been settled by the courts. It is not uncommon in any case nowadays, as I understand, for joint custody to be awarded.
      At this very late stage in the life of our child tax allowance, there seems to be little point in legislating for a changed rule when the whole system of child tax allowance is being phased out.
      Mr. Newton: On the basis of what the Financial Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: no. 96, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 17 of that Act (allowance for services of daughter) for the word "daughter" there shall be substituted the words "son or daughter" and the like amendment shall be made in sections 18(5) and 39(1)(d) of that Act (which contain references to the allowance under section 17).
      (4) In section 18 of that Act (relief for blind persons)—

      (a) in subsection (1)(a) and (b) for the words "throughout the year a registered blind person" there shall be substituted the words "a registered blind person for the whole or part of the year";

      (b) in subsection (2)(b) for the words "throughout the year both he and his wife were registered blind persons" there shall be substituted the words "he was a registered blind person for the whole or part of the year and his wife was also a registered blind person for the whole or part of the year";

      (c) subsections (3) and (4) shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

    Clause 21

      PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to move amendment no. 7, in page 14, line 10, leave out '£10,000' and insert '£17,000'.
      In the closing stages of the Committee proceedings, the Chief Secretary moved a new clause which increased the amount payable as tax-free compensation for loss of office from the £5,000 limit set in 1960 to £10,000. I subsequently moved an amendment to the new clause that the figure of £10,000 should in turn be increased to £17,000.
      The Chief Secretary said at the time —he fully agreed with the point—that if full indexation were allowed for, the limit of £5,000 having originally been set in 1960, the figure should be increased to £19,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) also moved an amendment, virtually to that effect, suggesting that the figure be increased to £20,000.
      My amendment to increase the figure to £17,000, as I said at the time, was not an attempt to index the £5,000 to an appropriate inflation-adjusted figure but specifically to deal with the case of the handful of steel workers, employees of
      1588
      the British Steel Corporation, who are now having to leave the corporation and are receiving as large redundancy payments as £17,000, or even perhaps somewhat higher figures than that. The amendment to increase the figure to £17,000 led to a tied vote in Committee.
      I am very well aware that £17,000 is an extremely large sum of money to pay tax-free to any person, but I think that there is a case in this instance for the Government to give special consideration to that very small body of steel workers who, through no fault of their own, are now having to leave plants where they have worked all their lives and who, because they have been there for a very long time, are receiving such high redundancy payments as £17,000.
      As I said in Committee, I hold this Labour Government very much to blame for the delay that they have permitted in reaching decisions to close the high-cost plants in parts of Wales, the North of England and Scotland. I think that that delay, which was very largely due to political considerations—many of these high-cost plants were in Labour-held constituencies—has led to a great deal more human misery among the workers in the industry than would otherwise have happened.
      Because of the world-wide recession in the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation is now taking the necessary and unpalatable decisions, and these men are being declared redundant and are losing their jobs at a time not only of high recession in the steel industry throughout the world but of very high unemployment in this country. They are therefore finding it very difficult to obtain alternative employment.
      This emphasises the folly of political considerations—in this case the political consideration of keeping open high-cost plants—muddying necessary, although painful, industrial decisions. It would have been far better for these men if the redundancy decisions had been taken in 1974 and 1975, when unemployment was less high. But instead the unemployment and redundancy is taking place now within the British Steel Corporation. The work force has been trimmed in the last two years by about 13,000 people. With the closures which are inevitably planned for the months

      1589
      ahead, at Shelton, Bilston and Glengarnoch, there will be further redundancies declared within the BSC.
      I realise that the average redundancy payment is very much lower even than the figure of £10,000, which the Chief Secretary has suggested as being that which should now be the upper limit for tax-free redundancy or loss of office payments. I think that the average redundancy payment at East Moors, Ebbw Vale and Hartlepool is around £5,000. None the less, a handful of people are receiving these very high payments of £17,000 and upwards. From what we have already read in the press, it could well be that there will be more people seeking and obtaining even higher redundancy payments in future years in other BSC works.
      I was told that one steel worker, when he received his redundancy cheque, looked at it and said "It is as large and fat as my bedspread." There can be no wish in this House, I suggest, when a man has worked for 25 years as a skilled worker in a steel works, and, through no fault of his own, has been declared redundant, that he should find, so to speak, that part of the feathers or padding has been removed from his bedspread, and that when he receives the fat cheque he has to pay a substantial amount of tax on some part of it.
      When we got to this point in Standing Committee, the Chief Secretary assured us that, because of top slicing, a married man with two children and no other income in the year in which he received his redundancy payment would be able to receive a redundancy payment as high as £19,000 without having to pay any tax. Since the Chief Secretary told us that, we have all had an opportunity, just as I am sure he has, to look rather more closely at the figure which he gave to us.
      It seems to me that there are two very definite snags to the Chief Secretary's argument. I agree with him that, indeed, for a man with no other income and two children, he should be able to receive a payment of £19,000 under section 187 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, and he would pay no tax at all if his employment were terminated in 1978–79 after the £10,000 limit comes into effect. But, as I say, there are two particular snags.
      1590
      If the man in question has only modest levels of other income—for example, if he puts his redundancy payment on deposit with a building society and then gets interest from the building society on his redundancy payment, or —and perhaps this is the most particularly important point—if he takes another job after being declared redundant, for as little as £40 per week for six months in the year—he could then find himself with an increase in his total tax liabilities which was in excess of the gross amount of that extra earned income.
      To put it simply, if a man earns £1,000 gross from his new job, he will pay more than £1,000 in tax on the totality of his redundancy payment plus the tax on his new earned income. I am sure the Chief Secretary will not disagree with that calculation.
      That is a very great disincentive to someone who has been declared redundant seeking and taking another job. Yet surely it must be the wish of everyone in this House that such people should be encouraged and given incentives to seek and obtain other employment. They cannot possibly have such incentives if they find that for every additional pound they earn, they will be paying more than £1 in tax.
      The other disadvantage to the Chief Secretary's statement is that there will he a severe deduction of pay-as-you-earn from the redundancy payment if the figure stays at the £10,000 which is now in the Bill. I remind the House that if an employee has left and the form P45 has been issued by the time the redundancy payment is made, which is the normal practice, PAYE is deducted not in accordance with the employee's code number but at a basic rate on the excess over the free amount which is being proposed by the Chief Secretary as £10,000.
      In the case of an employee receiving £19,000—the Chief Secretary's example—the PAYE deduction would in fact be immediately £2,970, or £3,060 if paid before the Finance Bill 1978 receives the Royal Assent. This deduction would be made regardless of the personal circumstances of the employee and there would be no chance of the employee getting that money back until after the following 5th April.

      1591
      Therefore, we have the situation in which even in the ideal example stated by the Chief Secretary, there would be a substantial PAYE deduction from these higher redundancy payments. The employee would have to go through the hoop of seeking PAYE repayment, and he is also being put in the business of taking some very complex decisions about how to handle his tax affairs. He has to decide whether to elect for top slicing. He has to decide whether his wife should declare her earned income separately if she has a job. As we all know, these are not simple matters.
      The steel worker in this case would be led into the area of taking a whole series of complex tax decisions as to how to minimise the tax burden on himself. I believe we would all agree that he probably is not capable of taking them. He would need very proper and serious professional advice in order to reach the right decision.
      It is therefore against that background that I think this problem can simply be dealt with by hoisting up the threshold for tax-free redundancy payments to the £17,000 level that I have suggested. This would remove this handful of retiring steel workers from having to make these very complex decisions. It could not possibly be a matter of great expense for the Government. It is against that background that I urge the House to accept the amendment.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): As the hon. Gentleman said, in Standing Committee we discussed the size of compensation that should be paid tax free. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not take up his partisan points about who is to blame for the redundancies in the steel industry. I note that the hon. Gentleman's solution to relieve the misery would have been to make the redundancies earlier.
      The figure of compensation included in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, is a very substantial increase—from £5,000 previously to £10,000 this year. I note that last year the Opposition had an amendment down to increase it from £5,000 to £7,500.
      Mr. Lawson: And another amendment to increase it to £10,000.
      Mr. Barnett: We have now got £10,000 in the Bill. I wish that the hon. Member
      1592
      would keep quiet for just one moment. He is getting terribly impatient.
      Mr. Lawson: No, I am just putting the Chief Secretary right.
      Mr. Barnett: We have now got £10,000 in the Bill.
      As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, the main purpose behind moving the amendment was to help the steel workers. That was, indeed, the sole purpose of his case for increasing the figure to £17,000, although he recognised, fairly, that the average redundancy payments for steel workers would be very much less than £10,000. Indeed, he referred to the figure of £5,000. I agree with him that the average is very considerably less than £10,000. My understanding is that there will be very few who will receive anything like £17,000. It is, as he said, a very large sum. As he rightly said, we should not begrudge paying this amount of money to people who have been made redundant after working many years in the steel industry and made redundant through no fault of their own.
      As an aside, I would say that whilst I would not disagree at all with this, I sometimes feel rather bad on behalf of my own textile workers who have also been made redundant in very large numbers over a very long period of time without getting any kind of compensation at all and certainly nothing in the region of these sums and certainly not large lump sum payments tax free. I feel I have to say that if only to put the matter into some kind of perspective. That is not to say that one in any way begrudges paying substantial redundancy payments by way of compensation to steel workers who have been made redundant in areas where the prospects of obtaining new employment are not good.
      In Standing Committee I pointed out that in practice, for the vast majority of those being made redundant, because of what is known as top slicing, for a married steel worker with no other income in the year in which he is made redundant, the actual amount he would be able to receive tax free would be £19,000. The hon. Gentleman did not disagree with that. Indeed, if that is the case—and I shall come in a moment to the newspaper article that appeared to throw some doubt on whether what I

      1593
      had said in Standing Committee was correct—the hon. Gentleman's amendment would mean that that married man would be able to obtain £26,000 wholly free from tax. I am bound to say that this is indeed a very large sum. If the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said that £10,000 tax free was a very large sum, which it is, then certainly £26,000, including the top slicing, would be a very considerable sum indeed.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Lawson: The Chief Secretary explained how top slicing relief works. Did I hear him say "if the man concerned has no other earnings in the year or no other income in the year", because that is an important distinction?
      Mr. Barnett: I was coming to that point, but I shall deal with it now. I was referring, as I did in Committee, to no earnings other than from the job from which the person concerned has been made redundant. I see the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex nodding.
      Mr. Lawson: What about investment?
      Mr. Barnett: I shall come to that point. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex asked what would happen if the money were deposited and the person concerned had some investment income. However, I was about to deal with the central question whether the £19,000 is correct, because some doubt has been thrown upon this by an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 9th July which stated that all of it would be taxable under section 183 of the Taxes Act. I want to assure the House, and all those concerned, that that is simply not true. The Inland Revenue has never contended that there is liability on this basis on payments in cases of genuine redundancy where the payment arises out of that redundancy. This is not something special for steel workers, because it applies across the board. It is regarded as analogous to statutory payments under the Redundancy Payments Act which are specifically exempted from tax.
      As I say, there is no difference between the treatment for steel workers and that of any other group of redundant workers. I am happy to be able to give that assurance and to confirm what I said in Committee, that for a married man with no
      1594
      other earnings, other than from the job in which he was made redundant, he would be able to receive £19,000 wholly free from tax.
      I hope that the House will consider that that is not an unreasonable sum. In the vast majority of cases it is far in excess of anything which most steel workers will be receiving. The hon. Members for Mid-Sussex and Blaby asked what the situation would be if a person puts the money on deposit or takes another job. If he puts money on deposit, and has other investment income, that would affect the amount of tax. But equally, in many instances—and we should not be one-sided on these matters—there may well be other allowances. I quoted the £19,000 in respect of a married man with no other allowances whatever. He may well have mortgage interest relief, life assurance relief and other reliefs, which would equally be eligible and which would put the figure very much higher than £19,000.
      It is seeking to have the best of every conceivable world to allow £19,000 compensation wholly free from tax and at the same time say that if it is invested there will be more tax to pay on the interest. It is true that there is, but I am not sure how one proceeds on this basis. If compensation was given at £26,000, as the amendment would do, one would have the same kind of problem on another level. All that one is doing is raising the level. The main purpose of this compensation is particularly to compensate those workers who are not able to obtain another job. If they do obtain another job, have the £10,000 wholly free from tax, and do not get the whole of the top slice of relief because they get another job, then main I do not think that that is unreasonable.
      One is seeking to help the worker who has been made redundant and who has not been able to get another job. But the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex proceeded to make the further point, with which I agree—it was the major reason why we sought to raise the relief from £5,000 to £10,000—about the disincentives which there would otherwise be with regard to a man seeking another job.
      Mr. Lawson: It is going round in circles.
      Mr. Barnett: Of course, it is a circular argument. The hon. Member for Blaby

      1595
      is quite right. But the only way one can cut it out is by raising the level of compensation so high as not to bother anyone at all. I do not think that the House would want to do that. By the relief we are giving here, at £10,000, we are providing for the vast majority of steel workers, and every other worker, who is being made redundant. With the top slicing relief one is making further provision for the comparatively small number of additional workers who might receive something in excess of £10,000. But to raise it to £17,000, so that with top slicing it would be £26,000, is something which is far in excess of anything which I could recommend to the House, and that is why I am unable to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Lawson: We are now having a rather briefer debate on this clause than we had when it was first introduced upstairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has made all the important points which require to be made on the raising of the figure from £5,000 to £10,000, as we proposed last year, although it was then voted down, and the consequences in particular for the Shelton steel workers and other steel workers who have large redundancy payments.
      It is worth making two observations. First, the Chief Secretary said that very few steel workers ever get redundancy payments remotely in this league. That is a very strange thing, because in Committee the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), in whose constituency the Shelton steel works is located, spent a large part of his time fighting for those works to remain open. He was very exercised about this and he is a greater authority on the Shelton steel works than the Chief Secretary. He made the point that a very large number of his constituents were in precisely this position, and would be affected by the failure of the Government to increase the golden handshake, as it has been called—the payment for termination of employment on a tax-free basis higher than £10,000.
      The Chief Secretary says that there are problems with regard to £10,000 and that one can get around those problems only by having a figure so high that it does not bother anyone. It is worth recalling that this figure was first fixed at £5,000 in
      1596
      1960. Merely to maintain the equivalent of 1960 would require £19,000, and not the £17,000 which my hon. Friend has modestly suggested in the amendment. Therefore, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that we are proposing a figure which in real terms is in any way unprecedented. Indeed, in real terms it is lower than the 1960 figure.
      It is worth asking ourselves why it is that that figure was allowed to stay for so long at £5,000 and then suddenly this year it pops up to £10,000. We know why, because up to this year the people who were affected by suddenly losing their jobs and their prospects of employment—probably at an age when it was difficult to get a new job—tended to be middle management. Perhaps due to a take-over bid, or a contraction in the industry, middle managers have been very insecure in the difficult economy with which we have been faced for the past few years. They have had a real problem of how to make ends meet. Yet the Government were not in the slightest bit interested in meeting their problems.
      However, when one or two powerful trade union leaders knocked on the Treasury door and said "You are closing down the steel works where our lads are employed. They will have compensation payments of over £5,000 and will find themselves taxed on it. This is intolerable.", the Chief Secretary says "Oh well, I shall raise the figure straight away." There could be no more blatant or glaring example of the double standards employed by the present Government in dealing with hardship. They could not care less about hardship for some groups of people. They are not interested. They care only about hardship caused to members of powerful trade unions, but not all trade unions. They are not interested in small trade unions. That is why textile workers in the constituency of the Chief Secretary are not given consideration. But the members of powerful trade unions must get consideration from the Government, and that is what Socialism means. It is the grossest inequality of all.
      The Chief Secretary really went round in a circle. In introducing the new clause, the Inland Revenue press release said that the increase from £5,000 to £10,000
      "will enable the workers who receive redundancy or severance payments to accept other jobs without being discouraged from so doing

      1597
      by the prospect of being faced with substantial tax liabilities in respect of those payments."
      However, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex rightly pointed out that that is exactly what will happen.
      I have had it calculated for me that if these men take up new jobs, the position is even worse than my hon. Friend suggested. If a man gets a part-time job earning perhaps £650 simply because he prefers not to be unemployed, the tax that he has to pay will be as much as £3,000. On almost any job that he may take up, the tax will be more than 100 per cent. on what he earns, the most vicious rate of tax. That is the greatest possible deterrent to taking a new job. The objective set out in the Inland Revenue press release is not met for such people as the steel workers whom we are discussing.
      The Chief Secretary tried to get away with it by saying that he was concerned chiefly with the man who could not get another job. However, that was not the point originally made by the Inland Revenue and by the Chief Secretary when introducing the new clause.
      There is also the point that if a man gets a redundancy payment of this kind, he will want at least to put it on deposit
      and will want to get some interest not because he wants to earn money necessarily but because in these inflationary times merely to retain the value of his capital intact he has to get what is characterised as investment income but which, as the Meade report pointed out, is nothing of the sort.
      The whole drift of what the Chief Secretary is suggesting is that a man in that position must not save his money, he must not get another job, and he should live off social security. That is the one way in which he will be able to draw the tax benefit which the Chief Secretary intends to confer with this clause.
      That again is wholly characteristic of the present Government's approach, and it is an approach which the Opposition reject entirely. As a consequence, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, in the light of the lamentable reply that we have had from the Chief Secretary and in the light of my hon. Friend's unanswered arguments, to press his amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 264.

      Division No. 262]

      AYES

      [7.44 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cockcroft, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Alison, Michael

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Gorst, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cope, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spe thorne)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Corrie, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Awdry, Daniel

      Costain, A. P.

      Grieve, Percy

      Baker, Kenneth

      Crouch, David

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Banks, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      Bell, Ronald

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Benyon, W.

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hannam, John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Biffen, John

      Dunlop, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Durant, Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Blaker, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Body, Richard

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bottomley, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hicks, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Brittan, Leon

      Farr, John

      Hodgson, Robin

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fell, Anthony

      Holland, Philip

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Buck, Antony

      Forman, Nigel

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Budgen, Nick

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Galbraith Hon T. G. D.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Burden, F. A.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Channon, Paul

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      James, David

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Jopling, Michael

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Silvester, Fred

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Neave, Airey

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Nelson, Anthony

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Neubert, Michael

      Spence, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Newton, Tony

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Normanton, Tom

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Knox, David

      Nott, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Lamont, Norman

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stainton, Keith

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Osborn, John

      Stanley, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Stokes, John

      Loveridge, John

      Percival, Ian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Luce, Richard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Tapsell, Peter

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Tebbit, Norman

      MacGregor, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Raison, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Viggers, Peter

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wakeham, John

      Marten, Neil

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mates, Michael

      Rhodes James, R.

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mather, Carol

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Maude, Angus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wall, Patrick

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walters, Dennis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wells, John

      Mills, Peter

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Scott, Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Moate, Roger

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Monro, Hector

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Morgan, Geraint

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Peter Morrison.

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cowans, Harry

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Allaun, Frank

      Crawford, Douglas

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Anderson, Donald

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cronin, John

      Freud, Clement

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Bob

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      George, Bruce

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Ginsburg, David

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Golding, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Graham, Ted

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bates, Alf

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bean, R. E.

      Deakins, Eric

      Grocott, Bruce

      Beith, A. J.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dempsey, James

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Doig, Peter

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bradley, Tom

      Dunn, James A.

      Henderson, Douglas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hooley, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Horam, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Eadie, Alex

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Edge, Geoff

      Huckfield, Les

      Buchan, Norman

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      English, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hunter, Adam

      Canavan, Dennis

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Cartwright, John

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Janner, Greville

      Clemitson Ivor

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Coleman, Donald

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Flannery, Martin

      John Brynmor

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Corbett, Robin

      Foot. Rt Hon Michael

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      1600

      1601

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Noble, Mike

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Judd, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Kerr, Russell

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stott, Roger

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ovenden, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Kinnock, Neil

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lambie, David

      Padley, Walter

      Swain, Thomas

      Lamond, James

      Palmer, Arthur

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Pardoe, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Park, George

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lee, John

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Lestor, Miss John (Elton & Slough)

      Parry, Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thompson, George

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Litterick, Tom

      Perry, Ernest

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Phipps, Or Colin

      Tierney, Sydney

      Luard, Evan

      Prescott, John

      Tilley, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Tinn, James

      MacCormick, Iain

      Radice, Giles

      Tomlinson, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Tomney, Frank

      McElhone, Frank

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Torney, Tom

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Watkins, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Watkinson, John

      Madden, Max

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Watt, Hamish

      Magee, Bryan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Weetch, Ken

      Mahon, Simon

      Rose, Paul B.

      Weitzman, David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Whitlock, William

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ryman, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Meacher, Michael

      Selby, Harry

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Sever, John

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Woof, Robert

      Moonman, Eric

      Silverman, Julius

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Newens, Stanley

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move amendment no. 118, in page 14, leave out lines 11 to 20.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 122, in page 14, line 17, leave out 'a' and insert 'one quarter of the'
      No. 120, in page 14, line 18 leave out 'or refrained from exercising'.
      No. 119, in page 14, leave out lines 30 to 32.
      Mr. Ridley: These amendments bring the House back to the vexed question of the offending subsection (2) in what was new clause no. 51 and is now clause 21.
      This subsection was designed by the Government to deal with what the Chief Secretary has called "a device of rather
      1602
      flagrant tax evasion". I must challenge that view to begin with. This is not a device. The device that the Chief Secretary describes is in schedule 8 of the Taxes Act. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that schedule set out absolutely clearly the arrangements for the standard capital superannuation benefit and how these are calculated. They apply to all persons who retire early through ill health or old age, and everyone may claim that relief to offset his liability to tax on compensation of that sort—and I mean compensation of that sort and not compensation for loss of office.
      Therefore, what the Chief Secretary describes as "a device" is an enshrined part of our law and has been so for a very long time. If he wishes to change it, he should give reasons for changing it and not simply say that it has been a device which people have used for tax avoidance.

      1603
      8.0 p.m.
      The first and the last of these amendments seek to cut out subsection (2). Amendment no. 122 reduces the deduction on behalf of standard capital superannuation benefit relief by one-quarter, which is an arbitrary figure that I have taken in order to reduce the burden imposed by the subsection. I shall not press that amendment. I was fearful that the Chair would not call any of my amendments because they were debated in Committee and I sought a device to put the point in a different way.
      Amendment no. 120 seeks to return to the taxpayer the option whether he exercises his right to commute his pension. That is perfectly fair and reasonable, because if someone does not commute a pension, taxing him on the lump sum capital value, as if he had commuted the pension, will result in double taxation because he will later pay tax on the income from the commuted part of his pension. He will be paying tax both on the lump sum that he commutes and on the income that he receives from the rest of that lump sum. That is most unjust, and I therefore commend amendment no. 120.
      I consider that the whole subsection is misconceived because it does not deal properly with the problem—if one accepts that there is a problem, which I do not. The Chief Secretary thinks that people should not be allowed to deduct the standard capital superannuation benefit at all and he says that whether or not they commute their pensions, they are not to be allowed this relief.
      In Committee, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the point that where people do not have the right to a pension at all, or where they have a pension which is not commutable, the old provisions of the Taxes Act will continue to apply. He replied:
      "With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we may be at cross purposes, though I am not sure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27th June 1978; c. 1682.]
      That was as far as his knowledge of the point seemed to go. We were, indeed, at cross purposes and he did not seem to understand that those people might benefit, largely because they do not have a commutable pension.
      The Chief Secretary has chosen a very dubious way of achieving what he seeks
      1604
      to do. I do not accept that we should do it in the first place, but if I accepted that excessive tax-free sums have been made available to people, I would then suggest that we should look at the whole matter again because it is not sensible to link the taxation of compensation for loss of office, which is a matter that we may perhaps be able to come to an agreement on, with the totally separate question whether a person commutes his pension.
      The only way in which this connection can be justified is by saying that because a man receives two lump-sum payments, one as compensation and one as commutation, at the same moment, that is a nice big sum of money that those in the Inland Revenue should be able to get their mitts on.
      I shall listen carefully to what the Chief Secretary has to say. I would prefer the whole subsection to be struck out, and that is the view of those outside who follow our proceedings, and particularly of various experts. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to go that far, as I fear he will not be, we should at least adopt amendment no 120, which will let escape from this net those who have not commuted their pensions.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) knows the high regard in which I hold him, but when he accuses me of not understanding this matter, I have to say that he is either being terribly naive, which is the best accusation I can level against him, or that he knows about the abuse. He probably does not know, but the experts to whom he referred certainly know.
      Let me explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman and the House so that they clearly understand what sort of abuse I am referring to. Let us take the example of a man—in order to avoid being emotive I shall not take the example of the chairman or director of a public company—who is on a salary of, say, £24,000 a year and is entitled to a pension of £16,000 a year, £4,000 of which is commutable for a lump sum of £36,000 tax-free.
      Suppose that man retires after 44 years' service, waives his right to commute, and is awarded an ex gratia payment of £52,800, which will be wholly

      1605
      tax-free after the standard capital superannuation benefit relief. Instead of drawing a pension of £12,000 a year and a tax-free lump sum of £36,000, he will get a pension of £16,000 a year, having not commuted, and a tax-free lump sum of £52,800. In other words, he will get the benefit twice.
      I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury really understood that this could happen, but I have no doubt that the experts to whom he referred are well aware of it. That is why they want the subsection deleted. I understand that very well. That is why I recommend to the House that we should do nothing of the sort.
      The standard capital superannuation benefit relief was designed to enable payment of broadly the same amount of tax-free sums as could have been received by way of tax-free lump sums under superannuation schemes. In practice, employees are entitled to commute part of their pension or to elect not to commute, in which case they are, by arrangement, awarded a tax-free, lump sum, ex-gratia payment instead. In that way, employees have got the best of both worlds—an unabated pension and unrestricted relief under the standard capital superannuation benefit. I am sure that that cannot be what the hon. Member wishes to see continue. I hope that the House does not want that.
      There is not much more for me to say. The hon. Gentleman asked what happened when there was no right to commute. We have looked into this matter and we do not know of any schemes that have no such right. That is quite understandable, because if there were pension schemes that did not include the right to commute there could be no certainty that those in the scheme would be able to get a tax-free, ex-gratia award as well. That is why there are no schemes that do not include the right to commute part of the pension.
      The system has been used in a way that was not intended. The subsection removes that abuse and prevents a man getting the benefit twice over. I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will feel that he should not press this amendment.
      1606
      The hon. Gentleman says that there is no significance in the fraction of one-quarter in amendment no. 122. He said that it is arbitrary and that he does not propose to press the amendment. I do not propose to dissuade him from that course. He seemed to be seeking the support of his hon. Friends for amendment no. 120. I am bound to tell him that its purpose is not altogether clear. If the intention is to seek to distinguish between what might be called the innocent, who inadvertently fall within the subsection and those who might be called the guilty, who do so as a result of a deliberate act, the amendment seems to have it the wrong way round. The man who would automatically have received a lump sum by refraining from exercising an option not to receive it, and in fact exercises that option, is surely more guilty—I use the word "guilty" only in the context of the debate—than the man who has to exercise an option to receive a lump sum and does not do so.
      Therefore, I do not think that amendment no. 120 meets what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I hope that both he and the House will agree, having heard what I have said, that the subsection should remain part of the clause.
      Mr. Lawson: The Chief Secretary has once again attempted to curdle our blood and make our hair stand on end by talking of sinister figures who are trying to introduce dreadful devices. He suggests that they are behind all the monstrous activities that he, single-handedly, is fighting to avoid. The reality is a little different from that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is right when he says that there are people outside the House who are concerned at the effect of subsection (2). I am sure that one of the bodies that he has in in mind is the National Association of Pension Funds. I have a letter from the association that was written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). I am sure that the Chief Secretary will agree that the National Association of Pension Funds is not a sinister organisation. However, it is extremely concerned at the effect of the section of the clause that we are discussing.

      1607
      I read an extract from the assocation's letter, which states:
      "We cannot see the logic of allowing a man to have a larger tax-free termination payment and a full non-commutable pension and yet prohibit this if he achieves the same package by waiving his right to commute. We believe that such an anomaly will inevitably be exploited by various devices and in the process will, we fear, lead to distortion in the design of pension scheme rules."
      The association is in a position to understand these matters rather better than the right hon. Gentleman. It is saying that it is the clause that will lead to devices being written into the terms of pension schemes.
      I have another letter, to which I am sure Labour Members will pay great heed, from a nationalised industry pension scheme, namely, the airways pension scheme. The letter was written to the Law Society Gazette. It explains the hardship that is caused in genuine cases as a result of this part of the clause.
      In the hope of stopping what the right hon. Gentleman refers to as a device, meaning that something perfectly legal has been done and some individuals have received larger amounts by way of tax-free payment on retirement after many years of service under the standard capital superannuation benefit system, he has introduced a clause which is generous in the first part but which in the second part will hit hard many who are perfectly genuine and have not attempted to introduce any sort of device.
      8.15 p.m.
      I have in mind those who find themselves redundant. They think that they will receive the tax-free benefit under the standard capital superannuation benefit system that will give them a tax-free benefit reflecting many years of service. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is the only way in which they can obtain large sums. However, they will be told that because they have a commutable pension in addition, which they do not choose to commute, the amount of tax-free benefit that they can obtain is drastically reduced. Therefore, they will be very much worse off.
      It is intolerable that the right hon. Gentleman should take this crude stand and cause many members of pension funds to lose a right that they have long considered to be theirs. They have reason to expect that at the end of the day they will receive the tax-free standard capital
      1608
      superannuation benefit based on their number of years' service. They will suddenly find that that right, which has been in the tax laws for a long time, has been removed through no fault of theirs. They will find that that has happened although they have committed no abuse of the system. That is wholly unjustified.
      If a person does not commute the pension, he receives no capital sum. If he receives no additional capital sum, why should his tax position be adjusted as if he had received such a sum? When he receives the pension, which is not commuted, he pays the full income tax on the pension. Where is the tax dodge? There is no dodge for the normal individual, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that.
      In his hysteria to discover a tax avoidance device under every stone and under every part of our tax law the right hon. Gentleman is inflicting wanton hardship on members of pension funds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury rightly observed.
      There is one matter of regret. I do not normally comment on the selection of amendments for debate, but had amendment no. 167, which appeared in page 2856 of yesterday's Order Paper, been selected, we should wish to divide on it. However, as it has not been selected the only sensible course—I hope that my hon. Friend will take it—is to press amendment no. 118 to a Division.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the Chief Secretary is seized of the reason for anxiety on the part of many who have studied the clause and who are as anxious as he is to prevent the abuse of the tax system that he has described.
      We understand that the scheme which he described, which is a purely collusive scheme to enable a man to receive a larger tax-free benefit by the form in which it is paid, falls within the definition contained in subsection (2). What we do not see is that nothing else but schemes of that sort can fall within the definition. I am not trying to put the right hon. Gentleman under the difficulty of proving a negative, but it is a difficulty that he is under in using the method contained in the subsection to attempt to prevent the form of tax avoidance that he has described.

      1609
      We can imagine circumstances in which the form of words would cover transactions that did not confer an additional tax-free benefit upon the recipient of the lump sum but that were entered into for good and sufficient reasons by both parties. I shall give an example. It may not be a good one, but it will illustrate what I mean.
      Let us suppose that a man had a right to commute part of his pension into a lump sum upon retirement but that he forwent his right to do that for a number of years, on consideration that at the end of that period he would receive a lump sum representing the additional value only, however calculated, of the period for which he had forgone receipt of the lump sum.
      I simply offer that as a case which I think would fall within the definition of the clause but which could be perfectly honest and involve no extra, unintended, tax-free benefit. There is an onus upon the Chief Secretary, if he wishes the subsection to be accepted, reasonably to satisfy the House that this form of words could bite only where the benefit thus received was of the nature of the £52,000 in his illustration. I do not think that I am the only one to whom that is not yet clear.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: I shall try to deal with the example given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said correctly that we are dealing with collusive acts. I do not refer to such people as sinister. They properly take advantage of the situation to obtain a full pension and the tax-free compensation. We are seeking to stop that in this subsection.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South gave the example of the person who has the right to commute part of his pension and who forgoes that right for a period of years, but not completely. Therefore, the lump sum that the person receives is a smaller figure than in the example that I gave. That would be paid later. There is no extra unintended benefit in this case.
      The point that the right hon. Member is missing is that the person in question will still receive the full tax-free benefit that is available to anybody under the terms of the clause. He will still be eligible.
      1610
      But, without this subsection, in addition to receiving the tax-free ex gratia payment, that person will also be able to receive his full pension, having forgone the right to commute part of it. Such a person will not lose anything. That is my understanding of the situation. The person in the example given by the right hon. Member would not lose anything. He would still receive the full amount of tax-free compensation as anybody else under the terms of the clause. If I am wrong, I shall be happy to look at it again. That is my understanding of the way in which the clause works.
      Mr. Ridley: The Chief Secretary attempted to savage me with the charge of naivety. I do not resent that too much but I must savage him first with the charge of being devious.
      This provision was introduced in a new clause in Committee. We all thought that there was some relief. Indeed, there is the relief to the extent of £10,000. But for many people this is a large diminution and as much as £30,000 can he brought into tax as a result of the subsection.
      My first question is almost one for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this increase in the tax burden on certain people within the Ways and Means Resolution? I have seen nothing about it. I think that it is without the Ways and Means Resolution. It is wrong for the Government to seek to bring in extra taxation at this time.
      The Chief Secretary presented this proposal as an anti-avoidance device. He called it a device, but now he says that it is nothing of the sort. It is a piece of egalitarian taxation. It is designed to penalise heavily those who have been legally and properly receiving large tax-free payments on retirement. That might be a good thing to do, but the Chief Secretary should have presented it to the House as an increase in taxation on those who commute their pensions or do not commute them.
      The Chief Secretary agrees, having not understood in Committee, that if a pension is not commutable, the old "device" as he called it, might continue. He says that in that case it does not matter because we know of hardly any pensions which are not commutable. But there are several in existence.

      1611
      From now on, every tax avoidance expert in the country will be devising non-commutable pension rights in order to get round this proposition. Even I can see that—and I am naive, according to the Chief Secretary.
      We are not arguing with the Chief Secretary about the principle. We are asking him to have a look at this with great care. Let him take the proposition away and work out the proper arrangements. It is clear that not only does he not understand it but, more important, he has got it wrong. The Government would be wise to accept the amendment and to spend the next few weeks of their existence
      trying to work out fair arrangements which are not easily avoided and which can be the subject of consultation with the pension funds and others who practise in this area.
      Unless the Chief Secretary is about to jump to his feet and accept the amendment, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press it in the Division Lobbies.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 274.

      Division No.263]

      AYES

      [8.26 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Alison, Michael

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Knox, David

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lamont, Norman

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fox, Marcus

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Banks, Robert

      Galbraith Hon T. G. D.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Bell, Ronald

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Loveridge, John

      Benyon, W.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Luce, Richard

      Biffen, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      McCrindle, Robert

      Blaker, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Body, Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      MacGregor, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gorst, John

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Brittan, Leon

      Gray, Hamish

      Marten, Neil

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Grieve, Percy

      Mates, Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mather, Carol

      Brotherton, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Angus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Buck, Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Hannam, John

      Mills, Peter

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Burden, F. A.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monro, Hector

      Channon, Paul

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hawkins, Paul

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan, Geraint

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hicks, Robert

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Cockcroft, John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Cope,John

      Holland, Philip

      Neave, Airey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Corrie, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Neubert, Michael

      Costain, A. P.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Newton, Tony

      Crouch, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Normanton, Tom

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborn, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      James, David

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Durant, Tony

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jopling, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Elliott, Sir William

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Emery, Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Kimball, Marcus

      Raison, Timothy

      Farr, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Fell, Anthony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Spence, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Rhodes James, R.

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wakeham, John

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stainton, Keith

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wall, Patrick

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Stanley, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Warren, Kenneth

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Stokes, John

      Wells, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Silvester, Fred

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Anthony Berry

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      NOES

      Abse Leo

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Allaun, Frank

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunn, James A.

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Judd, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alex

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Edge, Geoff

      Kerr, Russell

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      English, Michael

      Lambie, David

      Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lamond, James

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Bates, Alf

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bean, R. E.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Beith, A. J.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Litterick, Tom

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Flannery, Martin

      Luard, Evan

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Bradley, Tom

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McElhone, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Freud, Clement

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Buchan, Norman

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Ginsburg, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Golding, John

      Madden, Max

      Caravan, Dennis

      Gourlay, Harry

      Magee, Bryan

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mahon, Simon

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Cartwright, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hardy, Peter

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Harrison. Rt Hon Walter

      Meacher, Michael

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cowans, Harry

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Henderson, Douglas

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hooley, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Cronin, John

      Horam, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Cryer, Bob

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Huckfield, Les

      Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Newens, Stanley

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Noble, Mike

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hunter, Adam

      Oakes, Gordon

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Ogden, Eric

      Deakins, Eric

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Janner, Greville

      Ovenden, John

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Dempsey, James

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Padley, Walter

      Doig, Peter

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Dormand, J. D.

      John Brynmor

      Pardoe, John

      1614

      1615

      Park, George

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Tomney, Frank

      Parker, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Parry, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Pendry, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Perry, Ernest

      Silverman, Julius

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Prescott, John

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      Watkins, David

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Snape, Peter

      Watkinson, John

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Watt, Hamish

      Radice, Giles

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Weetch, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Weitzman, David

      Reid, George

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Whitlock, William

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Stott, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Swain, Thomas

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Rose, Paul B

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thompson, George

      Woof, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ryman, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Tierney, Sydney

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tilley, John

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Selby, Harry

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Sever, John

      Tomlinson, John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 4

      SCHEDULE D: RELIEF FOR ABSENCE ON BUSINESS ABROAD
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move amendment no. 11, in page 67, line 13, after '1975', insert
      'and the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975'.
      This is a consequential amendment to bring into line for those in Northern Ireland the treatment of relief for absences abroad in calculating national insurance contributions.
      Mr. Powell: Will the Minister satisfy me on a point of curiosity? Incidentally, I am not certain that he was accurate to say that this is a consequential amendment. It is certainly a necessary amendment because the same enactment was made separately for Northern Ireland and for the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is consequential in the sense only that it is consequential on the Bill itself.
      However, it is not for the purpose of that quibble that I wish to trouble the Financial Secretary but to draw his attention to the fact that reference to the same paragraph of the same schedule to the same Social Security Act 1975 occurs in the Bill. I refer to page 19, line 38, clause 26(7)(c).
      1616
      I cannot understand why in the one place where that paragraph is mentioned we have to accommodate side by side with it the equivalent Northern Ireland provision, whereas we can rest content in clause 26(7)(c) with referring to the matter there without equally matching it with a reference to the corresponding Northern Ireland enactment. There may be a reason, but it has escaped not only myself but other more expert observers of these matters.
      If the Minister comes to the conclusion or receives advice to the effect that there should have been a corresponding amendment in clause 26(7), a difficulty arises in that we are on Report, which is our last opportunity for amendment. I dare say that the resources of Government are equal to dealing with this situation. It will be a pity if a reference to the appropriate Northern Ireland legislation which should have been in the Finance Bill is missing, because it might have a prejudicial effect on taxpayers in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I take the right hon. Gentleman's comments about this being a necessary rather than a consequential amendment. Perhaps in those cases where we are legislating separately for Northern Ireland, and where a piece of legislation that is suitable for the rest of the United Kingdom automatically needs to find its echo in the legislation of

      1617
      Northern Ireland, we loosely refer to them as "consequential" amendments.
      The right hon. Gentleman asks about the difference between clause 26 and this amendment. Here we need to refer explicitly to schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland legislation because it requires a textual amendment to the Northern Ireland provisions. I understand that this is not necessary in respect of clause 26.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 24

      FARMING AND MARKET GARDENING: RELIEF FOR FLUCTUATING PROFITS
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move amendment no. 55, in page 16, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert:
      '(4) No claim shall be made under this section—'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this amendment we may take Government amendment no. 56.
      Mr. Sheldon: These amendments meet two points concerning the time limit for claims to the averaging provisions for farmers. In Committee, my right hon. Friend accepted in principle an amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and said that we would be prepared to table an amendment on Report to meet its objective.
      The new subsection introduced by amendment no. 56 is concerned with situations where the profits for the year are adjusted either up or down for reasons other than averaging. That can take place for example when there has been an error or an alteration in circumstances or the inspector perhaps discovers additional profits to be assessed. In that event, the averaged profits are to be ignored and the adjustment is to be made on the basis of the gross profits as originally computed. The new subsection provides for the farmer to be able to claim for averaging the adjusted profits as long as the claim is made within one year of the end of the year of assessment.
      There is a second feature of these amendments which was not raised in
      1618
      Committee but has been explained in representations since. The problem is that by the time the claim for averaging is made it could be too late to do anything about existing claims, for example, in respect of stock relief or capital allowances. Under the present rules, it would not be possible to change or to withdraw the original claim for relief on the profits after they have been averaged. As the effect of averaging is to change the profit figure on which the original claim was based, it is right that the taxpayer should be allowed to start again on the basis of the new figure. I hope that these amendments commend themselves to the House.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for improving on the amendment that I moved in Committee and for bringing his amendment forward today.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: no. 56, in page 17, line 43, at end insert—
      '(8) Any claim under this section shall be made by notice in writing given to the inspector not later than two years after the end of the second of the years of assessment to which the claim relates but any such further claim as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above shall not be out of time if made before the end of the year of assessment following that in which the adjustment is made.
      (9) Where a person makes a claim under this section in respect of any year of assessment, any claim by him for relief for that year under any other provision of the Income Tax Acts—

      (a) shall not be out of time if made before the end of the period in which the claim under this section is required to be made; and

      (b) if already made, may be revoked or amended before the end of that period;

      but no claim shall by virtue of this subsection he made, revoked or amended after the determination of the claim under this section.'.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

    Clause 25

      DIVERS AND DIVING SUPERVISORS
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move amendment no. 178, in page 18, line 30, after 'section', insert
      'does not apply for the years 1978–79 or 1979–80 if the person performing the duties so elects but otherwise it'.
      Clause 25 deals with divers and diving supervisors who logically should be

      1619
      charged to tax under schedule E. The clause is intended to benefit divers and diving supervisors by charging them to tax under schedule D instead of under schedule E. Generally, that will be of benefit to the taxpayer.
      However, one can think of cases where it may not be of benefit at all. It may be better for the diver or the diving supervisor so charged to stay with schedule E, at least for a time. I think that he should be given the chance to make a choice. The amendment would give him the chance to make that choice for the two years 1978–79 and 1979–80 if he elects to do so. It follows from that, although it is not in the amendment, that the election would have to be by proper notice in writing and so on. This is a simple amendment to tidy up the clause.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out that the purpose of the amendment was to give those covered by the clause the right to elect to remain chargeable to tax under schedule E. We discussed this matter in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the reason for providing for elections for the schedule E basis was that, if a diver's earnings in 1978–79 were above the normal, he could be affected to his disadvantage by being forced, for tax purposes, to start a trade on 6th April this year.
      This is caused by the provisions of schedule D, under which the profits of the opening year can form the basis of assessment for the first three years of assessment. That is the argument that the right hon. Gentleman used.
      The present law enables the taxpayer to choose to have the assessments for both the second and third years of the trade based on the profits that arise in those years. The amendment would provide that if a diver has a particularly successful year this year—and this could well happen—he would be able, in the succeeding years, to elect to pay tax on the actual profits arising in each of those years.
      The taxpayer could, of course, begin his trade in a year—I am talking about the general case now—when he knew
      1620
      that his profit would be particularly low. In that event the profits of that abnormally low year would form the basis of the tax assessment for the succeeding two years, and there is no provision for the Revenue to increase the profits figure to that which has arisen each year.
      I think that the provision in the legislation is reasonable, and I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is so.
      Mr. Graham Page: It seems to me that the Financial Secretary is trying to get it both ways. He is trying to get advantage out of the clause where there is disadvantage to those who he intends to benefit by the clause. Because of what the right hon. Gentleman said I cannot ask leave to withdraw the amendment. If the Government feel that they cannot accept it, let them negative it.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 26

      FURTHER RELIEF FOR LOSSES IN EARLY YEARS OF TRADE
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move amendment no. 4, in page 20, line 25 at end insert—
      '(10) This section applies, with the necessary modifications, in relation to a profession or vocation as it applies in relation to a trade.'.
      The amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to achieve the purpose of an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—to extend what is now clause 26, which deals with the carry-back relief for losses in the early years of trade to professions and vocations. My right hon. Friend recognised that there were sometimes problems of definition whether a particular activity constituted a profession or a trade in mixed businesses. The amendment fulfils that undertaking.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the Minister for tabling the amendment following the undertaking given in Committee. At the moment I am scoring two to one.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27

      DEALINGS IN COMMODITY FUTURES: WITHDRAWAL OF Loss RELIEF
      Mr. Trotter: I beg to move amendment no 123, in page 20, line 38, after "from", insert "the disposal of".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment no. 124, in page 21, line 2, at end insert:
      '(4) The following provisions shall have effect where in pursuance of this section a person furnishes to the Board particulars of a transaction or transactions effected or to be effected by him, that is to say—

      (a) if the Board are of opinion that the particulars, or any further information furnished in pursuance of this paragraph, are not sufficient for the purposes of this section, they shall within thirty days of the receipt thereof notify to the said person what further information they require for those purposes, and unless that further information is furnished to the Board within thirty days from the notification, or such further time as the Board may allow, they shall not be required to proceed further under this section;

      (b) subject to the preceding paragraph, the Board shall within thirty days of the receipt of the particulars, or, where that paragraph has effect, of all further information required, notify the said person whether or not they are satisfied that the transaction or transactions as described in the particulars were or will be such that this section shall apply,

      and, subject to the following provisions of this section, if the Board notify him that they are so satisfied this section shall not apply to him in respect of that transaction or those transactions.
      (2) If the particulars, and any further information given under this section with respect to any transaction or transactions, are not such as to make full and accurate disclosure of all facts and considerations relating thereto which are material to be known to the Board, any notification given by the Board under this section shall be void.'.
      Mr. Trotter: These amendments relate to the complex provisions of clause 27 which brings rather draconian powers into force so far as an artificial scheme is in effect for the avoidance of tax by means of a commodity straddle. Those who are innocently engaged in commodity trading could be caught by the clause, and I do not believe that it was intended to apply other than to those who have deliberately set out to avoid tax by what is known as the Tucker scheme.
      1622
      Amendment no. 123 would bring in the requirement that the clause should not apply unless the partnership, which is a feature of these schemes, had come to an end and the person concerned had disposed of his interest in the partnership. If the words in the amendment were included, the innocent type of transaction that might otherwise be caught would be excluded.
      Amendment no. 124 is complex. I shall not go into great detail except to say that it is based on section 464 of the Taxes Act 1970 which brings to play on section 460 of that Act the main anti-avoidance section of that Act, a procedure whereby the taxpayer can obtain a clearance so that he can be satisfied that any scheme in which he is engaged will not be caught under the powers of that Act. Therefore, I am suggesting that it should be made clear to the House that the Government do not propose to catch schemes other than those of the Tucker nature, for which the clause has clearly been specifically designed.
      The Chief Secretary may well not be able to accept the amendments. Their drafting may not be perfect on a very complex subject. But it would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking tonight that it is not the Government's intention to apply this legislation to other than the main Tucker type of scheme.
      Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman might be able to say that the Inland Revenue would be prepared to consider a case put to it by those engaged in commodity dealings to be given a clearance of schemes, so that they know in advance whether they are in danger of having the draconian effect of the clause applied to them.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned this matter to me, and I know of his concern that it is possible that this type of clause, which we shall debate more fully a little later, might catch what he considers to be genuine, innocent traders. I understand that concern. However, amendment no. 123 is not only defective; it wrecks the whole clause.
      Mr. Trotter: That was not the intention of the amendment.
      Mr. Barnett: I appreciate that. I only mention in passing that that is what

      1623
      it would do. I know that there may be some outside the House who might like that to be done, but I know that it was not the hon. Gentleman's intention.
      Mr. Lawson: Substantiate that claim.
      Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is the most remarkable hon. Member. He can never keep his mouth shut for more than about 30 seconds. I have hardly started to reply to his hon. Friend. I am now coming to his hon. Friend's amendment no. 124, which deals with the basic problem about which he was asking me both before the debate and this evening.
      What the hon. Gentleman sought in order to deal with the central problem was a clearance procedure, which would more than meet his purpose. I have some sympathy with him, but the clause is clear. When the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) moved his amendments in Committee, he said on precisely this point:
      "As an individual subscriber to the London metal exchange, I have checked with other commodity markets and I am advised by those who operate in them that they have no objections to the technical wording of the clause. They do not see it as inhibiting their business in any way; it may mean a small loss of trade to those who buy and sell commodity futures but, as I say, they have no objection to the clause. I have not, therefore, tabled the amendments on that ground."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978; c. 698.]
      I do not think that I am quoting unfairly what the hon. Gentleman said.
      I hope that it is clear that what the hon. Member for Tynemouth is seeking relates to an aspect about which those engaged in the commodity trades are not concerned. There will be other concerns. I do not want to do the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex an injustice, but I do not want to quote the rest of what he said. I am dealing with this particular problem.
      If one instituted clearance procedures of the kind proposed in amendment no. 124, the only people who would benefit in practice would be not those genuinely in the commodity trades but the tax avoiders. At the considerable expense of the Inland Revenue, the avoiders and the devisers of schemes would be able to ask the Inland Revenue of each scheme "Can this be cleared?" The
      1624
      Inland Revenue would say "No" until eventually they got one that was right.
      9.0 p.m.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not want clearance procedures that could work only in that direction. Indeed, I know he does not. He wants to assure himself and those outside that the innocent will not be caught by the clause. I assure him that it is nowhere near our intention to catch innocent people who are dealing in commodity futures. I shall be explaining more fully, on the next group of amendments, the kind of scheme that I am talking about. I think that it will be quite clear to anyone who understands these matters that there is no question of catching genuine traders as opposed to those who are seeking, as it were, to latch on to them for the purpose of tax avoidance, as spelt out in the clause.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence and explain why amendment no. 123 would deprive the clause of any effect? As I understood the scheme that was outlined to us in Committee, it was precisely on the point of the disposal of a partnership interest that gave rise to a loss. That was the objectionable element of the scheme. That was the point at which the tax relief crystallised. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) hit precisely that point, and I for one am left completely in the dark on the question why his very well drafted amendment should rob the clause of any effect.
      Mr. Barnett: I am happy to oblige the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is true that an essential feature of the scheme aimed at is the early withdrawal by the tax avoider from the partnership dealing in commodity futures, when the loss-making size of a straddle transaction has been closed out but the profit-making side has not. If the amendment were accepted, however, the tax avoider would argue that a tax reduction accrued not from his disposal of his interest from the partnership but from the losses in dealing. It is the latter which, if anything, gives rise to a claim for tax relief under the sections mentioned in subsection (1) of the clause. What would happen would be that the avoider would expect his arguments to be supported by the courts.

      1625
      That is why I say that the amendment would wreck the clause, and I assume that that is not what the hon. Member for Tynemouth or the right hon. and learned Gentleman have in mind.
      Mr. Trotter: I am concerned with the effect on somebody who is in a partner ship and when, as happens, there has been a loss which may be the main effect of a transaction, but where it was not entered into with a view to having a scheme of the nature of that to which the Chief Secretary has referred. Surely those people will be affected by the proposal, because it is an innocently-entered scheme, in which there is a partnership that is continuing to trade. Those people, because they are in partnership and because they have had some tax advantage, as it happens, will be caught by the clause.
      Mr. Barnett: I am happy to deal with that point further. If the hon. Gentleman will read the clause he will see that we are not talking about the usual kind of partnership between two individuals; we are talking about a partnership between an individual and a company. There are some partnerships of that sort which are genuinely trading; I do not dispute it. But the clause goes on to spell out many other things as well with which I was intending to deal when we came to the later group of amendments.
      From what I said in Committee about the kind of scheme with which we are dealing, and the way in which the clause is drafted, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to fear. Bearing in mind the kind of scheme with which the clause deals, it would be very difficult indeed to find a genuine partnership in which there was at the outset an agreement not only that there should be a loss, but that at that point in time the partners should leave the partnership. It would be very difficult, I suggest, to find a partnership in which an arrangement of that sort had been written into the agreement and signed up in advance, before a profit had ever been made. If it is suggested that that is a genuine partnership, where somebody signs up in advance to lose money and then leaves before a profit is made on the straddle, I am bound to say that that kind of arrangement would be caught by the clause.
      Mr. Trotter: Surely the point there is that the partner has left, whereas in the case that I illustrated the partner has not left. Surely, therefore, he should not be caught.
      Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman is quoting to me a case in which there is not the kind of situation that I have described, I assure him that there is no danger of such a partnership being caught by the clause.
      Mr. Trotter: I should like to put one further point, if I might, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait. He has a right to wind up when we reach the end of the debate, so perhaps he will reserve his winding-up speech until then.
      Mr. Tim Renton: The Chief Secretary quoted quite correctly the remarks that I made in Standing Committee. Indeed, I made a point about those dealing in commodity markets. There was then no objection to this clause other than the aspect of retrospection. This is something else to which we shall be coming. I think that the point that is puzzling the House at the moment is purely in relation to amendment no. 123 and the insertion of the words "the disposal of".
      The Chief Secretary himself said on 6th June:
      "It is intended that the partnership should make quick losses and that he should then leave it. Indeed, that is written into the contract. The terms on which he is committed to then assigning his interest produce a financial loss to him roughly equal to the seller's fee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978; c. 728.]
      The brief from which the Chief Secretar read just now in objecting to amendment no. 123 said that if the person involved did not leave the partnership he would then claim that the losses had arisen as a result of commodity dealings. I suspect that that is a totally different sort of situation.
      I think that we are all genuinely trying to reach the right answer in this. The commodity straddle, in its very essence, means that, at one and the same time, one establishes two positions that are contradictory to each other. One goes long and short on proper futures at the same time and then, according to this scheme, one

      1627
      lifts the leg in the partnership which shows the loss and one disposes of one's interest in the partnership and takes one's loss and puts it off against United Kingdom taxable income.
      That is a totally different concept from that of regular dealings. I therefore fail to follow why the Chief Secretary has been told by his advisers that they cannot accept amendment no. 123. I should have thought that it was inherent in the Chief Secretary's own argument that amendment no. 123 was acceptable.
      Mr. Peter Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is to be congratulated on having demonstrated in such a very clear and concise way the limitations and defects of this particular clause.
      We are very used to the gambit that Treasury Ministers are apt to use in our debates by very rapidly reading, in an incomprehensible way, from the brief that has been put into their hands. We have heard this tried out on us, and the Chief Secretary has tried it again. He has attempted to say that amendment no. 123 would wreck the clause.
      As the right hon. Gentleman explained the operation to us, both in Standing Committee and today—very rapidly, but we were able to take it in—the loss is realised when the operator, the participant, sells his interest in the partnership, and not from a course of dealing. He sells his interest in the partnership at the moment when, because of this straddle operation, the partnership would, if it had come to an end at that point in time, have realised a loss. It is nothing to do with partnership dealing.
      I can only conclude—it is very rare for me to say this to the Chief Secretary—that the right hon. Gentleman has not really understood the operation about which he is so exercised.
      What my hon. Friend demonstrated is that this clause is not drafted with the precision that we would like and, therefore, it leads him, and myself, on to realise that there is need for a clearance procedure. Leaving aside the more general constitutional positions that we shall be debating in a moment, there is obviously a real need for a clearance procedure so that those who may be caught,
      1628
      or think that they might be caught, shall be enabled to seek reassurance from the Inland Revenue.
      It really is a very trumpery argument to say that the only people who can take advantage of this are those who would be wanting to abuse the tax system or those who would be wanting to take advantage of tax avoidance schemes. If that argument is really true, there is no case for any clearance system in our fiscal code.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are sections—alas, not as many as I would like—that do contain a clearance procedure. There is section 464, which is operated, I understand, with reasonable success. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I recently put down a Question to him, in answer to which he gave the number of cases submitted to the Inland Revenue, the number of cases cleared, and the number of cases not cleared.
      If the Chief Secretary is going to make this kind of anti-avoidance provision a regular feature of our fiscal code, he is bound to consider more seriously than he appears to have done the need for a proper clearance procedure. I believe that my hon. Friend has done us a great service in forcing this issue out into the open.
      Perhaps this is not the moment to mount a major debate on this aspect of our fiscal code. Perhaps there will be another opportunity. I know that the House is very anxious to come on to the general constitutional point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has, as it were, focused the attention of the House on the limitations of this avoidance clause, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press the matter to a Division, because he is secure in the knowledge that in a more leisurely and detailed way, we shall be able to explore the full horror of this clause in a moment of time.
      Mr. Trotter: I accept my hon. and learned Friend's comments. I hope that we shall be able to consider this matter in greater depth and at leisure in the future.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move, amendment no. 5, in page 21, line 1, leave out
      'wholly before 6th April 1976'
      and insert 'before 25th November 1977'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 79, in page 21, line 1, leave out
      'wholly before 6th April 1976'
      and insert 'before 11th April 1978'.
      No. 10, in page 21, line 2, leave out '1976' and insert '1978'.
      No. 6, in clause 28, page 21, line 27, leave out '2nd December 1976' and insert '5th April 1978'.
      Sir G. Howe: We come now to the debate that has been foreshadowed to some extent in what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been saying. We are dealing with amendments affecting clauses 27 and 28—clause 27, already discussed, on commodity futures, and clause 28 on the right to repurchase.
      The point common to all four amendments now before us is that they all relate to the dates on which the effective provisions of these two clauses should come into force. In other words, they all raise the question of retrospectivity in relation to both of these anti-avoidance clauses. That question has given rise to substantial and understandable interest, and it raises here, as it always does, very important issues.
      Perhaps I may begin by explaining what the different positions are, represented by the Bill as it stands and the amendments now before us. First, in relation to clause 27, the Government's position as set out in the Bill is that the provision should come into force with effect from 6th April 1976. There is thus provision for two years' retrospectivity, and 18 months' retrospectivity earlier than the date of the first warning given by the Government that they would be legislating in respect of that.
      Amendment no. 5 proposes that the provision should become effective from 25th November 1977, which was the date on which the first warning was given of the Government's intention in this respect. It was given on 25th November 1977, in a Written Answer by the Chief Secretary
      1630
      in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). In that Answer the Chief Secretary set out his awareness of the schemes in question, and he went on:
      "The Revenue tells me that it does not recognise the ensuing claims as valid under existing law. However, its refusal to accept them will doubtless be contested and it could be some years before certainty is reached through the judicial process. To put the matter beyond doubt, therefore, the Chancellor will introduce appropriate legislation in next year's Finance Bill."
      Then there is the rather curious closing sentence:
      "He will be considering from what date legislation against a claim to loss relief contrived in this kind of way should be effective."—[Official Report, 25th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 965–66.]
      It is back to that date that our amendment no. 5 seeks to allow the provision to operate, but no further back than that.
      The third position in relation to clause no. 27 is amendment no. 79, in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). That proposes no retrospectivity at all but that the provision should come into effect on 11th April of the present year—in other words, on the date of the Budget announcement.
      There are those three positions in relation to clause no. 27—back for two years, says the Chief Secretary; back to the date of the announcement, 25th November 1977, say I and my hon. Friends; and back only to the Budget date, says the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
      There are only two options before the House in regard to clause 28. First, there is the Government's proposal, contained in the Bill, that the provisions should be retrospective to 2nd December 1976. That is the date of the first announcement, according to the Government. We propose that it should go back only to 5th April 1978, which effectively provides for no retrospectivity at all.
      9.15 p.m.
      The difference there arises because we do not accept that it is legitimate to go back to the Government's first announcement in December 1976, because they did not thereafter take advantage of the first opportunity that they had to include the provision in the 1977 Finance Bill. Indeed, curiously, they missed a second opportunity of doing that, because they

      1631
      made a second announcement of their intention to do it during the progress of the 1977 Finance Bill through the House of Commons, but even then they did not seek to incorporate their announced intentions in the 1977 Finance Bill, so that the slate was wiped clean by their inertia, if that is not to mix two metaphors too curiously. Having made two announcements, they failed to propose it in the 1977 Finance Bill, and they ought not to be allowed to make it retrospective beyond this year's Finance Bill.
      It will be seen that these debates raise two interwoven and important issues. First, to what extent are retrospective laws of this kind admissible, if at all, in relation to the legislature? Underlying that, it raises the question, what is the basis of principle on which society is entitled to impose taxation on its citizens? What are the principles that guide the way in which that should happen, particularly so when the machinery for imposing such taxes is a democratically elected representative legislature?
      Of course, we know that the history of representative government in this country, and in North America and other places, has centred around the key role played by the exercise of the taxing power, and the constitutional, political and legal status of the taxing power is very important. We must consider the whole of this subject in that context. It is not sufficient to say that we have a democratically elected representative legislature, so it may do what it likes, and that different societies have different methods of checking that.
      Let us be clear what we are not considering. We are not concerned with retrospective legislation in the sense of legislation that confers relief—which legitimises a marriage or exonerates a Member of Parliament for sitting in this House when he is not entitled to—and that is a legislative act of mercy or legitimation. There is no controversy about that, and that is a perfectly acceptable form of procedure. Nor are we here concerned with retrospectivity in the wide general area of penal law. The imposition of punishment retrospectively, the creation of criminal offences retrospectively and the imposition of penalties retrospectively, in that wide meaning of the word "penalty", should certainly be accepted on all sides as being abhorrent and unacceptable. We are concerned with
      1632
      a rather different category, namely, the extent to which retrospectivity raises special difficulties of principle in fiscal policy. I do not believe that many people would argue that one can approach retrospectivity in relation to tax law in the same way as one would approach retrospectivity in relation to criminal or penal law. There is a substantial difference, at least in degree if not in kind, between the right approach to fiscal provisions and others.
      What is the philosophy that we ought to balance in considering this question? I dare say that some Labour Members would subscribe to the intemperate notion that property is theft and, therefore, fiscal provisions can proceed wherever they like to deprive people of property. Certainly the Opposition reject that idea. We start from the premise that the citizen is entitled to the continued enjoyment of his property unless he is deprived of it by the due process of law, with proper compensation.
      There are other people closer to the hearts of my hon. Friends who begin by thinking that taxation is theft and start off with sympathy with that proposition. That goes too far as well.
      Society is entitled to require its citizens to make contributions and sometimes substantial ones to the defence, order and good government of the Realm. The right and power to impose taxes is part of that.
      On that basis, the citizen is not entitled by dishonest or illegal means to evade taxes which are imposed. But it has generally been believed, and rightly so, that the citizen is entitled to avoid taxes which are imposed in the sense that he is entitled to adjust his affairs so as to minimise his burden within the law that is for the time being in force. There are many judicial and other observations to that effect.
      Those are principles from which we start, and they are fairly easily stated and understood.
      The difficulties arise when we begin to consider the extent to which some avoidance is more or less legitimate than others. Proper avoidance—the Chief Secretary has blessed it explicitly on many occasions in the House and in practice—is acceptable to everyone. It is the adjustment of one's affairs by making exempt transfers

      1633
      under capital transfer tax, by making covenants to charity, and by all the other steps that one takes in order to take advantage of licensed loopholes.
      But there is a point when avoidance can be regarded as improper and unacceptable, deserving to be looked at critically, and deserving to be stopped up because it amounts to a defiance of or an escape from the underlying intention of the legislature. It is there that the difficulty arises. Where does that point arise? Can it be argued that something is manifestly an improper avoidance?
      The House will recognise that in clear cases, that kind of avoidance against which the House is entitled to take action can be recognised, and I want to make it clear that there is no dispute on either side of the House about the nature of the transactions with which we are concerned. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said of these provisions:
      "this is an unmeritorious case. So far as I can judge, as tax avoidance schemes go the one with which the clause is concerned is specially unmeritorious."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978, c. 703.]
      That much in relation to the commodity provisions is common ground, and no one should say—and the Chief Secretary should not begin saying—that the Opposition are seeking to defend these provisions or standing as the friends of improper and mischievous tax avoiders. We are standing on a much more sure foundation of principle than that. But what we have to consider is how we deal with an admittedly unmeritorious provision of that kind. What do we do about it?
      There are various alternative approaches which have been or can be adopted, and this debate is about the choice which we should make between them.
      The more usual way is to have nothing to do with retrospectivity at all and to outlaw the provision, as in an ordinary Finance Bill, with the provision dating back only to the date of the Budget resolution. Normally, Parliament is concerned to do it in that way and, indeed, the courts have been concerned to see that retrospectivity is not involved. We all remember the case of Mr. Bowles
      1634
      against the Bank of England which led to the enactment of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. The House will be familiar with those provisions. The normal drill is that the tax becomes effective from the date of the Budget resolution and that that effectiveness lasts only until the Budget resolution is turned into legislation, until the expiry of four months, or until the dissolution of Parliament, and Parliament has taken that care to see that even the Budget resolution is legitimised in that way.
      The second course is that it should be retrospective to the date of the clear announcement of a specific intention to propose particular legislation. That is what we propose as being acceptable in amendment No. 5.
      This is a particularly British approach to the problem. It is what has been described by some people as the "sniper" approach, which is characteristic of our parliamentary technique, in which the proposal being attacked is precisely defined and that precise definition relates back to the original announcement.
      In other countries, quite different approaches exist. In these cases the legislature has conferred wider powers on an official or a tribunal to deal at large with tax avoidance schemes that are generally subject to some kind of appeal procedure. That approach has not commended itself in this country. It was not recommended by the 1955 Royal Commission, and it was not even recommended to the Royal Commission by the Inland Revenue. It has found no friends here.
      The other course that the Government are seeking to put forward here is the much more far-reaching and wide-ranging pattern of retrospectivity in which they seek to make the provision operate either in the absence of any warning, or behind the date of any warning or more widely than any warning that might have been given. It is to that proposal that we object in this debate.
      It may surprise the House that that last approach which seeks to go back behind the warning and go wider than any warning is one that is not without precedent, at least in utterance, in this House. The question is how we decide what is right in this case. In other countries there is a written constitution which enables the courts to decide what

      1635
      is or is not proper. We do not have one, so it is very much a matter for this House to decide what is or is not acceptable when provisions of this kind are brought before us. It is a matter for the High Court of Parliament, if one can put it that way.
      In this case, the Government approach was clearly set out by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. He is seeking to shoot far too widely, and in a way that we find unacceptable. He said on 11th April this year:
      "Tax avoidance has emerged recently in a new form which involves marketing a succession of highly artificial schemes—when one is detected, the next is immediately sold—and is accompanied by a level of secrecy which amounts almost to conspiracy to mislead. The time has come not only to stop the particular schemes we know about but to ensure that no schemes of a similar nature can be marketed in future."—[Official Report, 11th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 1202.]
      The Chancellor has set out with his retrospective arrangements to destroy an industry. The Chief Secretary was even more explicit about it in Committee upstairs. He admitted that these provisions represented a threat, albeit to a small number of people. He went on:
      "This is the only way to stop those people in that industry."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 6th June 1978, c. 729.]
      He set out to stop the industry by retrospective provisions deliberately introduced. Several hon. Members categorised him as seeking to legislate in terrorem. What we are concerned with is the legitimacy of the self-confessed terrorist approach. I do not think that the Chief Secretary would shrink from that. He uses this approach to justify retrospectivity beyond what we regard as acceptable.
      The Chief Secretary, in order to justify the way in which he was approaching this matter, quoted from some precedents. He referred to Mr. Neville Chamberlain and also to Lord Jowitt when he was Solicitor-General in the 1920s and had just moved from being a member of the Liberal Party to supporting the Labour Party. It is right that in certain circumstances on previous occasions Chancellors of the Exchequer have sought to come to the House and justify that kind of approach.
      9.30 p.m.
      It is important to see how these matters have proceeded in previous cases. The
      1636
      House has been reminded, for example, that Lord Simon, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1937 and 1939, sought to proceed in the way that the Chief Secretary is proceeding. Lord Simon had moved from the Liberal Party to the Conservative Party. During the war, Kingsley Wood, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, also sought to proceed in this sort of way, by seeking to denounce any other scheme of tax avoidance that might arise.
      The precedent of assertion was in the background of the debates following the announcement by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948. Sir Stafford was subjected to criticism when his proposals came forward in the 1950 Finance Bill. He was undoubtedly seeking to enact retrospective legislation in this terrorist fashion and to say that he was taking action in order to stop anyone contemplating similar tax avoidance action in future.
      We object to the fact that such an approach is without limit. Once we allow a Government to say that they are taking powers not just to stop a particular form of tax avoidance that the House has identified as being unacceptable but also to prevent anyone from contemplating the introduction of anything of that sort, however broadly defined, in future, we are abandoning any pretence at effective parliamentary control of the rule of law.
      Of course, it is possible to sympathise with the tax collectors and those who draft our laws. They will often seek to justify their case by showing a huge loss of revenue, but I do not believe that the House regards this approach as justifiable. There is no case for accepting the grapeshot approach which is implicit in the Chief Secretary's attempt to destroy the tax avoidance industry.
      What is the tax avoidance industry which he is setting out to destroy? How do we recognise the tax avoidance that is regarded as illegitimate? If we adopt the grapeshot, retrospective method, how can we define the difference between acceptable, legitimate avoidance, based on the legitimate advice that is available to every citizen, and the avoidance that the Chief Secretary intends to shoot with his blunderbuss approach? How can we recognise when taking advice that at which the Chief Secretary is shooting?

      1637
      Our complaint is that the approach suggested by the Chief Secretary jeopardises the acceptance and legitimacy of our entire system of tax collection and jeopardises the willingness of citizens to be bound by the rules of law enacted by the House, when they can have no confidence that the rules will be upheld and continue.
      More fundamentally, the Chief Secretary's approach threatens to destroy the consent of the governed and the trust that exists betwen those who are taxed and those who collect and impose the taxes. If we go down this road, it can be used to justify almost any act of a Government. It is a very dangerous road.
      If, for example, a Government find that a rich taxpayer has moved most of his assets outside the jurisdiction, this sort of tax-collecting technique could be used to deprive him of the rest of his assets before he has a chance of disposing of them. It can move quickly to justify a confiscatory approach, and that of which the taxpayer complains in this blunderbuss, terrorist technique would be equally loudly complained of, for example, by trade unionists or trade union leaders if a Government not formed by the Labour Party were to say "We propose to deal in this way, retrospectively, with trade union funds."
      Mr. John Cronin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an interesting case. It is valid in many respects. However, is he not omitting one important safeguard? Any proposals of this nature that are introduced by the Government have to be passed by the House.
      Sir G. Howe: That may amount to a safeguard, but it underlines and emphasises the importance of the duty that the House has to carry out. It underlines the importance of our duty in the context of a society that has no written constitution. There have been examples in the past where principles have been eroded and overridden and it is important to establish the principles that underline the matters that we are discussing. We must take care that we do not move in the wrong direction tonight.
      Where would the position end if retrospectivity without limit, without warning, without limit of time, without limit
      1638
      of prior warning or announcement, were to be accepted as the pattern of legislation in the House?
      The real danger to our society is the extent to which our fiscal and taxpaying morality has already been eroded, the extent to which throughout all classes, because of the way in which the House has been creating tax legislation and the nature of tax legislation that has been passing through the House, there is increasing contempt for our tax legislation and increasing contempt for its legitimacy.
      We are not concerned with an issue affecting only a handful of clever men and women designing one tax avoidance scheme after another, the group that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing. We are concerned with the very same issues that are giving rise to moonlighting and the spread of the cash economy. They are the same issues that are causing widespread resentment of the VAT man and the random checks of the Inland Revenue inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman may look surprised, but it is an important feature of a coherent society that the millions who pay their taxes should have respect for the tax system and confidence in the legislature that creates it. If that respect and confidence begins to crumble, we are in serious trouble.
      The extent to which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the spreading of avoidance schemes is in itself a symptom and a consequence of a tax system that is overloaded. It may be said, and will be said, that tax avoidance occurred even when income tax was levied at much lower rates. However, in those days Parliament was willing to grant powers to stop it, in some cases retrospectively, and the fairness of the system was much more widely accepted. Today there is growing doubt about the fairness of the system. Its fairness is increasingly questioned.
      Those who are paying income tax at 98p in the pound are driven to find ways of avoidance. That is not all. Those who are paying marginal income tax at 40p in the pound on average pay packets feel equally driven to avoidance. We are just as likely to find taxpayers at that level of taxation saying that it is daylight robbery on the average pound of overtime as we are at every other level. Many are coming to see avoidance as not merely a legitimate means of operating within

      1639
      the law and upholding the rule of law but as a means of challenging the politics of confiscation, envy and egalitarianism. We have reached the stage where the pursuit of equality has not produced an increase in liberty, although it might have produced a substantial growth in fraternity—the sense of brotherhood in opposition to the tax system which more and more people now feel in common.
      We have an important choice to make about the direction in which we move within the tax system. We can either go in the direction of more and more severity, more and more retrospection, the stopping up of loopholes retrospectively and more intolerance—which in the end is the way to tyranny—or we can deliberately help to lighten the load of the taxpayer, ease the collar and begin to restore the system's acceptability and legitimacy. That is the right way in which to go.
      That is why we reject without qualification the Government's proposal. It is unacceptable to have legislation of this type which goes back to a date selected at random from the air, without any foundation, warning or authority. We invite the House to reject the clause as it stands.
      What about the alternative? We think that it is acceptable to go back to the date when the proposal was announced. It is interesting that those who have spoken against that proposition wish the proposal to come into effect on the date that the Bill was introduced. They even find it difficult to find a clear foundation of principle on that.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a formidable speech in Committee. He argued that only the date of the passing of Finance Bill was acceptable. He challenged retrospection to the date of the announcement. But let us examine the history of the capital transfer tax. The main charging provision of the capital transfer tax in the Finance Act 1975 is contained in section 20, which provides that
      "A chargeable transfer is any transfer of value made by an individual after 26th March 1974 other than an exempt transfer."
      That legislation has a curious background. The date 26th March 1974—the foundation date for liability on gifts inter vivos—has no legitimacy in legislative
      1640
      terms. It was the date of the spring Budget Statement on 26th March 1974. In August 1974 a White Paper was produced which filled out in a more ample way the back-of-the-envelope proposals which were announced in March 1974.
      In September 1974 Parliament was dissolved and we had a General Election. Throughout that time there was no Budget Resolution. Even if there had been, it would have been brought to an end by the dissolution of Parliament.
      A second Budget was presented in November 1974 and the Budget Resolutions came before the House on 14th November 1974. The Bill was published on 10th December 1974. The first of the Budget Resolutions proposed that capital transfer tax should be effective from 26th March 1974.
      That is a classic description of retrospective legislation. It was so retrospective that it overleaped backwards, not merely six or nine months, but a General Election and a potential change of Government. But when that legislation was before the House, when the Second Reading took place in December 1974, it was passed without dissent. The right hon. Member for Down, South did not raise his voice against it. When we considered section 20 of that Finance Bill at the Report stage, the debate occupied only half a column in Hansard. The capital transfer tax was introduced retrospectively, beyond any doubt.
      The citizen who was eventually subject to the legislation as amended in the Finance Act 1975 began to be affected by it as a result of a bare announcement from the Dispatch Box by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1974. It is difficult to see how one can stand on an absolute firm and rigid position on principle, save that which has emerged as sensible, constitutional convention.
      9.45 p.m.
      Our amendments represent just that. The conventions were summarised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) in what has come to be known as the "Rees rule". With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, that exaggerates the importance of his contribution to the discussions because the conventions are founded in precedent. In Committee upstairs as reported at column 719, my hon. and

      1641
      learned Friend said that legislation of this kind can be regarded as acceptable by the House of Commons subject to four conditions. First, warning must have been given to the taxpayer of the intention to legislate in this way and the warning must have been precise in form. Second, the problem at which the warning has been directed should immediately be rererred to what is known as the tax reform committee for consideration—that is the committee that meets between the professions and the Inland Revenue. Third, if the committee can devise an appropriate legislative provision the draft clauses should be published immediately so as to give a second clear intimation to those who are likely to be affected. Finally, such a clause must without fail be introduced in the following Finance Bill.
      Those rules, with their emphasis on a previous clear warning and legislation at the first opportunity to implement the previous clear warning are restating what is and has been generally accepted in this matter. For example, the Law Society submitted a memorandum to the House and the Committee in relation to this Bill. It contained a first part which was headed "Matters of Principle" and related to clause 27. The provision, it said, was intended to provide a credible deterrent to all future schemes of a similar artificial nature. It said that its deterrent effect rested on the fact that it was retrospective to a date prior to the date of the announcement that legislation was to be introduced. The Law Society went on:
      "Legislation which imposes retrospective tax liabilities is wrong in principle.… It has no place in a free society based on the rule of law.… For these reasons Clause 26 is wholly unacceptable in its present form."
      It come to its substantive recommendation that
      "Clause 26 take effect from the date on which it was first announced that legislation would be introduced to counter that particular scheme."
      The Law Society there is setting out the convention as it has come to be accepted—retrospection to the date of clear announcement. That has been the established practice over many years further back than that. If one goes back to the debates of 1949 and 1950, to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, said:
      1642
      "I put this principle forward as quite unchallengeable; that the justification for retroactive legislation is that a reasonable and definite warning has been given to people likely to practise the matter to be struck at, and they have been given the opportunity to avoid that course."—[Official Report, 28th April 1949; Vol. 464 c. 499.]
      That practice has been followed for a number of years since then. One of the more recent examples was in the 1958 Finance Bill when Mr. Heathcote Amory, as he was, was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
      "In my opinion, one essential pre-requisite, if retrospective legislation is to be used, is that those concerned should have every reason to be aware of the taxation consequences of their specific actions and, therefore, have a chance of avoiding it if they wish … Nothing that I have said is intended to lay down the proposition, as far as I am concerned, that in no circumstances whatever would retrospective legislation, after warning, be justified."—[Official Report, 18th June 1958; Vol. 589, c. 1132.]
      Therefore a long tradition has developed which may be untidy but which can be regarded as an acceptable convention of the constitution along the lines set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal in the rules that were enunciated upstairs.
      Our position today, therefore, stands on a firm foundation of practice and constitutional convention. We accept the legitimacy of the date of the announcement. That is what we propose for clause 27. We do not accept clause 28, because the Government failed to introduce legislation to carry it into effect in the first subsequent Finance Bill. We reject absolutely the broad blunderbuss basis of the Government's approach which seeks to carry the provision back to a point in time chosen apparently entirely at random with the explicit intention of killing the industry, however defined, and preventing avoidance of whatever kind the Government choose to shoot at in the future. We cannot regard retrospection at large along those terrorist lines as possibly being acceptable.
      I invite the House therefore to strike this judgment by voting for amendment no. 5, which is the foundation of principle for which we contend and the basis on which we shall have to consider the matter.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: I found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member

      1643
      for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) somewhat strange. I have been accused of being like a terrorist, showering grapeshot on all and sundry. I want to deal with that charge, but I want first to deal with the purist line—I do not mean that in a derogatory sense—of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that, no matter how obnoxious or unmeritorious a case, this action should not be taken. Indeed, as he put it, if a scheme is unmeritorious, that is all the more reason not to have retrospective legislation against it. In that sense at least there are no party political considerations. Both the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and I disagree with that view. For the reasons that he gave, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept that purist line, and I want to explain why I cannot accept it either.
      It has been suggested that I may have been a reluctant convert to the introduction of this kind of retrospective legislation. I want to make it clear that I am reluctant only in the sense that I thought long and hard before agreeing to the type of provision contained in the clause, and that at the end I came to the conclusion—I had no doubt whatever—that the clause was absolutely right. However, I understand the concern expressed not only by the right hon. and learned Gentleman but by a number of my hon. Friends who have mentioned it to me, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I appreciate their views, although I believe that, having had the matter explained, they now understand why the clause is necessary.
      I want to explain what we are talking about. In the narrow purist sense of the right hon. Member for Down, South, this is retrospection, but it is in no sense of the word general retrospection. It is retrospection against what is generally accepted on all sides—I would never accuse the Opposition of wanting this kind of scheme to continue—to be an obnoxious industry and one which, without this clause, would not only continue but thrive.
      What is more, the only penalty in this retrospective legislation is not a penal provision. The only penalty is that tax allowances which were never intended to be given to these people will not be
      1644
      allowed. It is retrospective only in the sense that each case in future will have to be brought to this House and the House will have to accept that it is a pure avoidance case, of the kind that I will explain, and purely artificial.
      When my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) interrupted the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and mentioned this as a sateguard—that the House of Commons would have to pass legislation against every scheme, not now but in future—the right hon. and learned Gentleman dismissed the safeguard as unimportant. I should have thought that that was the most significant and important safeguard built into what we are doing.
      Dealing with the scheme that we are talking about in this clause, the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that this was what he called an unmeritorious scheme. I should explain to the House that we are talking of a scheme under which an avoider joins a partnership in one or more commodity-dealing companies. As an individual partner and company, the tax avoider's share is 90 per cent. The main source of finance is a loan from a bank, which is controlled by the devisers of the scheme, and the only source of funds from the avoider is the fee that he pays to the deviser of the scheme.
      There is a series of straddles in commodity futures to buy and sell. These are carried out over different times at different prices and a loss is arranged first, followed by a gain. In advance a contract is signed and agreed by the avoider that he will leave the partnership when the loss is made. In other words, he will make a specific amount of loss required for his purposes and then will leave when the straddle comes in and a profit is made. If anybody says that that is a genuine scheme, involving a genuine dealer—a genuine trade where one signs in advance to lose money and then before a profit is made, one leaves—he is wrong. Let there be no doubt that we are talking about an artificial scheme.
      However, it is more than that. It is characterised by secrecy and obstruction. By the time this scheme or any other like it is stopped without retrospection, there will already have been many deals sold and ready. For example, if the House were to take the view advanced by the

      1645
      right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and were to put the matter back to the date when I gave a warning in November 1977, we know that there are many other schemes waiting to he submitted from the time when they were first initiated by the devisers of the scheme.
      If in this case and in the future it is to be taken only from the date of the warning, this is what the small number of people in the tax avoidance industry or the devisers of schemes want to see happen. They would have the scheme stopped from November 1977, and all the others which they are waiting to submit to the Inland Revenue would be available to be submitted. When this scheme is stopped, out comes another, and away they go to continue and thrive.
      When I say that that is the situation which the House wants to see stopped, that is the kind of scheme about which I am talking. It has a high degree of artificiality which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered to fall within the normal tax avoidance affairs of an individual taxpayer. It is incredible to believe that this is a normal tax avoidance scheme for legitimately reducing tax liability. There is no legitimate loss. There is only the fee paid to the tax avoider. There is no financial loss to match the tax loss.
      The main case against what I propose is the argument that tax avoidance occurs because of the very high rates of income tax, amounting to 98 per cent. The great majority of schemes used for these purposes involve corporation tax and capital gains tax. They are aimed at avoiding not 98 per cent. tax but 30 per cent., 42 per cent. and 52 per cent. tax. They are not concerned with the very high rates of tax.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that high rates of tax create increasing contempt in the minds of the average taxpayer. What will be the effect on the average taxpayer if he knows that two or three people are avoiding £200 million in tax? What does that do to the average taxpayer who each week has his tax deducted under PAYE? When we are considering contempt for the tax system, we must consider that aspect.
      1646
      We are then told by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), in his customary elegant manner, that the battle is one-sided on the Inland Revenue's part. But, as he must know, the battle is one-sided in this instance on the side of the tax avoider and the devisers of these schemes, for the reasons that I have explained. It is interesting that no one has yet come up with a proposition that will stop this kind of scheme—a scheme that brings as much contempt to the tax system as do any rates of tax devised.
      10.0 p.m.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East then endorsed what he called the Rees rules. They are interesting, and I want to go through them. The first rule is that the warning must be precise. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal did not deny that the warning given in November 1977 was precise. Indeed, he conceded that it was absolutely precise. I agree that should be done.
      Secondly, the problem should be referred immediately to a tax reform committee. I agree with that proposition.
      Thirdly, if legislation can be drafted to deal with tax avoidance, that should be done immediately—I agree—and it should be published.
      Fourthly, it should be introduced in the immediately following Finance Bill. I agree with that.
      The trouble, as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East must know, is that if that is all we do, everything fails and this industry continues, for the reasons that I have explained.
      The tax at stake in 1976–77 in only three schemes which are known so far—there may well be more—is nearly £200 million. The Inland Revenue has seen the accounts of two companies with artificial deductions of the kind which I have described, which could mean nearly £100 million in each case.
      The purist approach would be to say "Never mind. Let that go on." That is because no purist or anyone else has come up with a proposition that would stop it. On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal equally would not solve the problem. Therefore, a small group of people would

      1647
      be cocking a snook at Parliament while the vast majority of decent people who pay their taxes would have to sit by and let it happen.
      We have a straight choice tonight. The choice is to swallow our repugnance and introduce not a general form of retrospection but a somewhat novel kind, namely, a form which provided that in future each scheme must be acceptable to the House as deserving of being killed. I believe that that is what the House should do, particularly when we bear in mind that we are talking not about retrospection that imposes serious criminal penalties on individuals, but about not allowing tax relief that was never intended to be allowed. I believe that that is what the House should do, and I invite it to vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Neville Sandelson: I am impressed with the arguments that my right hon. Friend has adduced this evening. They have stilled a good deal of the disquiet that I expressed to him earlier. However, I should like to ask one question. Why has he fixed on the date of April 1976? Is that not an arbitrary date and an arbitrary exercise of his executive powers in this matter? Why that particular date? Why not go back a year or more, or come forward in time? Will he explain to me and to the House what has determined that particular date?
      Mr. Barnett: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, any date is arbitrary in these matters. But, in practice, we do not believe that before that date any such schemes were prepared. Opposition Members find it amusing that we should fix a date to allow these schemes to be introduced. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's commendation. I hope that he will support me in voting against the amendment.
      Mr. Pardoe: At the outset of my remarks I declare what might be thought to be an interest. I am a member of the London Metal Exchange. I am not, however, in any sense a director of a broking company which could in any way be involved in such schemes. Indeed, I have searched the City far and wide to find anybody who is involved in these schemes, and my searches lead me to conclude that the Inland Revenue's estimate of £200 million is the utmost piece of poppycock,
      1648
      even by that Department's standards.
      The Chief Secretary began by saying that we are dealing with an artificial scheme. I do not think that anyone doubts or denies that. All those who either support or oppose his argument accept that it is an artificial scheme. But what the right hon. Gentleman did not say is that it is also an illegal scheme, although he did say it when he gave his answer to a parliamentary Question on 25th November, he reiterated that view in Committee upstairs, and it is clear that he and the Inland Revenue together believe that this is an illegal scheme. Therefore, why must there be legislation against it?
      The Chief Secretary went on to say that no one had found any way of dealing with the scheme other than by the way that he was proposing tonight. This is an illegal scheme. The way to deal with an illegal scheme is through the courts. That is the way to end this kind of tax evasion, and the right hon. Gentleman should take that course and not ask Parliament to change the law retrospectively simply because he thinks that the processes of law will be expensive, or time-consuming, or that he may lose a t the end of the day.
      I emphasise that the position that my right hon. Friends and I take is that retrospective legislation, when it is against the interests of the individual, is always wrong. Retrospective legislation is, of course, very often in the interests of individuals, and that cannot be wrong. As the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said, acts of indemnity in respect of Members of Parliament who were found to be sitting here when they should not have been were right. Perhaps the most interesting example from my point of view occurred way, way back, when Richard Strood, Member of Parliament in 1512, was convicted by the Stannary Court in Parliament of having proposed legislation to regulate Cornish tinners, and Parliament passed an Act of Indemnity which virtually quashed the conviction. That Act changed the law retrospectively, and it is generally held to be the basic statement of the freedom of speech, but it was in the interests of the individual, and I do not think that anyone, on either side of the House, is trying to make the point

      1649
      that all retrospective legislation, when it is in the interests of individuals, is wrong.
      I do not think that many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are trying to make the point that retrospective legislation is even unconstitutional. The supremacy of Parliament means that Parliament can do any darned fool thing that it likes. That is one reason why some of us believe that there is a need for major constitutional reform in Britain, to stop the unfettered dictatorship of Parliament. I think that this proposal—which will probably be carried by this place—ought to prove to hon. Members who hitherto have not appreciated the necessity for constitutional reform just how necessary it is. We need a Bill of Rights. We need entrenched clauses. We need them to protect the rights of the individual.
      Nor is retrospective legislation anything new in this House. It is not even new as a means of closing tax loopholes, alas, because it has been used for that purpose by other Governments in the past on several occasions. The most clear-cut example of retrospective legislation in recent years—it was not related to taxation—was the War Damage Act 1965. The courts decided that the Burmah Oil Company was entitled to make a claim for damages against the Crown. Parliament decided to change the law to ensure that the company could not do that. Parliament changed the law retrospectively.
      An amendment seeking to have the Second Reading of that Bill delayed for six months, which would have virtually meant that it would be wiped out altogether, was tabled by Mr. Eric Lubbock, now my noble Friend Lord Avebury, and was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). The vote took place on 3rd February 1965, when the amendment was quashed by 222 to 229.
      That was a very poor vote, bearing in mind that the House, Conservative versus Labour, was very evenly balanced in that Parliament. Indeed, the Conservative Front Bench abstained. But I must tell the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, who was then plain "Mr." and the Member for Bebington, that his name was recorded on the correct side. He voted for virtue.
      1650
      The history of the involvement of the House in retrospective legislation is, alas, not as clear-cut as some of us would like it to have been. It is pretty muddied. I have to give that to the Chief Secretary, who is obviously aware of it. But I hope that for Liberals retrospective legislation will always be repugnant, because it offends the rule of law.
      I do not say that as a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and I have no great love for lawyers' law or constitutional jargon, but it seems to me that if one is to say that ignorance of the law is no defence—and that is fine—I must be able to know what the law is. I must be able to find out what it is, and having found out what it is I must be able to act in accordance with it.
      How can the rule of law apply if, having found out what the law is and got within it, I find that it can be changed retrospectively, so that the law at the time I acted is held not to be what it was when I performed the act? That is to suspend the notion of time. While that may be OK for Einstein, I do not think that it should be done by the Chief Secretary.
      There are two conventions on human rights dealing with the matter. We are rather concerned with human rights at present. There is the United Nations convention, article 11(2) of which says:
      "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
      There is the European convention, which says:
      "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."
      It will be argued that the matter with which we are dealing is not a criminal offence. In other words, we can do with taxation things which we cannot do with the penal law. I am well aware that this point was argued in an article entitled
      "Retrospective legislation and the rule of law in Britain"
      by J. W. Bridge, who was there discussing the War Damage Act 1965. Having concluded that the Act

      1651
      "must be regarded as a serious breach of the high standards of legislative behaviour which have been customarily observed by the United Kingdom Parliament",
      he added:
      "One other field in which Parliament has had recourse to retrospective legislation on a number of occasions is that of taxation.… There can be little objection to this use of retrospective legislation since it may surely be regarded as an aspect of the 'game' played between taxpayers and the government."
      I do not believe that it is possible to distinguish constitutionally and in terms of human rights between the law on taxation and the law on other matters. I do not think that we should accept that argument for one moment.
      The rule of law cannot exempt taxation, for who is safe? This is the point that I really want to make to the Chief Secretary. He will say that this will not be done to affect the way in which we conduct our normal personal financial affairs. But I suspect that in this place many of us make provision for our retirement by means of retirement annuity premiums. Those are tax-free when we pay the premiums. The investment income within the insurance fund, within the pension fund, is tax-free. There is a mass of tax concessions which ensures that the final amount of money that we get when we retire is greater than it would otherwise have been. We make those payments artifically only because of the tax concessions involved.
      10.15 p.m.
      What is to stop a future Government—perhaps on the very day on which I choose to retire—saying "Sorry, all that tax has to be paid back"? The Chief Secretary may say that it would not happen, because there are far too many people who have practised this type of tax avoidance. Is it, then, to be said that tax avoidance which is practised by a sufficiently large minority to be politically significant is apparently all right, and is safe from retrospective legislation, whereas tax avoidance which is practised by a small minority is apparently all wrong and can be dealt with by retrospective legislation? I do not think that we can uphold that view for one moment.
      Then there is the argument that we should judge each case on its merits. I agree with the comment that this is a case without merit. Certainly it is extremely
      1652
      difficult to argue in favour of any of these people who have performed this kind of action. But let us not fool ourselves. This is not the only case of tax avoidance going on in Britain today. Tax avoidance is the most common national disease that there is in Britain, and it does not just affect very rich people who happen to have a few good financial advisers. The whole country is on the fiddle. Does not the Chief Secretary know? It is true. Every taxpayer has become a tax avoider, if not a tax evader, and the great majority are rapidly becoming tax evaders as well.
      The Chief Secretary has only to go to his Saturday morning surgery or to his local Labour clubs to know that this is true. Even in his constituency his Labour clubs will occasionally leak the odd bit of truth over a pint of bitter. He really cannot live in a kind of fool's paradise where there is no tax evasion other than in the City of London.
      I come now to the difference between dates. I do not want to make a great meal of the fact that we believe that 25th November 1977 involves retrospective legislation. It certainly does. It is not as bad retrospective legislation as the date that the Chief Secretary chooses, but that is just a time argument.
      The argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East is that 25th November 1977 is somehow all right because the Chief Secretary told Parliament in a Written Answer that the Government would take some action. But that parliamentary answer is extraordinarily unclear. It does not say when the action is to be taken, or what the action will be. In any case, do we really accept that a Written Answer is a substitute for legislation?
      I accept, of course, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about capital transfer tax, and the fact that it was set out in a Budget Statement in March 1974, and enacted, after another General Election and after another Finance Act, in the latter half of 1974. Nevertheless, surely we all accept that Budget Statements are somehow different in this respect from Written Answers. Yes, they are different, and they have always been accepted as different in this House. Budget Statements change the tax law, and they do it all the time, and we have always accepted the fact.

      1653
      I return to the wider problem I raised. The decision that the House will, I think, take tonight—
      Sir G. Howe: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, of course, in the ordinary way a Budget Statement can have special force if what is stated is embodied in a Budget Resolution which is then approved by the House and remains in force for as long as provided by the provisions of the Taxes Act? That is the usual procedure. In the case of capital transfer tax, there was no such Budget Resolution in March 1974 and it was in mid-air throughout an election campaign until the Finance Bill was introduced in December 1974. That is a precedent of the clearest possible kind, which this House accepted virtually without argument.
      Mr. Pardoe: I have already said that I accept that there was this point at that time. Looking back, I think that it is exceedingly unfortunate that we all allowed it to happen. I accept my share of the blame, because I was there, although the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was not. Had he been, who knows, we might all have been told to do our duty.
      Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Member was here in November.
      Mr. Pardoe: Yes, that is right.
      Finally, I come back to the issue of Parliament. Parliament, the dictator, can do what it likes. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) used this as a defence. He said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman "If Parliament votes for it, it is all right."
      But what, in fact, does Parliament represent? Even if Parliament represented accurately and fairly the views of the British people expressed at the ballot box—the hon. Member for Loughborough will know that I do not accept that it does—Parliament cannot be left as the dictator in this kind of way. Parliament ought not to abolish the concept of time as it is endeavouring to do in legislation tonight. It ought not to pass retrospective legislation.
      I hope that the House will support amendment no 79, which takes us to the Budget Statement and no further back.
      Mr. Cronin: I propose to make an extremely brief speech, because I appreciate that many hon. Gentlemen, both in this Chamber and on the premises, would like progress to be made and to be able to return to their beds at an early hour.
      I was astounded by the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). He said that the whole country is on the fiddle. I wonder what sort of company the Liberal Party mixes with. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government."] I am talking about people outside this House. No one in his senses could suggest that there is any fiddling on the Government side of the House. From my long knowledge of my constituents, my impression is that most are honest, reasonable people who pay their income tax, with some grumbling but honestly, and are aware that they must do so. I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North extraordinary.
      I agree with the hon. Member that retrospective legislation is undesirable, but I think that he has got away from the point. He was saying that it is very important that everyone should know whether he is offending against the criminal law. But here there is no question of crime. It is merely a question of people being prevented from having undesirable or anti-social profits. There is a very important distinction.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that it is difficult to draw a distinction between a proper and an improper tax avoidance. Obviously there are some difficulties. But we have had income tax for so long and there has been so much legislation on the subject that surely by now there are established precedents as to what is improper and what is acceptable tax avoidance.
      Anyone is entitled to adjust his affairs so that he pays the minimum amount of income tax, within certain limits. All of us know how small business men, for instance, can have cars which they charge to income tax but which are probably not absolutely essential for their business. We all know that there is a certain amount of tax avoidance along those lines.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Member has made a very interesting

      1655
      point. He said that he though that it should be within certain limits. Surely that is the case that is being made—that the limits should be certain. What the Government are proposing is that they should be uncertain and subject to the whim of the Government in retrospect.
      Mr. Cronin: The hon. Member is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right."] The hon. Member is recognised to be a very smart Opposition Member. In fact, he has a semi-official position in that respect, with three other hon. Members.
      Mr. Tebbit: What position?
      Mr. Cronin: If the hon. Member listened to me instead of anticipating my points, he would probably learn something. I suggest that he be patient and listen.
      Mr. Sandelson: Is it not the case that it should be subject not to the will of the Government but to the will of the House, and that what the will of the House is must depend upon the particular circumstances and the particular context that we are discussing? In this context, my hon. Friend is perfectly right to suggest that here there is a contrived scheme to defeat the public interest and that the mere fact that it is tax avoidance as distinct from tax evasion does not touch upon the heart of the matter. It is a contrived arrangement to defeat the public interest. My hon. Friend has a point, and I want to hear what he has to say about it.
      Mr. Cronin: With his usual brilliant intelligence, my hon. Friend has anticipated some of my speech. I hope that he will bear with me. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East is worried that there will be no limit to this retrospective legislation. Obviously, there is a very clear-cut limit, because there are now established precedents as to what is anti-social and what is tolerable legislation. If that is not accepted, I do not know why we have had Committee and Report stages on Finance Bills during the 24 years that I have been a Member of this House. We ought to have learnt something by now.
      The important thing is that Government can use their discretion in this matter. In the ultimate, the Government
      1656
      are responsible to the House and, at the next General Election, to the electorate.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the law?
      Mr. Cronin: There is no question of the law being broken. This retrospection will only prevent people from obtaining ill-gotten gains. The important point, which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made very clearly, although some hon. Members have perhaps still not discerned it, is that there is no question of any punishment. There is only the intention to prevent people from obtaining ill-gotten gains from tax avoidance.
      Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cronin: No. The hon. Gentleman has already had a fair hearing. Were his prospective intervention to be as futile as his previous one, it would serve no useful purpose.
      The main point is that tax avoidance is now becoming a very anti-social and anti-national industry which must be stopped. I could say very much more about this, but my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is sitting beside me in a manner which is not entirely supportive. I suggest that the time has come to end these parasitic organisations which take the money out of the pockets of all of us and of our constituents. If some people avoid tax in an anti-social way, other people have to pay for it.
      The point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has absolute and complete validity. Therefore, I hope that no hon. Member will support the rather backward views of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Tim Renton: It is not often that I find myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). On this occasion, I do, except about the date to which these schemes should be rolled back.
      I suggest that the remarks by the Chief Secretary that these schemes are highly artificial is really a matter for the courts to decide. That is why the courts exist. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman

      1657
      showed his attitude to this question in a very significant way. He said:
      "But there is a risk that the schemes, although we believe them to have no validity, may well be found by the courts to be perfectly legitimate and the tax would be lost to the Revenue."
      Here I must interpolate the question: is not that what the courts are for? It is their job to decide whether the schemes are legitimate and, if so, to decide accordingly, and to protect the citizens and companies involved, however nasty the schemes are.
      The Chief Secretary went on:
      "it is incumbent upon us to see whether there are ways that we can stop it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978, c. 730.]
      That is at the heart of this issue. It is not to do with the artificiality of the schemes as such. It is a fear that the courts will not find the way that the Government want. Therefore, the Government are saying, in effect, "The game has been played. We do not yet know the result. But we are afraid that we shall not like it. So we shall change the rules retrospectively to be sure that we get the result that we want." I believe that however nasty these schemes are and however intolerable they are, that argument is unacceptable to this House of Commons.
      The Government feel that they have a good case for retrospective treatment in this instance, because we are talking about tax avoidance, and no one in general sympathises with tax avoidance. But the House should consider that what the Government are trying to do is to deal with the superficial effects without tackling the root cause.
      There is no doubt that the root cause is high and oppressive taxation. It is this that leads people and companies constantly to seek ways of reducing their tax burdens. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said, there is a growing contempt for our tax system. The only way of tackling this is by diminishing the share of our gross national product that is absorbed by the public sector and has to be financed by the taxpayer. We have to increase productivity. We have to increase our growth in GNP. In this way, we can decrease tax rates without decreasing public services.
      1658
      The Government have chosen to go the opposite route. They have chosen to increase tax, to increase the temptation to avoid tax, and now retrospectively to increase the punishment for that tax avoidance.
      I remind the House of a quotation from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", which is very relevant to what we are discussing:
      "An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling, but the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation and then punishes those who yield to it, and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstances which ought certainly to alleviate it—the temptation to commit the crime."
      That is precisely the route being taken by the Government, and they should rather think back to the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one Robinson, in 1827—I cannot say whether he was a Tory or a Whig—who forgot to renew a quarter of the tobacco duty one July. There was a great deal of smuggling at the time. To his great surprise, the effect of forgetting to renew this quarter of the tobacco duty so decreased smuggling in the following year that a £700,000 Budget surplus was created and, in consequence, the reduction in the tobacco duty was continued.
      That is the lesson that the Government should learn. But they choose instead to go the route not of freedom, not of forgetting to increase taxation, but, rather typically, of
      "trouble, vexation and the oppression of the citizen",
      again to quote Adam Smith.
      My real objection to the principle of retrospection is that once it is established it can be used for any purpose at any time. Take television licences, for example. We could well have a Government—either Labour or Conservative—in the future which did not like the BBC and claimed that it was biased in putting over Government actions. We have already heard such cries from Government Front Benches. In consequence, that Government could decide to discourage people from watching the BBC by doubling the television licence fee and making it retrospective for two or three years. Those people who could not afford to pay would have their licences removed.

      1659
      That would be a very effective way of controlling people's viewing and listening.
      The Chief Secretary may say that sort of thing is impossible, and that it could never happen. But the House must remember that the Government have shown very bad faith in these matters, once the precedent is introduced. Take referenda, for example. We were told by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that the EEC referendum was a once-for-all occasion—a unique event. Now we find ourselves faced with referenda for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. Once retrospective legislation is accepted as a principle, it will be used for other reasons that are less acceptable than the crucifixion of tax avoiders, which is what the Government have in mind here.
      What the tax avoiders were doing was legal when they did it. Had it not been legal, there would be no reason for clause 27 because the courts could deal with the situation. It has been stated repeatedly that an individual has the right to so organise his affairs that he pays as little tax as possible within the law at the time. This has been upheld by judges and Lords of Appeal. It is that right that the Government are seeking to overturn.
      I believe that there is a case for retrospective legislation if it is to right a past wrong against an individual. The case of war widows pensions is an example of this. The views of society change. We become more generous about the amount of pension that should be paid, and it is right to consider retrospection in adjusting war widows pensions.
      But there is never a case for retrospective legislation which oppresses the citizen and exacts a penalty from him for a past act that was legal when he did it but has since been declared illegal. Thus lies the way of dictatorship, and this is precisely the way that the Government want to take the House tonight. I hope that hon. Members opposite will resist the Government Whips in voting for this amendment.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I listened to the opening of this debate with interest in order to try to find out the cause of so much of the agitation that we have seen in the columns of The Times and on the Benches opposite. I find that we are discussing a particularly unmeritorious cause where everyone is
      1660
      agreed that the system of tax avoidance should be put to an end. I find that everyone is agreed that we must go back certainly to the Budget Resolution, and some of us are agreed that we should go back to the first statement of intent to legislate in November last year. The only issue dividing hon. Members as acutely as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) suggested is the issue of retrospection. We are not only in the area of the usual matters pertinent to a Finance Bill. We are in the issue of constitutional principle raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who said that we are discussing the rule of law.
      I could take strictures from the Conservative Benches if the greatest abuse of the rule of law through retrospective legislation, which has adversely affected not just certain financial interests of a limited number of speculators but the vast population of black people in this country, had not arisen in the second schedule of the Immigration Act 1971 which was supported by most Tory Members and a great many of those who are raising the issue of retrospection with such verve.
      When I listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex declaiming that this is an unconstitutional principle which would adversely affect the interests of the individual, I considered this clause, which says that tax allowances should be taken away from people who do not deserve them and who would never have had them but for the fact that we were not able to legislate in time, and I considered the second schedule to the Immigration Act which said that a man who came here illegally before 1973 and had obtained immunity from deportation and the right to settle in this country because he was not prosecuted for the offence within six months should have his whole status here removed, should be able to be removed without a deportation order being served on him, could be taken off the street, away from his family and put in prison, sent back to the place whence he had come and be subject to the penalties of the criminal law.
      The Conservatives all voted for that in a piece of legislation which was described by Lord Salmon in the case of Azam in the House of Lords as one of the most tortuous pieces of legislation he had ever heard. He said that he could not bring himself to interpret it in the way that the

      1661
      majority in another place interpreted it. That legislation was never interpreted in this House or explained to us by any Government of that time. It has adversely affected the lives of hundreds of people in this country since 1973—without any protest from the Conservatives who now raise the issue of constitutionality and the rule of law.
      The person who raised the issue in this amendment with the greatest lucidity in the Finance Bill Committee was most pertinent in supporting the proposal in the Immigration Act. He voted with the Conservatives for what was undeniably retrospective legislation taking away the rights of people who, on his argument, were people whom he might have regarded as unmeritorious and whom most of us would regard as unmeritorious in the way in which they came into this country. However, those people had undeniably obtained a status in Britain, which apart from the retrospective legislation was irreversible.
      10.45 p.m.
      In most circumstances I do not accept the principle of retrospective legislation. The arguments that are advanced tonight on restrospectivity, especially where penal clauses are attached, should be weighed extremely seriously. However, where the House forms the judgment that there is totally unmeritorious action that has to be stopped and that the only way to stop it is by retrospective legislation, it must be right that a limited amount of retrospective legislation is permissible.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook rose—
      Mr. Lyon: That must always be a matter of judgment.
      It must always be for the House, in its wisdom, to decide the balance of interest. We are discussing a limited number of people who are making considerable gains from the rest of taxpayers by a scheme that no one in the House wishes to defend. The principle is undeniably right that that practice should be stopped. I believe that in this instance there is a case for retrospection.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in his example there was involved a criminal who had committed a crime and who subsequently became
      1662
      liable for prosecution, where we are dealing with something that was not unlawful when it was done, which is completely different?
      Mr. Lyon: Those who entered the country in the way I described before 1968 had not committed a crime. Those who came in between 1968 and 1973 committed a crime but they were immune from prosecution and deportation six months after entry. Therefore, when the 1971 Act took effect those people had acquired a status that was completely legal and it allowed them to say perfectly properly, "We are here to stay." By means of a Conservative piece of legislation the House removed that right. It was not merely the right to claim allowances, not merely money, but initially their freedom and then their total status and total livelihood in Britain. Those who passed that legislation have no claim to criticise my right hon. Friends for the sort of legislation that is contained in the clause. I support the clause.
      Mr. Ian Gow: At the beginning of his speech the Chief Secretary said that he was a reluctant convert to the principle of retrospection. At the end of his speech he said that he thought it right for us to swallow our repugnance at retrospective legislation and agree to clause 27. The right hon. Gentleman made no converts from the Opposition Benches.
      The key issue is whether we shall create a new precedent. There was a telling intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) during the speech of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the precedent that was created in respect of capital transfer tax. If we pass clause 27 unamended, we shall be creating a dangerous precedent.
      In Standing Committee the Chief Secretary said:
      "I want to say at the outset that there is a major difference … between what might be called ordinary tax avoidance and schemes of this character."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978, c. 727.]
      I do not think that it is possible to make a distinction between types of tax avoidance schemes. The only test is

      1663
      whether the Government of the day have been able to draft their legislation with sufficient skill to meet their intentions. It is up to the Government so to frame their own legislation as to ensure that it catches for tax those people that it is intended to catch.
      When the Chancellor made his Budget Statement he said something which I believe to be sinister. He said:
      "The time has come not only to stop the particular schemes we know about but to ensure that no schemes of a similar nature can be marketed in future."—[Official Report, 11th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 1202.]
      He said that for this particular scheme he was going to propose retrospective legislation but that he was not going to do that for avoidance schemes relating to capital transfer tax. He said that the Government's proposal would become effective only for this financial year.
      The Chancellor was saying that we were to be faced with a further series of retrospective legislation whenever the Government of the day thought that they had drafted their past legislation defectively. The Government were giving notice that we were now about to embark upon a completely new technique of taxation—retrospection whenever the Chancellor of the day thought that his own tax laws had become defective.
      For the Government to say that a taxpayer who has acted lawfully in the past is to be treated by the courts and the Government as having acted unlawfully is thoroughly repugnant. We are passing down a dangerous road this evening, if we agree to pass clause 27 without amendment. I hope that the House will carry the amendments.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The speech that we have just heard would have been better made before the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). If ever a case was destroyed it was destroyed by my hon. Friend Let Opposition Members not pretend that they are debating a matter of principle. They are doing nothing of the kind.
      I cannot pretend to be other than anxious that we seem to be making an attack on a fundamental principle—the rule of law. But it is not the first time that this House has done that. Precedents have been quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe).
      1664
      No doubt the Financial Secretary could give many more.
      I have been in the House long enough to have heard considerable speeches by the present Lord Hailsham, then Quintin Hogg, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and Sir Stafford Cripps arguing for or against the introduction of retrospective legislation, depending on the merits of the case. It used to be said, with some truth, that if the Tory Party had an indefensible case to defend they should put up Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and he would do it. Often he was put up to defend such cases.
      So far in the debate no one has argued the purist case—that in no circumstances whatsoever shall retrospective legislation be introduced. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) takes that view. He accepts that retrospective legislation of the benevolent kind which benefits individuals or organisations is acceptable. If he does not, we can say that there are no purists in the House.
      The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that retrospective legislation that was to the benefit of individuals was good, and that presumably meant retrospection for the benefit of the public interest generally. He went on to say that it was not sufficient to say that in these cases the sovereignty of this Parliament must prevail and that a written constitution would prevent that. A written constitution would substitute the so-called tyranny of Parliament for the tyranny of the courts and the judges. They would interpret the written constitution. If there is to be a sovereignty anywhere I would prefer it to be in the hands of an elected body than in the hands of institutions that are accountable to no one.
      The principle of retrospection can, I believe, apply not only if an individual or a group of individuals are to be benefited. I believe also that individuals can be penalised retrospectively where that is for the national interest as a whole. But the case for propounding that must be very powerful and persuasive.
      When I came to this debate I was inclined to say that I believed that the principle of the rule of law should in no circumstances be infringed. But having heard what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will acquit me of

      1665
      any kind of humbug in these matters. If I were not convinced by my right hon. Friend's case I would have no hesitation either in going home now or voting against the Government.
      If my right hon. Friend's case were put in lay terms among the people I represent they would agree with me that financial thuggery and crookery was going on, and they would refuse to pay their taxes. I remember Mr. Douglas Houghton, as he then was, saying in this House that there were two groups of taxpayers in this country—the pay as you earn and the pay as you like. That is what we are discussing tonight. The case that my right hon. Friend advanced ought to have been heard by the miners. I referred to the miners in another context last night. I always refer to them. When we talk about taxpayers being dishonest and moonlighting we should realise that the PAYE taxpayer is seriously limited in what he can do in tax avoidance.
      When the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East was talking about moonlighting he failed to point out that the great moonlighters in this country are on the Conservative Benches. There are more than a hundred lawyers in this House on both sides, and they are the biggest moonlighters in the country. So let no one pretend that moonlighting concerns only the fireman who climbs a ladder to clean a few windows. The lawyers here go to the Law Courts in the morning and refuse to serve on Committees so that they can earn their corn.
      One of the reasons that induces me to support the Government tonight, quite apart from my right hon. Friend's powerful case, was what was almost the injunction by Mr. Bernard Levin in The Times this morning to some of us on the Labour Benches to oppose the Government. That is a very good recommendation for supporting the Goverment. I hope that all my hon. Friends will do the same. There has been no argument of principle from the Opposition on this matter, and I see no reason why in a case like this the Government should not act retrospectively. My right hon. Friend quoted the figures which showed that we are concerned here with £200 million and only a handful of people. If the Government cannot take action retrospectively to deal
      1666
      with that, it is not worth being in Government. So long as this House is sovereign in the end over that kind of possible abuse, I am happy to leave it in its hands.
      11.0 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: I am sorry that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is no longer with us, because I am sure that he would agree that I can dissociate the Liberals and my hon. Friends in the Scottish National Party from his comments about what the Conservatives did in the legislation he was talking about and the retrospective way in which that was carried through. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will agree that we would want no part of that.
      It is an open secret that the SNP has been in considerable difficulty over this matter. Hon. Members laugh, but this is a matter of principle. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made a fairly philosophical speech. I would ask him, philosophically, whether we are concerned here with morality or legality or a bit of both. When does morality prevail over legality and vice versa. Retrospection is retrospection is retrospection. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to chose the arbitrary date of 25th November last year as opposed to 6th April 1976. He said that that was the date of the announcement, but that is not the date when legislation took place. A principle is a principle is a principle.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said—I hope that he will forgive me if I took down his words incorrectly —"There is a case for retrospective legislation if it is to right a wrong." The Government are trying, belatedly, to right a wrong.
      Mr. Tim Renton: Just to put the hon. Gentleman right, I said that that was so if it was to right a wrong suffered by an individual in the past.
      Mr. Crawford: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but what the Government are doing—there is no Labour-SNP pact tonight—is trying to right not an individual but a collective wrong. The hon. Gentleman made a good Oxford Union speech, in what the Chief Secretary

      1667
      described as his usual elegant style. But he said that we were sniping at the corpus of law. On this Bench, we can quote J. B. Priestley, who said that England will always play the game by the rules until she starts to lose, and then she will change the rules.
      We are talking about the rule of law, about the principle of one man, one vote. Many hon. Members, on both sides, including some who are here tonight, sought to change the rules on the referenda on the Scotland and Wales Bills. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, quoting someone else, there will come a time when Britannia waives the rules.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East also said—I hope that he will forgive me if I took down his words incorrectly—"Tax avoidance is a legitimate means of challenging the rule of a confiscatory tax system." But we live with a tax system and whether or not we think that it is confiscatory, it is the law, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot flout it. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will know what is happening with regard to the rule of law in Carmarthen just now.
      Reluctantly, I must refer to what Mr. Bernard Levin said in The Times this morning:
      "But is there none among the more genuinely independent spirits who will abstain or even vote the right way …?…Mr. William Hamilton? … Mr. Sandelson?"
      He also said:
      "The Scottish Nationalists are said to be planning to vote en bloc against it."
      We are not.
      "How many of the Ulster Unionists Mr. Powell can carry into the No lobby is not yet clear".
      This is 12th July, and many of them will be in Ulster, not here.
      I heard what the Chief Secretary said about tax avoidance. Reluctantly, I am persuaded that on this issue in the last resort pure morality must prevail over legality. We cannot allow these amounts of money to be lost by the Treasury. The spirit of law must prevail.
      Mr. Nick Budgen: Hon. Members will want to concentrate on the important decision whether they should vote for amendment no. 79 or amendment no. 5—or both—
      1668
      and where they should indicate their preference.
      I wish to deal with the argument of favouring legislation which has a retrospective effect, and I also wish to deal with the forceful and eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). He said that it was wrong to legislate in a way that would have a retrospective effect on the immunities enjoyed by certain illegal immigrants. He thought that it was disgraceful to kick a minority around. Any law on citizenship must have a retrospective effect. The basis of the law on citizenship lies in defining whether a person is or is not a citizen. That is bound to confer benefits on some people and on other occasions is equally bound to confer disadvantages. It must be second category in respect of which retrospective legislation is necessary.
      The argument advanced by the hon. Member for York was illogical. He said to the Opposition "You kicked this small unpopular minority of immigrants around. That was a disgraceful thing to do", but then went on "You have done this disgraceful thing. We will continue to do it". His view is "We believe that Messrs. Tucker and Bradman are a disagreeable pair. Let us kick them." If that argument is good in respect of immigrants, it is also a good argument in respect of Messrs. Tucker and Bradman. He should be on our side in dealing with retrospection.
      Mr. Lyon: It is easy to set up a false argument and knock it down. I suggested that in every case the House had to balance the competing factors and that in the case of the Immigration Act 1971 the enormity of what was done then so outweighs anything that can be alleged in this case that the two are not directly comparable. In this case the overwhelming weight of argument falls in favour of the Government Front Bench.
      Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman said that it was an unfair attack on a minority, but on the other hand he said that he did not like the particular minority that the Labour Party dislikes and therefore on this occasion will join the mob.
      I wish to deal with the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend

      1669
      the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) to support his timing—namely, 25th November 1977. I regret the way in which my hon. and learned Friend spoke of the unmeritorious nature of the scheme. He seemed to point to that as a factor that would justify him in selecting 25th November 1977. I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal indicates dissent. I am grateful to him. I am glad that is so. I am glad that I misunderstood what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir Geoffrey Howe) said.
      I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on this point. He was right to say that, if we are seen to attack any minority by retrospective legislation, we undermine the legitimacy of the whole tax system. No matter how unpopular any minority may be and however much the mob may think at any moment "It would be a good idea to kick X", all of us know that at some stage or another we shall be in the minority. On any basis, it will undermine our sense of fairness and of legitimacy if we allow ourselves to attack a minority in a dubious constitutional way because we see it as being unpopular and lacking in merit.
      The real reason for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East supporting 25th November 1977 is that he sees it as supporting the Rees rules as adumbrated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal in Committee. The Rees rules are important. There is no doubt that the Tory Party, as all parties when in power, has done things of which it should be ashamed. I hope that in future the Labour Party will be ashamed of what it is seeking to do tonight. No doubt it will be ashamed when it gets back into Opposition.
      The Rees rules are important, because they indicate how the Tory Party will behave when it is next in power. I believe that in looking at these rules we should have in mind the importance of certainty in all tax legislation. We should also have in mind the overriding importance that tax legislation should be approved and decided by the House of Commons, not by any outside body.
      1670
      I derive support for that proposition from a most important and informative Addington Society lecture given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East Reported in the British Tax Review in 1977. In talking about the need to have a consultative and scrutinising body which would assist the Commons, he said:
      "It is, however, difficult to imagine that Parliament would ever accept the idea of handing such powers of scrutiny over to a lay committee".
      I agree with him on that matter.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal introduced his rules as reported at column 719 in Committee. I think that it is important to look at the way in which he introduced them. In fairness to him, I would say that he introduced them with a considerable note of apology. For instance, when he introduced the third of his rules, he said:
      "Thirdly, if the committee can hit on an appropriate legislative provision, the draft clause—I call it a draft clause although at this point of time it cannot, in fact, be a clause".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6th June 1978; c. 719.]
      When he said that, in a suitably apologetic mood, he knew perfectly well that the whole concept of giving a professional body the duty and right to put forward draft clauses was likely to be objectionable to the House of Commons. He knew perfectly well that if that professional body was set up there would always be the risk that it might wish to disadvantage one particular scheme, or one particular set of people, and that it would be making decisions not of a technical nature but of a substantive nature. He knew perfectly well also that once that draft clause, as it might be called, had been put forward there would be a feeling in the House of Commons that people had altered their business affairs in conformity with that draft clause and it would be very difficult, in all fairness, for the House of Commons to change the draft clause.
      I hope that we shall not adopt the Rees rules. I hope that we shall stick to what is admittedly a more purist line and shall not in the future perpetuate the wrongs that we may well have perpetrated in the past. All power does corrupt, but let us at least in opposition adumbrate

      1671
      some clear honest lines and not suggest that even at this stage we are contemplating the necessary shifts and evasions that power may force upon us.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The House is unanimous that the proposals that clause 27 seeks to prevent, the various tax avoidance schemes, are objectionable and that the Government are right to take action to try to terminate them. There are two points of dispute that the House has to decide tonight: whether the date from which this retrospective legislation should take effect should go back two years to a time when not only was this activity not illegal but no warning had been given by the Government of an intention to legislate, or whether, as my right hon. Friends have suggested, at the very least it should be retrospective only to the date when the Government gave warning of their intention to produce such legislation.
      All on this side of the House, and I hope at least some hon. Gentlemen on the Government Back Benches, will accept that whatever the need for this clause, however unfortunately necessary retrospective legislation might be on occasion, it is totally intolerable, improper and unnecessary that the retrospective nature of this legislation should date back to a time when not even any intention to legislate had been announced by the Government.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) put forward a powerful case in support of the amendment, but the only explanation that the Chief Secretary was able to give why it was not accepted as a reasonable compromise to meet the legitimate requirements of the Government—he suggested that the clause should be retrospective only to the date when the Government announced their intention to legislate—was that such an amendment, if implemented, would frustrate the desire of the Government because immediately new schemes would be submitted to the Treasury for other similar tax avoidance measures.
      I have no doubt that the Chief Secretary is right that new schemes will be submitted, but what the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate was why, when such
      1672
      schemes were submitted, he or the Government could not then indicate a similar intention to legislate to make those measures illegal and, indeed, to make them illegal retrospective to the date of their announcement. Of course it is not a particularly cosmetically attractive method but it would be a way of ensuring that some of the basic rights of the citizen were not unnecessarily infringed and harmed in the way that the Government are proposing.
      There is a second issue which the House has to resolve this evening, and that is whether this curious unholy alliance between the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who say that the proposal should be retrospective only to the date of the Budget resolution, should prevail over the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should be retrospective only to the date on which the Government announced an intention to legislate.
      I hope the House will be clear that the issue of retrospection itself is not in dispute between these two possible amendments, because, despite the arguments being suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, even in the amendment which he wishes the House to accept, and which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North puts forward, there is an acceptance of retrospection. It is accepting that the clause should take effect retrospective to April of this year, for the reasons that were given.
      I suggest to the House that the issue is not one of principle in choosing between the two amendments, but whether the common grounds of fairness and the normal criteria of the rule of law would be adequately met by the official Opposition amendment. In this case there is no reason to dispute that it would be so, because the question of fairness depends not simply on whether the activity in question was illegal at the time but on whether the person concerned, when carrying it out, had reason to believe that there would be retrospective legislation to cover it. If he had no reason to believe, not only that the activity was unlawful, or not permitted, or contrary to

      1673
      the law, but that there was no intention retrospectively to make it unlawful, it clearly would be grossly unfair to penalise him for any actions he took at that time.
      Mr. Graham Page: Would my hon. Friend extend his argument to the fourth amendment, which covers the date when there was an announcement, a warning, of retrospective legislation, though the Government took 18 months, passed a Finance Bill and so on, without taking any action? Is not that also wrong?
      Mr Rifkind: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that if there were unconscionable, unjustifiable and unnecessary delay between the date of a Government announcement and the date when the law was passed by the House that would be unacceptable. But what we are talking about now is an amendment which suggests that the law should be retrospective only, I think, to November of last year. Clearly, this is the first opportunity in the Bill to implement the promise or warning that the Government made then.
      The matter must be dealt with cautiously, because there are dangerous problems involved. But when those conditions have been fulfilled, as they have on this occasion, it is unnecessary for the hon. Member for Cornwall, North to take the line that he takes. He would like the House to believe that he is taking his position based on principle and hostility to retrospection. In fact, his amendment concedes that some element of retrospection is necessary. I shall be happy to give way if he will explain how some element of retrospection is not involved in the amendment which he asks the House to accept.
      Mr. Pardoe: The fact of the matter is that it has become accepted by all parties in the House over a long period—
      Mr. Budgen: And justified by law.
      Mr. Pardoe: Yes. It has become accepted that what is said in the Budget Statement is enacted therefrom. Indeed, a large part of the whole Finance Bill starts from the Budget Statement. Therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the things said in the Budget Statement and enacted from that date are in any way retrospective legislation is a total misuse of the word "retrospection", and
      1674
      the hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well.
      Mr. Rifkind: I do not know it perfectly well, because all that the hon. Gentleman has said it that it has become accepted that it is fair and reasonable that legislation retrospective to the date of the Budget Resolution should be acceptable to the House and to the country. But the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a statement made in the Budget may not eventually pass into law. The House may this evening throw out any element of retrospection. Indeed, it could have removed the whole clause from the Bill. That was almost done in Standing Committee. If that happened, a statement made at the time of the Budget would not have turned into law and an attempt to create restrospective legislation would not have applied.
      Any proposal, as put forward by the hon. Gentleman, to make this legislation take effect from four months ago must inevitably be retrospective. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the proper amendment to accept is that put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Peter Rees: It is trite to observe that these are three very important amendments and that they have generated an extremely important debate. The House has been called on to consider first the question of tax avoidance and then a constitutional question of what I conceive to be considerable significance.
      I ask the House to look at the question of tax avoidance first against the tax system as a whole. I imagine that I shall not entirely carry Labour Members with me when I say that tax avoidance has become more acute of late because of the tax system under which we labour at present. It is complex and the rates are high. Indeed, on other, perhaps unrelated, occasions, even the Treasury Front Bench would be prepared to concede those two propositions.
      I think that it was the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr Hamilton) who was disposed to demur when some of my hon. Friends commented that tax avoidance and indeed tax evasion were rife throughout our society. The hon. Gentleman remarked that lawyers were the greatest moonlighters in the House. I must declare a personal interest as a lawyer, but

      1675
      one who has sat on every Standing Committee on the Finance Bill but one, I think, since 1970. I have emerged bloody but I hope unbowed after six weeks in Room 10 upstairs—an experience that I shared with another lawyer, the Minister of State. These are, perhaps, personal disclaimers.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman would have been better off if he had been moonlighting.
      Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in a financial and professional sense. I would have been far better off. I hope that I shall not sound arrogant in saying that I hope I was able to make some small contributions to our debates in Committee.
      I think it is also right to observe that the Revenue does not come to this problem entirely with clean hands, and that there are on the statute book a variety of provisions which have been criticised both inside and outside this House, and by the courts which have been called on to construe them. Since the hour is late, I shall not take the House through the details of those provisions. But I suggest to the Chief Secretary that if he wants to command universal acceptance for the tax system which he is commending to the House, he would be well advised to go through the whole tax code with his advisers to see whether there is not a whole range of provisions which from at this late stage could well be pruned off the statute book.
      The Chief Secretary, in referring to tax avoidance, spoke of those who deliberately flout the intention of Parliament. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: how can the intention of Parliament be gleaned except from the statutes which we enact? We are all aware that the legislative process is a rather imperfect one, and that we do not always produce the finely tuned, finely designed, finished article that we had in mind when we set our hands to the task. But those outside this House are not required to look into our minds or even required to study very closely the speeches we make in our debates. They are concerned only with the finished articles and the statutes which reach the statute book. It is, in a sense, begging the question to suggest that tax avoidance is constituted where people
      1676
      flout the intention of Parliament. That cannot as readily be gleaned as the Chief Secretary would have us believe.
      Beyond that, the mood of the House changes considerably on these questions. What is avoidance in one era becomes accepted fiscal practice in another. Before Labour Members lightly dismiss that proposition, I merely ask them to consider clause 21, which we have already passed, which has enlarged the reliefs for golden handshakes. I daresay that 10 years ago no one on the Labour side would have had a good word to say for golden handshakes. Indeed, there would have been considerable pressure to diminish even the limited reliefs that were offered by the Finance Act 1960. But times have changed and it has now been realised that very many people in constituencies represented by Labour Members will lose their jobs through the rundown of the steel industry. They will be given golden handshakes.
      By a surprising turn of events, the Government have commended to us a provision designed deliberately to raise the limit so as to take people in the steel industry out of the charge to tax. I do not grudge them that relief. I merely give it to the House as an instance of a change in climate, showing that what was avoidance in one year becomes accepted practice in another.
      I shall not suggest that the scheme at which the Chief Secretary has aimed his darts will ever become accepted practice. That would probably strain the credulity and imagination of the House a little too far. I am not entirely certain that the Chief Secretary understands the scheme. Certainly the amendments, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), demonstrated rather clearly—although the House was somewhat empty at the time—that the Chief Secretary did not realise at what point of time the loss, and therefore the relief, would be generated. But he has presumably behind him advisers who are able at a later stage to take him aside and point out to him the error of his ways.
      11.30 p.m.
      The Chief Secretary was a little disposed to inflame the debate by talking about a sum of £200 million being at stake. I do not know how he can possibly tell the

      1677
      House what is at stake, because at an earlier stage, as the House will recall, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these schemes were hedged around with a secrecy which amounted to a conspiracy of silence.
      But still, let us divide £200 million by four. A sum of £50 million pounds would be a considerable sum. I agree that it is a problem that we must face squarely.
      So again, it is possible that I may lower slightly the temperature of debate—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] We must try to approach these problems dispassionately. I know that on occasions I have been guilty of the fault that I am attributing to the Chief Secretary.
      The Chief Secretary was disposed to say that these were schemes largely undertaken by corporations. The House should know at once that the scheme at which this clause is aimed could be undertaken only by an individual. So again, I am not entirely persuaded that the Chief Secretary has understood the dimensions of the problem. I suspect that he has, perhaps, been a little overborne by the pressures of the last few months. The load of his office has, perhaps, proved too much for him. Perhaps he deserves a little rest. Perhaps we shall afford him that rest quite soon.
      Again, there is a certain ambivalence in his approach to this problem because he told his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson)—whose conscience so obviously needed assuaging this evening—
      "The Revenue tells me that it does not recognise the ensuing claims as valid under existing law."—[Official Report, 25th November 1977; Vol. 939, cc. 965–66.]
      I have no doubt—and this is the only possible inference to be drawn from that reply—that the Inland Revenue has taken counsel's advice—perhaps from some moonlighting lawyer who knows?—perhaps even from the Solicitor-General, who by custom and practice, is prone to advising the Government on matters of this kind.
      If indeed the Inland Revenue has received solid assurance from its legal advisers that it is bound to win in the courts, then I hope that it is testing these schemes and I hope that it will be proved right.
      1678
      I hope that the advice that has been given to the Inland Revenue is good. If the advice that has been given is good, the particular mischief of this scheme is unimportant. We are beating the air. We are being asked to perpetrate a constitutional monstrosity for no very good reason whatever.
      I think that the Chief Secretary would have been well advised, perhaps, to defer asking the House to enact this clause until the courts have pronounced that the advice given to the Inland Revenue was wrong, if indeed it was.
      But let us accept that the problem of tax avoidance is one that must be faced squarely by an Administration of whatever complexion. Indeed, this is a problem that has faced Conservative Administrations. For all I know, it may well have faced Sir William Harcourt back in 1894. But still, I do not think that it is necessary at this hour to take the debate so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry that the antecedents of the Lib-Lab pact are not proving as interesting to Labour Members as I had hoped.
      At an earlier stage in this debate, the Chief Secretary was disposed to say that no practical solution had been offered to the Government. I rather demur at that because I ventured to put a suggestion to the Government in Standing Committee. I asked them at least to consider the possibility of a general anti-avoidance provision, such as the Australians have laboured under for many years and, indeed, such as this country had in regard to profits tax introduced by the Finance Act 1951. But obviously my advice fell on deaf ears. The Chief Secretary was lukewarm almost to the point of frigidity about that suggestion. He was not disposed to take it up or to examine it. It may well be that after close examination it would not even commend itself to my right hon. and hon. Friends. But at least that is something that the Government should have explored before coming to the House with this provision.
      Let us accept for the purposes of this debate that there are difficulties about that solution. Certainly it is not one which we have been asked to consider by the Chief Secretary tonight.
      How is this matter to be met? It is to be met by legislation. Here I am led

      1679
      on to the whole question of retrospection. There is a purist view, which was perhaps most elequently and logically deployed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in our debate upstairs. It was slightly less logically and elegantly deployed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in our debate this evening. I have great sympathy with that point of view. I have been forced off it with considerable reluctance, although I should say to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), not by a recollection of any part that I may have played in the debate on the question of immigration. I am bound to say that I think he gave the House a false analogy, but perhaps there will be another occasion when we can debate that.
      I do not like to bandy the phrase "the rule of law", because perhaps it has a slightly trite, almost pedagogic ring about it. It is perhaps too closely associated with the legal profession, and I do not think that we should look at this tonight as lawyers, if indeed we are. I think that this is a matter of constitutional significance which we have to judge as parliamentarians.
      If on the other hand we are reluctant to accept the position that one can at no point legislate retrospectively, it will be very difficult indeed to counter schemes of this kind. I give this point to the Chief Secretary. Therefore, how, as a matter of practical politics, are we to deal with the question of avoidance, at least in this very sophisticated area? Again I give this to the Chief Secretary. The schemes are sophisticated. I do not think that they are hedged around with a secrecy which amounts to a conspiracy of silence. I have read about this in the press, as presumably has the Chief Secretary, because the answer which he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred specifically to an article in The Sunday Times.
      If, however, our legislation is to infringe what is generally considered to be a basic constitutional precept that it should not be retrospective, how are we to frame it. This is how the rules which have been ascribed to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) come into play. I believe that the root principle is that a person should be on notice of
      1680
      what the consequences are likely to be if he embarks on a particular scheme or a particular venture. Of course, there is a certain sanctity about the law and, of course, subject on the whole are not required to follow our debates. They are entitled to say "We stand on the statute book". But still, I think that the underlying principle is that everyone should be on notice about what the consequences of his acts are likely to be if he embarks upon them.
      This is where these rules have been devised. As I said, I am a little coy about accepting their paternity because I believe that they are distilled from that experience of situations with which this House has been faced over a considerable period of time, both under Labour and Conservative Administrations. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Down, South took us back to what he called the "Black and Lord" amendments of 1948. The House has certainly been debating these matters for some 30 years, and I have no doubt for longer than that. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that there were precedents even before the war.
      The virtue of these rules would be—I do not need to go over them again, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I am bound to say to all those hon. Members who cheered so loudly when I disclaimed any intention of repeating them that I did not notice them in the House at the time my right hon. and learned Friend gave them to the House. As they were not, they may not perhaps entirely appreciate the consistency and good sense of the position which we Conservatives are adopting. Still, I have no doubt that before those hon. Members come to form a view and vote in the Division, they will refer to the debates which we had in Committee on 6th June.
      These rules would at least have this merit. They would ensure that those who embarked on these schemes would, from the moment that the announcement was first made, be on notice that they were at risk. From the moment that the reform committee which meets at Somerset House had considered and formulated a possible clause, they would know with a certain accuracy the kind of countermeasures which would be taken. Finally, of course, they would be assured that

      1681
      these matters would be debated closely by this House at the earliest opportunity.
      May I attempt to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that there is no question of delegating our responsibilities to the reform committee? It is merely that it is a convenient body—it may be that another body occurs to my hon. Friend—which can look into the technicalities of this matter and produce perhaps more rapidly than would otherwise be the case, the kind of provision which we should have to consider in the next Finance Bill.
      But then it is of crucial importance that the House should at the earliest opportunity consider these matters in the very next Finance Bill. This is where the Opposition take particular exception to clause 28, which has not been the subject of detailed debate. There, the warning was given—I concede that the initial warning was of a relatively precise kind—some two or more years ago, and there was ample opportunity in the last Finance Bill for the Government to have embodied this clause, had they so willed. I do not believe it is right that taxpayers should be left in a state of continuing uncertainty for a period of years.
      This is the basis of the amendments. Amendment No. 5 would take Clause 27 back to 25th November last year, which was the date given by the Chief Secretary in a reasonably precise answer to a reasonably precise question. I agree that this matter was not referred to the tax reform committee, but this is perhaps a provision for the future. I concede that it has been embodied in legislative form for this House to debate and consider in some detail at the earliest opportunity. We say, with a certain reluctance but based on precedents that this House has accepted in the past, that this amendment is one which we would find acceptable. It is a compromise which we have designed to assuage the delicate susceptibilities of the Chief Secretary, who has got this problem a little out of perspective. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this carefully nurtured olive branch, the only consistent course for the Opposition will be to vote for amendment no. 79 which would make this provision law from the date of the Budget Statement.
      1682
      It will be for the House and for the country outside to judge who has leaned over backwards to observe the constitutional proprieties and to meet a problem which we all recognise to exist.
      On clause 28, I commend to the House amendment no. 6, which would make the clause operative only from 6th April, and that is because, consistently with the rules which my right hon. and learned Friend spelled out to the House, the Chief Secretary has failed to put the clause before the House at the earliest opportunity.
      I end on this note—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I carry right hon. and hon. Members with me on this. We are fortunate in some ways and unfortunate in others in not having a written constitution. If our constitution can be spelled out, it depends on precedent and convention. If we enact these two clauses in their present form, we shall embody in our constitution a practice and a precedent which we shall regret in years to come.
      I know that Government supporters have a particular horror and detestation of tax avoidance. But, before they go into the Division Lobby, they might care to ponder to which areas of public and private endeavour with which they are particularly concerned—and my right hon. and learned Friend gave one instance—the principle of retrospection which the Chief Secretary asks them to support might be applied. As he observed in Committee, this is a novel use of the weapon of retrospection.
      It is not designed precisely to hit a target that has been described in advance. It is avowedly designed to create uncertainty in a field where the subject is entitled to certainty. I hope that the whole House will ponder on the consequences of passing this clause unamended tonight, and will, on reflection, accept amendments nos. 5 and 6.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) asks me how I know that those concerned with these schemes are flouting the intention of Parliament. Let me explain. Let us suppose that the man we are talking about enters into a partnership in a company for a fee in return for which he agrees to leave that company when he

      1683
      has made a sufficient loss and before it starts to make a profit. I can only describe that as an artificial scheme. I know that the hon. and learned Member does not like such schemes and nor do I.
      The hon. and learned Member also suggested that genuine cases might be caught. Genuine companies and genuine people do not normally enter into a partnership with a company in order to make a loss and sign an agreement to leave before that company makes a profit. That is a somewhat unusual partnership, to say the least.
      Everybody wants to stop these schemes. But nothing the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any of his hon. Friends have said tonight will stop them. Nor will it stop the industry. The courts, we are told, should deal with them. Perhaps they will find in favour of these schemes, perhaps they will not. What we do know is that, in these circumstances, tax avoidance would be able to continue and thrive.
      The other amendment that the hon. and learned Member is recommending would go back to the date of the warning in November 1977. But he knows that by donig that we should not stop the industry from pursuing schemes of an identical kind. We are dealing with a few people who are able, at the expense of millions of taxpayers, to avoid large sums of money in tax payments.
      We are voting tonight not for retrospection in general, but for retrospection in a narrow sense to stop an industry which is taking or seeking to take, hundreds of millions of pounds at the expense of millions of taxpayers who pay their taxes regularly. On top of that one must understand that this case and every future case would have to be approved by the House of Commons before the scheme could be stopped.
      This is a novel form of retrospection, I agree. The kind of penalty we are talking about will not put people in prison, as was proposed by the Conservatives in legislation in 1971. It will not remove the status of individuals on a large scale. It will remove from a few people the opportunity to avoid tax at the expense of many. That is what we are doing tonight.
      We must balance our repugnance about retrospection in legislation with the other objective and consider whether we should allow our democratic society to be held in contempt by a few people for very large sums of money at the expense of the rest of the community. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to dismiss the amendments.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 275.

      Division No. 264]

      AYES

      [11.50 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Buck, Antony

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Budgen, Nick

      Elliott, Sir William

      Alison, Michael

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Emery, Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      Burden, F. A.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Farr, John

      Baker, Kenneth

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fell, Anthony

      Banks, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Bell, Ronald

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cockcroft, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Benyon, W.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Forman, Nigel

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cope, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Biffen, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Galbraith Hon T. G. D.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Corrie, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Blaker, Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Body, Richard

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan (Chesham)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Crouch, David

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Crowder, F. P.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Brittan, Leon

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Gorst, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

      Brotherton, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Durant, Tony

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Dykes, Hugh

      Gray, Hamish

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grieve, Percy

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Grylls, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Madel, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Marten, Neil

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Mates, Michael

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mather, Carol

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hawkins, Paul

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shersby, Michael

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Silvester, Fred

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Mills, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Holland, Philip

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      Spence, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Sproat, lain

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stainton, Keith

      Hurd, Douglas

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Stanley, John

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Neave, Airey

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      James, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, lan (Hitchin)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Neubert, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Newton, Tony

      Tapsell, Peter

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Normanton, Tom

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Jopling, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Osborn, John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Trotter, Neville

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Viggers, Peter

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Percival, Ian

      Wakeham, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Knox, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Lamont, Norman

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wall, Patrick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walters, Dennis

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Raison, Timothy

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wells, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lloyd, lan

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Loveridge, John

      Rhodes James, R.

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Luce, Richard

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Younger, Hon George

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ridsdale, Julian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      MacGregor, John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Sir George Young.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davidson, Arthur

      Allaun, Frank

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Anderson, Donald

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carmichael, Neil

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Deakins, Eric

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Cartwright, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dempsey, James

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dewar, Donald

      Bates, Alf

      Coleman, Donald

      Doig, Peter

      Bean, R. E.

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corbett, Robin

      Dunn, James A.

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Cowans, Harry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Eadie, Alex

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Edge, Geoff

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Crawford, Douglas

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Bradley, Tom

      Cronin, John

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      English, Michael

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cryer, Bob

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Evans, John (Newton)

      1686

      1687

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Selby, Harry

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sever, John

      Flannery, Martin

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Silverman, Julius

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Magee, Bryan

      Skinner, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      Mahon, Simon

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Snape, Peter

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Gourlay, Harry

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stallard, A. W.

      Graham, Ted

      Meacher, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mikardo, lan

      Stoddart, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Stott, Roger

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

      Swain, Thomas

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Molloy, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Thompson, George

      Hooley, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Horam, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Tierney, Sydney

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Noble, Mike

      Tilley, John

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tinn, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Ogden, Eric

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Torney, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hunter, Adam

      Ovenden, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Park, George

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Janner, Greville

      Parker, John

      Ward, Michael

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parry, Robert

      Watkins, David

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Watkinson, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pendry, Tom

      Weetch, Ken

      John Brynmor

      Perry, Ernest

      Weitzman, David

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Wellbeloved, James

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Prescott, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Judd, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Whitlock, William

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Kerr, Russell

      Reid, George

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Lamond, James

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Lestor, Miss John (Eton & Slough)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woof, Robert

      Litterick, Tom

      Roper, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rose, Paul B.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Luard, Evan

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rowlands, Ted

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Ryman, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Sandelson, Neville

      Mr. Jim Marshall.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 21, line 1, leave out
      'wholly before 6th April 1976'
      and insert
      'before 11th April 1978'.—[Mr. Pardoe.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 275.

      Division No. 265]

      AYES

      [12.04 a.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Arnold, Tom

      Baker, Kenneth

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Banks, Robert

      Alison, Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Bell, Ronald

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hannam, John

      Pardoe, John

      Benyon, W.

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Percival, Ian

      Biffen, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Blaker, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Body, Richard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Holland, Philip

      Raison, Timothy

      Brittan, Leon

      Hordern, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rhodes James, R.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Buck, Antony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Budgen, Nick

      James, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Burden, F. A.

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jopling, Michael

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Channon, Paul

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cockcroft, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cope, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Corrie, John

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Silvester, Fred

      Crouch, David

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sims, Roger

      Crowder, F. P.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spence, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lloyd, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Durant, Tony

      Luce, Richard

      Stainton, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanley, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacGregor, John

      Steel, Ft Hon David

      Elliott, Sir William

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Emery, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Eyre, Reginald

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stokes, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Farr, John

      Madel, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Finsberg. Geoffrey

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mather, Carol

      Thorpe, Pt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Trotter, Neville

      Forman, Nigel

      Mayhew, Patrick

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fox, Marcus

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Freud, Clement

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Viggers, Peter

      Galbraith Hon T. G. D.

      Mills, Peter

      Wakeham, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Moate, Roger

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Molyneaux, James

      Wall, Patrick

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Walters, Dennis

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morgan, Geraint

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wells, John

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Neave, Airey

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gray, Hamish

      Neubert, Michael

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Grieve, Percy

      Newton, Tony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Normanton, Tom

      Younger, Hon George

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Grylls, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F

      Osborn, John

      Mr A. J. Beith and

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Mr. Richard Wainwright.

      1690

      1691

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Allaun, Frank

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Anderson, Donald

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Molloy, William

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Moonman, Eric

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ginsburg, David

      Moyle, Roland

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Golding, John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Bates, Alf

      Gourlay, Harry

      Newens, Stanley

      Bean, R. E.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Noble, Mike

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Grocott, Bruce

      Oakes, Gordon

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ogden, Eric

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hardy, Peter

      Orbach, Maurice

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Ovenden, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Bradley, Tom

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Park, George

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Parker, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Parry, Robert

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hooley, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Buchan, Norman

      Horam, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Buchanan, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Perry, Ernest

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Huckfield, Les

      Prescott, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Radice, Giles

      Cartwright, John

      Hunter, Adam

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Reid, George

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Janner, Greville

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Corbett, Robin

      John Brynmor

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Crawford, Douglas

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Roper, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cronin, John

      Judd, Frank

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Ryman, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lambie, David

      Selby, Harry

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamond, James

      Sever, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Litterick, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silverman, Julius

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Luard, Evan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Snape, Peter

      Doig, Peter

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dormand, J. D.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunn, James A.

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Stoddart, David

      Eadie, Alex

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Stott, Roger

      Edge, Geoff

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Swain, Thomas

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      English, Michael

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Magee, Bryan

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mahon, Simon

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thompson, George

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Tierney, Sydney

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Tilley, John

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Meacher, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Flannery, Martin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tomlinson, John

      1692

      1693

      Tomney, Frank

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Torney, Tom

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Urwin, T. W.

      White, James (Pollok)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Woof, Robert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Whitlock, William

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ward, Michael

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Watkins, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Watkinson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Mr Ted Graham and

      Weetch, Ken

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mr Thomas Cox.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Sir G. Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that amendment no. 6 had been selected for a vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): No. I am afraid that I must rule that amendment no. 6 has not been selected for a vote—only for debate.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]
      Bill, as amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

    GUARANTEE AND WARRANTY COMPANIES
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
    12.19 a.m.
    Miss Betty Boothroyd rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I must ask right hon. and hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly. The hon. Lady has to carry on. It is late already and she would like to get home.
    Miss Boothroyd: The object of this debate is to draw attention to the manner in which some guarantee companies or warranty companies operate to the detriment of motorists. I appreciate the opportunity, even at this late hour, of airing a matter which has adversely affected many motorists. I refer to people with not a lot of cash to spare who buy second-hand cars. A large proportion of them, in good conscience, also buy warranties as means of keeping their cars in a proper state of repair and in good roadworthy condition. The purchasers of second-hand cars are being taken for what I call a financial ride by a type of
    1694
    insurance agreement which the company selling the insurance has little or no intention of accepting when a claim is made. Further, in the situation that I shall try to outline this evening, the company did not have sufficient financial resources to meet all the claims made.
    The subject falls into three main areas. First, it covers the consumer—the car owner, who is the warranty holder. The second area is the financial standing of the company selling the warranty. The third area, which is what I would question the Minister about, relates to safeguarding the public against disreputable business activities.
    Thousands of people today buy secondhand cars. Many of those people, at the time of buying the vehicles, also purchase what is known as a warranty. That warranty covers the car owner against some of the costs of subsequent repairs. In fact, it is something like an insurance policy.
    But problems begin to arise when the car needs repair or when a defect is noticed. Complaints have been brought to my attention because the warranty company procrastinated over so many months that even the most persistent claimant gave up pursuing his claim in exasperation and eventually settled for a small percentage of the real cost involved. In many cases the company was financially incapable of meeting the claims.
    The system works something like this. Currently, a warranty company does not have to comply with existing legislation because a warranty can be sold with promotional material—that is, an oil additive or repair kit to be used in conjunction with the warranty. The arrangement of selling this promotional package places the company outside the legislation. The terms of the warranty are very precise and stipulate strict compliance with its terms. Unfortunately, the average purchaser does not appreciate that the slightest non-observance of the terms is a potential bar to his claim. He believes

    1695
    that, by taking such a warranty, he is in fact acting very prudently.
    One national newspaper recently mentioned that there are thousands of such people. I can neither confirm nor deny that. However, I have evidence at my disposal. I am aware of well over 150 cases in which, after a great deal of time and effort, approximately half the claims were met, but only in part, and in the remainder no financial settlement has been obtained by people who firmly believed that they were insured.
    Out of all the cases, it is appropriate to mention one—in fact, one of the more fortunate cases. A claim was made because of a gearbox fault. In the first six weeks the owner made 10 telephone calls to the company and wrote six letters. The company said that the car had been driven after the fault had developed. A motoring organisation was subsequently called in and it put its legal department and technical experts on the case.
    Telephone calls and letters passed among all the parties concerned, but 12 months elapsed before the matter was finally resolved. At that time, in desperation, the car owner accepted an offer of about 45 per cent. of the total claim.
    I refer to the company known as Revolution Oil International. It is a warranty company of which the Minister is aware. In my opinion, it has used every excuse in the book to withhold payment on claims that have been submitted to it. It has made all sorts of excuses for not meeting the claims. In some instances it has said that the oil used was used seven days too late. It has said that the service was not carried out at the precise mileage at which it ought to have been done. It has said that a certified mechanic had to attend the car. What is "a certified mechanic"? It has insisted that replacement parts did not have the manufacturer's approval. In fact, the company has used every argument imaginable to avoid its obligations under the warranty and to attempt to cheat those whom it claimed to be seeking to protect.
    Let me now deal with the financing of this company. It was formed in July 1974 with a paid-up capital of £100. That was subsequently, and quite normally of course, increased to £100,000 in £1 shares. As the House will appreciate, that
    1696
    does not necessarily mean that at any one time it had that amount of money available to meet the claims. It eventually had to go into liquidation—that was in April of this year—and just before doing so a director of the company boasted that 70,000 warranties had been issued, at an approximate cost of £20 each, covering repairs to the value of £150. If my calculations are correct, it means that the company had a liability of £750,000. The liquidator finally indicated that there was little or nothing available to meet the claims.
    Although the company was in the habit of presenting itself as an international organisation, that was not the case. The company purported to be part of an international organisation, and the first paragraph of its warranty says:
    "Dear Warranty Holder,
    You are now one of the many thousands of motorists in the world taking advantage of a Revolution warranty."
    The implication was that an overseas company would meet the liabilities, but, as the Minister is well aware, that turned out to be a false impression. I suggest that this company had nothing like the resources necessary to function in a business at all.
    Perhaps I may sum up two points. I think that it is not unreasonable to say that in using promotional material in conjunction with a warranty drawn in precise terms the company was able to operate and avoid existing provisions. Moreover, it operated, I believe with some confidence, believing that it would not have to meet its liabilities, and thereby hoping for a good rip-off from the second-hand car owner who put faith in the company.
    Furthermore, and this is equally important, there appear to be few, if any, requirements to be met by a company which trades without having the financial backing to meet its liabilities. It is practising as an insurance company, without having to insure itself. I believe that this is common practice in the United States. I hope that that sort of practice will not be exported here, because I can only describe it as a total racket.
    I come to my third point, which is how to proceed to prevent such rackets in the future because even now it is open to anybody to form another company with limited capital and with no liability to

    1697
    insure against any risks that he incurs. I shall not trespass and request new legislation—I know that I should not do that in a debate such as this—but surely it is open to me to suggest that the powers that have been given to the Director General of Fair Trading are not being exercised as stringently as they might be.
    The Director General already has powers under Part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to seek assurances from a company that the trading practices complained of are not detrimental to the interests of the consumers, and to seek assurances of responsible future behaviour. When such assurances are not forthcoming or, if given, are subsequently broken, I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the Director General can seek an order from the Restrictive Practices Court prohibiting the company from continuing that conduct or indulging in similar conduct. I think that noncompliance would constitute contempt of court. I do not suggest that it is the best method to deal with the current and perhaps the future behaviour of such companies, but it happens to be the best method I am able to suggest in the constrained terms of this debate.
    Perhaps I might take the matter a stage further by asking the following question. Should the Director General find that the existing powers are inadequate, would not he be in a position to report on that situation and suggest what is needed in this area, with which he is so familiar? Could not he report to the Minister on what might be done in the future? Many ordinary people have made sacrifices to buy a little second-hand car to give the family some pleasure. I believe that they have been cheated and that a company has been allowed to operate in a most anti-social manner. I ask my hon. Friend for his comments and views.
    12.32 a.m.
    The Minister of State, Department at Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) asks me to ask the Director General of Fair Trading to seek assurances. I shall draw that request to his attention as soon as I can.
    My hon. Friend raises the question of Guarantees and warranties. For the sake
    1698
    of brevity, I shall use the word "guarantees" to include warranties. The word implies a solemn pledge, a rather solid assurance. The use of the guarantee is a well established practice for marketing and sales. When one thinks of the word one almost conjures up an image of the ribbon and the seal and all the paraphernalia of the solemn legal covenant. I am afraid that too often over the years some guarantees—by no means all—have proved to be a kind of fool's gold. It would have been a lie to say that some guarantees were not worth the paper they were written on, because some have been worth rather less, in that they have taken away the rights of consumers, rights which were conferred by common law or by the Sale of Goods Act.
    I think that the commonest problem in the past was the guarantee given with a second-hand car. The fine print used to say that it was a three-month guartee in lieu of all express and implied warranties, in lieu of all statutory obligations. The guarantee was worth less than the paper it was written on and took away people's rights.
    That abuse was cured as to goods in 1973, and by a statute that came into force last year was cured as to the hire of goods and the supply of services. Therefore, that problem has been resolved. It is now an offence even to pretend or to give the impression that a guarantee takes away people's basic rights.
    Too often consumers fail to realise their rights under the Sale of Goods Act and amending legislation. I would emphasise that those who took the guarantees described by my hon. Friend may well still have rights against the sellers of the vehicles if the goods were not of merchantable quality, and they should see whether those rights might still be exercisable.
    There are three types of guarantee—I am talking about consumer transactions, because I am sure that those are what concern my hon. Friend. First, there is the sort of guarantee given by a vendor to a purchaser on the purchase of goods or services. In consumer transactions the law is now such that guarantees like that can only add to, and cannot detract from, the consumer's rights. But the problem is that in some cases I suspect that the addition to rights which a guarantee gives

    1699
    —and the guarantees my hon. Friend mentioned are of this nature—is more an addition on paper than it is in reality.
    Someone selling motor vehicles, oil, repair kits or domestic equipment can be a man of straw and shower his customers with guarantees and warranties but make no provision whatever for contingent liability which may arise on the guarantees. In other words, he does not act with the prudence with which an actuary would act, or with the prudence or obligation with which an insurance company would act. That is the problem there.
    Secondly, there is the guarantee which is given by a manufacturer who owes no contractual duty to the possessor of goods because he did not sell them direct to the consumer. In those cases the guarantee is perhaps used as a marketing ploy. There has been very considerable concern about guarantees given voluntarily by manufacturers—so much so that the Director General of Fair Trading is looking into the matter at the moment. I can do not better than to quote from the consultative document that he recently issued. Referring to this type of guarantee, he said:
    "Complaints about guarantees are numerous—1,397 were reported to OFT … in the first half of 1977. In general, complaints were from consumers who found that the benefits they could obtain from guarantees fell short of what they had expected: they were required to pay part of the cost of putting goods right themselves (for example, they had to pay labour, or call-out, or carriage costs); or the particular component that had gone wrong was not covered by the guarantee; or the guarantee period was of short duration and had expired; or the guarantee on goods they had received as a gift was in the name of the original purchaser and could not be transferred; or after repeated attempts at repair by the manufacturer goods were still not working properly when the guarantee period ran out."
    The Director General has drawn the attention of trade associations to this and has sent out a consultative document. In the context of the replies to that document, I have raised the matters which have been referred to by my hon. Friend tonight.
    The third type of guarantee is that which is sold on its own. It is not sold with the product at all. It is called technically a non-product warranty scheme, where the vendor sells the guarantee without any goods at all, and the effect of doing that is that he acts as an insurer.
    1700
    For instance, the Automobile Association sells vehicle warranties and guarantees. It has to be covered as an insurer and there is the protection of insurance law in those circumstances.
    The activity of selling guarantees and warranties is apparently confined to vehicles, and it is quite different from guarantees and warranties by manufacturers. Where the warranty is not placed on the use of the product specified by the warranty company, the company will need to have a group policy with an authorised insurer. It is, in fact, conducting an insurance business. I have received no complaints in the case of the non-product warranties which are covered by insurance law.
    The crucial question—I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised it—of what constitutes insurance business and what does not is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. Whether a particular activity amounts to insurance business—with all the implications that that would have by way of requiring regulatory control and the protection of policy holders—is ultimately a matter for determination by the court.
    I understand that the Department of Trade took the view that the business which had been undertaken by the Revolution Oil Company up to the time of its liquidation did not amount to insurance business. I understand that the legal point—some might think it is a legalistic point—is that the risks concerned could have been influenced by the company providing the cover in specifying the use of a particular product, in this case an oil additive. I say "could have been". I think it is much more a theoretical matter than a matter of reality. But it was not, in the circumstances and as the law stands, possible to provide protection to the consumer which would have been available if the company had been an insurance company.
    I would not wish to suggest, in the light of complaints about Revolution Oil, that consumers should avoid taking up a warranty, whether of a non-product or a product variety. That is a matter for their choice, though they ought to give great consideration before they make that choice. But the recent Office of Fair Trading report on cars suggests that buyers of used cars would be well advised, for their protection, to deal with members

    1701
    of the Motor Agents' Association or the Scottish Motor Trade Association.
    The mass of evidence that we have from the Office of Fair Trading and from consumer advice centres and citizens advice bureaus is that most of the complaints and most of the prosecutions are against car dealers who do not belong to those associations who do not subscribe to the voluntary code of conduct, and who are outside the voluntary arrangements which have been negotiated by the Office of Fair Trading.
    Therefore, one bit of advice is to deal with a reputable trader who subscribes to the code approved by the Director General of Fair Trading. Before making expensive purchases, it is always wise to look at the advice, often in leaflet form, published by the Office of Fair Trading, giving advice on buying cars and on getting them serviced and repaired.
    I am very sorry that in this case all the complaints that came to my Department came after the company had gone into voluntary liquidation. It is very often a question of the horse having bolted. But I do not underestimate the scale of the problem. I think that there was one quotation in the Sunday People which ascribed to the chairman of the company the fact that 600,000 people held warranties. My hon. Friend says that the number was 70,000. The figure of 600,000 may be an exaggeration, but, whatever the figure, it was certainly a substantial amount of business.
    My hon. Friend has raised what is possibly a serious gap in the law whereby a
    1702
    company could circumvent the spirit and the intention of insurance law, which is intended to protect consumers, by selling a product along with a warranty, and circumventing protection and then having to make no provision for the sort of contingent liabilities which are likely to arise.
    I have told my hon. Friend that the Director General of Fair Trading is already considering the subject of guarantees. I finish on this note. What I propose to do is to draw to the attention of the Director General the contents of this debate and to convey to him my hon. Friend's concern. As the matter also concerns the Department of Trade, I have already taken the opportunity of speaking to one of my fellow Ministers in that Department. I intend to look into this problem as soon as I possibly can and have discussions with that Department as well.
    It is not easy to define the difference between insurance business and warranties sold with products. One knows it when one sees it, but it is very difficult to define it in legal terms. But my hon. Friend has done a valuable service in raising what may be—I say "may be"—a loophole in the law, which may have been circumvented by one company, which could possibly arise again. In the context both of the review of guarantees by the Director General and of the points raised by my hon. Friend, I certainly undertake to have those discussions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
ENVIRONMENT
  Inner City Areas (Partnership Plans)
  Inner City Areas (Partnership Plans)
  Dogs (Working Party Report)
  Dogs (Working Party Report)
  Rates
  Rates
  Playground Equipment (Safety)
  Playground Equipment (Safety)
  Keston (Green Belt Land)
  Keston (Green Belt Land)
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Capital Grants (Birmingham)
  Capital Grants (Birmingham)
  Building Land
  Building Land
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Derelict Land (North-West England)
  Derelict Land (North-West England)
  Water Service Charges
  Water Service Charges
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Noise and Thermal Insulation
  Noise and Thermal Insulation
  Local Government Services (Cost)
  Local Government Services (Cost)
  Flood-damaged Houses (Rateable Values)
  Flood-damaged Houses (Rateable Values)
  Gipsies (Encampments)
  Gipsies (Encampments)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Chlorophenols
  Chlorophenols
ENERGY
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Explosions
  Coke
  Coke
  Fuel Economy (Motor Transport)
  Fuel Economy (Motor Transport)
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Consultants and Registrars
  Hospital Consultants and Registrars
  Stephenson's School, Dunmurry
  Stephenson's School, Dunmurry
  Public Debt
  Public Debt
  Bee-keepers
  Bee-keepers
SCOTLAND
  Lewis Offshore Limited
  Lewis Offshore Limited
  Community Land
  Community Land
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Cadets
  Police Cadets
  Independent Broadcasting (European Community Recommendation)
  Independent Broadcasting (European Community Recommendation)
  Mentally Abnormal Offenders
  Mentally Abnormal Offenders
  Prison Accommodation
  Prison Accommodation
  Court Exhibits
  Court Exhibits
  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  Metropolitan Police (Health Hazards)
  Metropolitan Police (Health Hazards)
  Immigrant Population (Grants)
  Immigrant Population (Grants)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Belize
  Belize
  Dependent Territories (Death Penalty)
  Dependent Territories (Death Penalty)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Henry V (Entrails)
  Henry V (Entrails)
  Bicycle Parking (Government Offices)
  Bicycle Parking (Government Offices)
  News Dissemination
  News Dissemination
INDUSTRY
  Public Corporations (Employees)
  Public Corporations (Employees)
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Swan Hunter Limited (Nationalisation Compensation)
  Swan Hunter Limited (Nationalisation Compensation)
  Co-operative Development Agency
  Co-operative Development Agency
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Programme
  Training Opportunities Programme
  Penistone
  Penistone
  Tobacco and Tobacco Product Firms
  Tobacco and Tobacco Product Firms
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Leek
  Leek
  National Union of Journalists and Newspaper Publishers' Association (Disputes)
  National Union of Journalists and Newspaper Publishers' Association (Disputes)
  Jobcentres (Costs)
  Jobcentres (Costs)
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Jobs (Financial Support)
  Jobs (Financial Support)
  Employed and Unemployed Males
  Employed and Unemployed Males
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Earnings (Statistics)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Comprehensive Education (Essex)
  Comprehensive Education (Essex)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Teaching Accommodation
  Teaching Accommodation
  Darlington College of Education
  Darlington College of Education
  Eaton Hall Teacher Training College, Retford
  Eaton Hall Teacher Training College, Retford
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fruit and Vegetables
  Fruit and Vegetables
  Apples, Pears, Sugar, Potatoes and Oats
  Apples, Pears, Sugar, Potatoes and Oats
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  New Zealand Cheese
  New Zealand Cheese
  Co-operatives (Grants)
  Co-operatives (Grants)
  GAMBLING (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)
  GAMBLING (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Senior Executive Officer (Salary)
  Senior Executive Officer (Salary)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Publications (Cost)
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Public Servants (Salaries)
  Public Servants (Salaries)
TRADE
  Maritime Conventions
  Maritime Conventions
  Limited Companies
  Limited Companies
  Airport (Wales)
  Airport (Wales)
  Airport Development
  Airport Development
  Chipboard
  Chipboard
DEFENCE
  Royal Sailors Rests, Singapore
  Royal Sailors Rests, Singapore
  Belize
  Belize
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department (Dispute)
  Refreshment Department (Dispute)
  Refreshment Department (Staff Pensions)
  Refreshment Department (Staff Pensions)
  Refreshment Department (Prices)
  Refreshment Department (Prices)
HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT
  Running Costs
  Running Costs
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Blind Persons' Allowances
  Blind Persons' Allowances
  Economic Forecasts
  Economic Forecasts
  Earned Incomes
  Earned Incomes
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Income Return
  Income Return
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Personal Tax Allowances
  Personal Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Thresholds
  Income Tax Thresholds
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Research (Cost)
  Research (Cost)
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Heart Operations
  Heart Operations
  Opticians
  Opticians
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Chemists
  Chemists
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Coronary Disease
  Coronary Disease
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Children (Fostering and Care)
  Children (Fostering and Care)
  Prescription Charges (Widows)
  Prescription Charges (Widows)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Special Hospital Patients (Transfer)
  Special Hospital Patients (Transfer)
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Finer Report
  Finer Report
  Benefits (Correspondence)
  Benefits (Correspondence)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Pensioners (Wales)
  Pensioners (Wales)
  Partial Incapacity (Benefit)
  Partial Incapacity (Benefit)
  War Widows' Pensions (Withdrawal)
  War Widows' Pensions (Withdrawal)
  Byssinosis
  Byssinosis
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Migrants (Sponsorship)
  Migrants (Sponsorship)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Health Service Employees
  Health Service Employees
  Lead Pollution (Effect on Children)
  Lead Pollution (Effect on Children)
  Population
  Population
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme (Review)
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme (Review)
  Health Authority Cash Limits
  Health Authority Cash Limits
TRANSPORT
  Road Fund and Driving Licence Departments
  Road Fund and Driving Licence Departments
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
  Economic Research
  Economic Research
  Sevenoaks Bypass (Accidents)
  Sevenoaks Bypass (Accidents)
  Petrol (Lead Additives)
  Petrol (Lead Additives)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Harbours
  Harbours
  A49, Shrewsbury (Lighting)
  A49, Shrewsbury (Lighting)
  London (Grant Allocations)
  London (Grant Allocations)
  Driving Licences (Endorsement)
  Driving Licences (Endorsement)
  Roads
  Roads
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
ENVIRONMENT
  Inner City Areas (Partnership Plans)
  Inner City Areas (Partnership Plans)
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Lambeth Partnership Committee
  Lambeth Partnership Committee
  Peak National Park (Quarrying)
  Peak National Park (Quarrying)
  Housing (Preston)
  Housing (Preston)
  Public Footpath (Kent)
  Public Footpath (Kent)
  Caravan Sites (Cripps Report)
  Caravan Sites (Cripps Report)
  Cromwell's Statue (Palace of Westminster)
  Cromwell's Statue (Palace of Westminster)
  Rate Support Grant (Needs Element)
  Rate Support Grant (Needs Element)
  Planning (Local Authority Responsibilities)
  Planning (Local Authority Responsibilities)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Air Pollution (Control)
  Air Pollution (Control)
  Local Authority Mortgages (Interest Rates)
  Local Authority Mortgages (Interest Rates)
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Council Housing (Berwick and Alnwick)
  Council Housing (Berwick and Alnwick)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Public Sector Housing (Electric Heating)
  Public Sector Housing (Electric Heating)
  Building Aggregates
  Building Aggregates
  Rent Policy
  Rent Policy
  Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977
  Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Cities (Policies)
  Cities (Policies)
  Wolvesey Castle, Winchester
  Wolvesey Castle, Winchester
  Canals
  Canals
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
  Caernarfon (Crown Buildings)
  Caernarfon (Crown Buildings)
  Lodging Houses and Hostels
  Lodging Houses and Hostels
  Bicycle Parking (Government Offices)
  Bicycle Parking (Government Offices)
  Sutton Road, St. Helens (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Sutton Road, St. Helens (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  Pre-1919 Houses
  Pre-1919 Houses
  Civil Service (Office Accommodation)
  Civil Service (Office Accommodation)
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Redevelopment Schemes
  Redevelopment Schemes
WALES
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Housing
  Housing
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Special Employment and Training Schemes
  Special Employment and Training Schemes
  Disabled Persons (Powered Wheelchairs)
  Disabled Persons (Powered Wheelchairs)
  Male Employees
  Male Employees
  Public Bodies (Government Nominees)
  Public Bodies (Government Nominees)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Pre-1919 Houses
  Pre-1919 Houses
  Bilingual Comprehensive Schools
  Bilingual Comprehensive Schools

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

LORD BUXTON OF ALSA
Aubrey Leland Oakes Buxton, Esquire, MC, having been created Baron Buxton of Alsa, of Stiffkey in the County of Norfolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Polwarth and the Baroness Pike.

RHODESIA: UN SANCTIONS
2.47 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 when, in the light of the setting up of a multiracial Government in Rhodesia and the forthcoming free elections there, they intend to take action at the United Nations to secure the withdrawal of sanctions against Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that present circumstances in Rhodesia warrant an approach to the United Nations Security Council to bring about the lifting of sanctions against that country.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that three months ago, on 20th April, he appeared to accept that the time had very nearly been reached for action of this kind? In view of the fact that there is now in Salisbury a régime which appears to accept the Five Principles, can the noble Lord say what justification there is for continuing measures which, so long as
1586
they continue, must tend to the impoverishment of all classes and of all races in Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the words I used, I suggest, were more a hope than a prophecy. But I repeat that I am reasonably hopeful that the time is approaching when we can get everybody concerned to an all-Party conference. The justification for continuing with sanctions, which, after all, are mankind's tentative suggestion as a substitute for physical force in the settlement of disputes, is that if we attempted to lift sanctions before there was clear evidence of a transition to an impartial transitional Government acceptable to all, or before free and fair elections had been held which were credible and had been the means of setting up a majority Government, then international opinion, and in particular African opinion, would undergo a dramatic change of attitude to the attempts now being made, with some hopes of success, for a peaceful settlement of this dispute.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while appreciating that the precise timing of measures of this kind in this immensely delicate situation is plainly something to which the Government must pay close attention, may I ask whether they will, on the other hand, make it clear that they are not saying—as an expression used by the noble Lord might have suggested—that they are giving a veto to any section, inside or outside Rhodesia, on the raising of sanctions by this country? Will he also be prepared to make it clear to our friends in Africa and elsewhere that, as Rhodesia is still in law a British colony, this is primarily a British responsibility?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I entirely agree, my Lords. It is in law a British dependency, whether one looks at the 1923 Constitution or at the later version, and it is our responsibility. We have, however, joined others in the international authority, not least our partners and allies in Europe and in NATO, to try to settle this equitably on the basis that I have very often described from this Box. But I appreciate the tone and content of what the noble Lord has said. No one wishes to retain sanctions, or indeed the present situation, for one day longer than is necessary. The definition of "necessary"

1587
that I commend to your Lordships' House is: necessary, until and unless international opinion—I again stress African opinion; we have many friends in Africa—is satisfied that progress to a peaceful and lasting settlement, and a fair one, has been begun.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the official Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs is reported only this week on his return from Rhodesia to have declared:
"It would be quite wrong now for the Conservative Party to press for sanctions to be left off".
Is it not a fact that Governments of both Parties have imposed sanctions on Rhodesia until the Five Principles have been fulfilled, none of which has yet been satisfied?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am aware of what the official spokesman of the Opposition in another place had to say about this question after his return from a visit to Rhodesia, and I admire and appreciate his conservatism, at least in this respect.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to correct a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, who said that sanctions have been imposed by both Governments. The Conservative Government followed an international law obligation that was imposed on this country because of a decision by the Security Council. I want to put this right for the record.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness has corrected or amplified the knowledge of my noble friend about the attitude of the official Opposition far better than I could. I join with her in agreeing that, with the best of motives, this country has made every effort to apply sanctions as an alternative to physical force. It is something that we should all be proud of. Instead of denigrating the function of sanctions, we should try to improve this concept as an instrument of international policy.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not this a somewhat sterile
1588
suggestion? Sanctions serve Russian policy, assist their friends and injure their enemies. Why in the world should Russia agree to sanctions being removed? Taking this to the United Nations made it cease to be our decision. It is Russia's decision, and that is what we have to realise.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot compare with my noble friend on definitions of sterility, but may I suggest to him that he might look at the whole concept of psychological and economic sanctions as the beginning of an alternative to methods which in the past have bedevilled the world in international disputes and which, in the context of the nuclear age, might well end it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, contrary to what his noble friend said, the Conservative Party have made it clear that they will not vote for the renewal of sanctions in November? Is he further aware that international reluctance to remove sanctions is based upon the British Government's reluctance to give a lead? Why cannot the Government break the deadlock so that we can start getting somewhere, in order to bring to an end the risk of this great African debacle so far as Rhodesia is concerned?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the attitude of the noble Lord and that side of the House to the proposal for the renewal of sanctions, if it is then found to be necessary to move the order, is entirely their own responsibility. I have no comment to make on what they may decide in the context of that time. As to the question of Britain giving a lead, I hope I am not being asked to impress upon my right honourable friends courses which, I repeat, might well create reactions in the international world, particularly in Africa, which would render the delicacy and danger of the situation 10 times more than it is now.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, has the Minister noted that yesterday the Organisation for African Unity, representing African countries, endorsed the proposal that a solution must be reached via an all-Party conference?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is so. I repeat once more that the Patriotic Front, the Organisation for African Unity, and with certain reservations—I could say more—the Salisbury régime appear to be in favour of a round table conference. The Anglo-American mission, the Graham-Low mission, is working on that. We must all hope that something comes out of this perceptible, if small movement towards consensus during the present week and the next few weeks.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, may I address this question to the Leader of the House. I apologise to the House for not having been here at the very beginning, but almost every day, I think, during the last 10 days we have had Questions about Rhodesia in which opinions have been repeatedly expressed—opinions no doubt sincerely held on both sides. I am wondering if the Leader of the House could consider whether the definition of "sterility" does not include a constant interplay of question and answer rather than a debate, if a debate is thought to be necessary by the House.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord has said. We shall discuss the matter through the usual channels.

THE BREWING INDUSTRY: NATIONALISATION
2.58 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans on the nationalisation of parts of the brewery industry as set out in Labour's Programme 1976 and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Labour Party's Annual Conference.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have no plans at present to nationalise any part of the brewing industry.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say categorically that he will give the same answer after the next Election, in the unhappy event of his Party still holding office?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, the other day, no Government can commit their successors, or even themselves, in all circumstances and for all time, but I will repeat that the Government have no plans at present to nationalise any part of the brewing industry. I cannot make it any plainer than that.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, during the past three years, the brewing industry have increased the price of their goods eight times? Is he further aware that every six months the balance sheets show an exorbitant profit? Does not the Minister think that, in the interests of the consumer, the brewing industry ought to be nationalised?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend is doubtless referring to the report of the Price Commission on the brewing industry. The question of monopolies has recently been covered in detail during successful discussions between the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on the one hand and the Brewers' Society on the other, following the Price Commission's report on beer prices and margins.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply about the Government's policy on this question indicate that the present Government reject the policy of the Labour Party Conference?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can have read the report of the proceedings when I answered the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, where I spelt out in some detail the difference between a Party programme and a manifesto.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, with respect, I do not think the noble

1591
Lord has answered my question. I referred to the present Government rejecting the policy; I was not talking about what the policy of a future Government might be.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I did not say anything of the kind. I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord: that he and other noble Lords on the other side of the House must await the Government's manifesto, when that is prepared.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how it is that a Party programme issued as long as two years ago has at last got Her Majesty's Opposition on the hop; and is this part of a preconcerted campaign to work up a pre-election fever long before this House adjourns for the Summer Recess?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. They have probably enlarged their research department. When you have a weak case yourself, always try to attack the other side.

ELECTRIC MOTORS: IMPORTS
3.1 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the significant importation of electric motors into the United Kingdom from the Eastern European bloc (especially Poland) at subsidised prices which are often less than the material content value; and what steps they propose to take to assist in combating this unfair competition.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, imports of electric motors in the range 1 hp to 100 hp from Eastern bloc countries took under 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom market in 1977. We are assisting the United Kingdom Manufacturers' Association with their contribution to a Community anti-dumping application for submission to the EEC Commission.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, and declaring a very small personal interest, may I remind him that although the imports of these highly subsidised electric motors at the moment are standing at approximately only 1 per cent., the aim of the European bloc is to reach 10 per cent. in this country and they are already selling in Eastern Europe at 30 per cent. below their own market price?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. In fact, the present situation as regards direct exports to this country is not serious, but the position in Europe is becoming serious and the result is that the EEC producers elsewhere are diverting their sales from home markets to the United Kingdom. This is a problem called "trade displacement" and it is becoming dangerous.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the first line of defence in a situation of this kind should be to maximise productivity and cut out all overmanning in our domestic industries before we criticise other people's prices?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a problem not so much about dumping as about productivity. What we are talking about is unfair competition as defined in various ways, but in this case as subsidised exports to this country.

ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
3.3 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 why, in view of the economic problems which this country still faces, they do not give more priority to promoting greater self-sufficiency, particularly in the supply of food, timber and other indigenous products which are capable of an increased yield.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, increased self-sufficiency can only contribute

1593
to solving our economic problems if the additional production is likely to be competitive with our imports. Against that criterion, we are promoting the efficient exploration and utilisation of our energy resources; we are continuing to encourage the efficiency and development of our agricultural and forestry industries, and we are endeavouring to negotiate a fair share of stocks for our fishing industry.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in mentioning the fishing industry, he also had in mind the fish farming industry, which needs a good deal of help and, so far, has had no very great encouragement from the Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I cannot allow the noble Baroness to get away with that. The Government continue to assist the industry by funding a substantial programme of research and development amounting to over £1 million, which in our view is the most appropriate form of help.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as timber was referred to in the Question, may I ask whether any progress has been made not only in providing timber for the future by growing it on the cuttings of motorways but also in making the motorways look rather more attractive?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that is rather a specialised question but, on forestry in general, I can say that the Government investment in timber production through the Forestry Commission continues to increase in line with the policy set out in 1972. Private forestry of course continues to benefit from favourable tax treatment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, can the Government tell us whether Food From Our Own Resources, Cmnd. 6020 of April 1975, still represents the Government's current position on agriculture and, if so, what progress have they made over grasslands, which formed the principal plank of their policy?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government's objectives were set out in
1594
the 1975 White Paper, as the noble Lord said, but that is being reviewed and it is hoped that the results of the review will be published in the autumn.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government have had the same difficulty as I found when I was representing science nearly 20 years ago, in persuading the Treasury that quite apart from the financial benefits, forestry is of genuine advantage to the ecology of this country and something in which we all ought to take an interest, despite the long-term nature of the financial returns?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, grants to private forestry have been increased and I am glad to say that the present Finance Bill, which will come before your Lordships shortly, extends business relief to forestry at the full rate of 50 per cent.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the review being undertaken by the Government of the White Paper promoting self-sufficiency in food production take account of the exchange rate or the artificial rate of the green pound, and when may we expect that review?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have agreed to a number of devaluations of the green pound by which EEC farm support prices are converted into sterling, and will keep the level under constant review. Of course we have to balance the interests of producers and consumers.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before my noble friend starts planting trees along the motorways will he bear in mind that the roots of those trees will grow and that they might cause subterranean damage to the surface of the highway?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, in reporting on the consideration of this matter, in view of the very widespread disfigurement of the country by the unfortunate elm disease (which requires

1595
some form of subsidy to clear the dead trees, which it would be difficult to arrange) would it not be possible to formulate a plan which would tie in the taking away of the dead elm trees with the planting of new trees?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is something which I am sure the Forestry Commission have in hand. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, it is a slightly different question from the original one.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
3.8 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations for the Parliamentary Pension Scheme contained in Report No. 8 of the Top Salaries Review Body. It also makes a number of lesser administrative changes in the scheme. I should explain that although the Review Body's Report was presented to Parliament in July 1976, pay policy at that time virtually ruled out any improvement in occupational pension schemes. Accordingly we could not take immediate action. But from 1st August 1977 the restrictions were eased and we were then able to consider implementing the Review Body's recommendations.
I hope it will assist noble Lords' consideration of this measure if I begin by saying a little about the Review Body's approach to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and about the Government's attitude to their Eighth Report. I must emphasise, first of all, that in examining the existing provisions of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, the Review Body concentrated chiefly on the arrangements affecting Members of the House of Commons and, in particular, on how these arrangements matched up to those in public service schemes generally. Accordingly, most of the improvements that the Review Body recommended were confined to the scheme for current Members of the House of Commons (or the "basis scheme", as I shall call it). But some changes will affect those
1596
Members of this House who are eligible to participate in the "supplementary" scheme for holders of qualifying offices. This is, therefore, first and foremost a House of Commons measure. But I am sure that the House will have a general interest in the changes being introduced for Members in another place.
My Lords, having considered the recommendations of the Review Body, the Government decided that they were able to accept the proposals as a package (which is how the Review Body presented them). There are, of course, other improvements that some Members in another place would have wished to see in the Bill. There are probably measures that some noble Lords would wish to see in the Bill. And I cannot deny that some of the suggestions that were put to the Review Body—and which did not find a place among their recommendations—were in themselves attractive and might well have been beneficial to Members in both Houses. But it is always possible to think of desirable additions—that is in the nature of things in an imperfect world.
That is why, therefore, it is so much to our advantage to be able to refer such matters to the Top Salaries Review Body. This Body is independent and can look carefully and impartially at our Pension Scheme in comparison with similar schemes elsewhere. It can ensure that improvements in the scheme are introduced against the background of a thorough review of the overall level of benefits under it.
I believe this system works well and to the advantage of Members in both Houses of Parliament. And it is for this reason that the Government are reluctant to depart from the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations, particularly in circumstances where a specific proposal put to them has been considered and rejected. We do not wish to undermine the Review Body's standing or to usurp its function. Indeed, we attach great importance to its work, and I think that it would be right for me to say a word of thanks on this occasion to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and to his Committee. Theirs is a difficult task performed in a sensitive field.
I hesitate to detain your Lordships too long on the individual measures in this

1597
Bill. But there are certain features to which I would like to draw attention. First of all, I must acknowledge that the Bill is both technical and complex. Pension schemes are always complex and often difficult. Our scheme, I am advised, surpasses many others in the range and scope of its difficulties. This is because it is really two separate schemes—one for Members of Parliament and one for office holders—woven tightly together. And, as the House will be aware, there are many possible permutations of service both in this House and in another place. Moreover, the entire scheme is contained in legislation. Indeed, once this Bill is passed, interpretation of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme will require a reading list which includes at least 12 Acts.
It may be time to consider whether this continues to be the most sensible way of arranging things, or whether perhaps administrative rules under general legislation, such as those governing the Civil Service pension scheme, would be preferable. I see that a predecessor of mine, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, described the scheme as "complex but ingenious" when introducing the major improvements in the 1972 Act. But since then different provisions in the scheme have become subject to five additional Acts of Parliament. The noble Earl could scarcely have realised the extent to which his words would turn out to be not only apt at the time but also prophetic.
The Bill implements all the Review Body's recommendations and includes only one improvement that did not count among them, to which I shall return in a moment. The first main improvement is a new provision, in Clause 1 of the Bill, for Members of the House of Commons who have reached the age of 62 to retire at the end of a Parliament with their full pension accrued to that date. This change, which is restricted to Members of the House of Commons in service after the passing of this Bill, marks a very significant improvement on the present arrangements.
Clauses 2 to 5 contain new arrangements for retirement on ill-health grounds. The arrangements will also cover the retirement on ill-health grounds of the holder of a qualifying office. In all cases the Member or office-holder must satisfy the Trustees
1598
that he ceased to be a Member as a direct consequence of ill-health which was such as would prevent him from performing adequately the duties of a Member of the House of Commons. This test may seem a strange one where holders of qualifying offices are concerned, but this must, I think, be regarded as a reasonable test for the Trustees to apply and is, in a sense, the only consistent test that they would be able to apply. Although Members of the House of Commons will be eligible, subject to certain limitations, for enhancement of their pension entitlement when they retire on ill-health grounds, similar arrangements will not apply to members of the supplementary scheme in line with a specific recommendation of the Review Body. Former members of both schemes with service after the passing of this Bill who later have to retire on the grounds of ill-health from subsequent employment will, however, be eligible to receive an early pension.
My Lords, Clauses 6 and 7 contain improved arrangements for the widows' and dependants' pensions of those who die in service in the House of Commons. Clause 11(3) provides for Members actually in service in the House of Commons after the passing of the Act to receive an extension of back-service credit from 10 years (as at present) to 15 years for service as a Member of Parliament before the introduction of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme in 1964.
The Top Salaries Review Body considered the terms of this recommendation extremely carefully and reviewed a number of possible options, including that of allowing all previous service in the House of Commons to count as reckonable. Their conclusion was reached on balance against the background of their conclusions on the pensions arrangements as a whole. It was that the change should be restricted to those actually serving in the House of Commons. In reaching this conclusion they would doubtless have had in mind the invariable practice that improvements in public service pension schemes should not retrospectively confer improved benefits on those who are no longer contributing to the scheme in question. To do otherwise would be very costly in the larger public service schemes, and obviously inequitable if not applied consistently to all the many public service schemes.

1599
As far as changes particularly affecting office-holders are concerned, I have referred already to the new arrangements for retirement on grounds of ill-health. The other main change which will be of benefit in the future to the holders of qualifying offices—particularly in this House—will be the reduction in Clause 15 in the qualifying period for pension under the supplementary scheme from four years to three. This change was tentatively suggested by the Review Body against the background that four years was a long time to qualify for pension in the unique context of tenure of Government Office. A further change I would just briefly mention is the provision in Clause 12 whereby, in future, officeholders will have a rather longer period (12 months in fact) to decide whether or not they wish to participate in the supplementary scheme. The Top Salaries Review Body accepted that three months was not long enough to reach a decision given all the other pressures on a newly appointed Minister.
Finally, certain office-holders will stand to benefit from the provisions of Clause 16 of the Bill—the appearance of which may look rather daunting. The main purpose of the clause is to bring about a small improvement in the position of those who retire from the House of Commons and then hold offices in the House of Lords with fairly low salaries. At present they may not receive any part of their pension earned as a Member of the House of Commons so long as they hold office in the House of Lords. Clause 16 would allow some or all of their pension to be paid up to the level where pension and salary together equal the current salary of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament.
Before I conclude my detailed comments on the Bill, my Lords, there are three other matters I should briefly mention. I explained earlier that there is one improvement in the Bill that was not among the Review Body's recommendations. This is an improvement in the basic rate of dependent children's pensions from an eighth rate to a quarter rate. It will be of advantage to the dependents of those in both the basic and supplementary schemes after the passing of this Act. This particular improvement was supported very strongly by the Trustees and commanded wide sympathy when the
1600
matter was discussed in another place. The Government therefore accepted the suggestion and it is now incorporated in Clause 8 of the Bill before your Lordships.
Secondly, on the question of the cost of the improvements, Clause 13 provides for an increase in contributions by Members of the House of Commons. But there is to be no increase in the rate of contribution to the supplementary scheme—reflecting the fact that almost all the improvements are restricted to those in the basic scheme.
Thirdly—and this is, I am sure, a matter that will be of considerable interest to a number of noble Lords—discussions in another place supported very strongly the introduction of changes in the arrangements for widower's pensions. I am now in a position to inform noble Lords that the Government have considered the views put forward and have decided, in the light of the opinions expressed, to introduce certain measures at Committee stage to give effect to the changes advocated by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services in another place. This will mean that all widowers of Members or office-holders with sufficient service to qualify for pension, will themselves receive a pension once they have reached the age of 65, or below that age if they are too ill to earn their own living.
My Lords, this is a modest Bill although a much needed one. It is primarily intended to bring the basic scheme for Members of the House of Commons up to the level of other public service schemes. It is not, I think, a Bill to arouse Party controversy although it is obviously one in which there is keen interest, and I know that some noble Lords feel very strongly on certain matters which will no doubt be raised today. However, I suggest to your Lordships that these provisions are no more than those required to ensure that Parliament continues to maintain the conditions of service for its Members that are required if it is to operate as an effective element in our democracy. I would therefore commend these provisions to your Lordships and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Peart.)
3.22 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we are grateful to the Leader of the House for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. As he has said, it is principally a Commons' interest which therefore perhaps does not call for a great deal of comment from us beyond saying more is the pity that perhaps we do not sometimes recognise the long service which some of us here believe that we have contributed over the years. However, I dare say that this is not the right moment to raise that matter.
I am glad to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, on the list of speakers, because he put down a Parliamentary Question on this subject the other day, but I think that I had better leave reference to that to him. I suppose that it is fair to say that everybody nowadays is in favour of pensions, especially if they think that they are likely eventually to be the beneficiaries of pensions. I have always found it such an incredibly complicated subject that I have studiously avoided getting embroiled in it in the past, and it is with some reluctance that I find myself trying to deal with it today.
It is fair to say that, so far as either House of Parliament is concerned, anything which enables Members to have the self-confidence and the security which makes it easier for them to resign without suffering too much must, in itself, be a good thing, because sometimes there comes a limit to how far one is prepared to put one's personal self-sacrifice in defence of a principle. I think that the Bill goes some way towards helping that situation.
Even by the normal complex standards of Parliamentary drafting, I am bound to say that I found the Bill extraordinarily difficult to understand and I am not, therefore, wholly surprised that the noble Lord the Leader of the House described it as technical and complex. I can assure him that there is no disagreement between us on that point at all. It seems to me that there are just two general points worth making. Some of the consequences of the way in which the Boyle Committee recommendations have been treated are pointed up in the Bill. We must face the fact that Members of Parliament are chronically underpaid and the situation is not getting better. I
1602
totally understand the reason why the Government have slightly shied away from feeling able to implement all the recommendations of the Boyle Committee, and I think that that really emphasises the rather curious anomaly that we now have, whereby the salary which is reckonable for pension purposes is different from the salary which is actually paid. That is a real "mad hatter" type of arrangement, but I can see that it was a device which had to be adopted to get us out of a difficult situation. However, I do not think that we should miss the opportunity to say that it is, nevertheless, a rather anomalous and unsatisfactory kind of arrangement to have been forced into.
To raise a purely practical matter, I was surprised that the noble Lord said that he would be introducing Amendments in this House during the Committee stage. That seems a curious way to deal with a Bill which is basically a House of Commons interest and as regards which one would have thought that it would have been more satisfactory if the Amendments were introduced in another place. However, I imagine that there was some sophisticated timing issue which made that necessary. So, from these Benches, all I should like to say is that we shall hasten the Bill on its passage through this House with perhaps a tiny tinge of envy as regards what it does for Members of another place and how little it does for those here.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask whether there is any chance of the Opposition Front Bench showing sympathy in a practical way to the point that ex-Members who served in the other place in the early 1950s have 15 years taken into account as regards their pension, instead of being restricted to 10? Only a limited number of Members can be involved. It concerns only those who are still alive and who served at that time. That seems to me to be a recommendation that this House could give to another place which would make the Bill so much more fair in terms of reflecting a true, honest pension scheme.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that I must answer that question by saying that I

1603
should like to discuss this matter with my noble friend and perhaps, through the usual channels, with the Leader of the House, to see what possibility there is of meeting that point at a later stage.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
3.27 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the Second Reading of the Bill and I do so most sincerely because I believe that anything that can be done for Members of Parliament by way of salaries and pensions should be done. Those of us who have served in another place—and there are Members on both sides of this House who have done so—will realise how difficult life there is on occasions. Members come in at quite a late age and leave as a result of a General Election and, in the old days, did so without very little consideration.
In fact, the Bill now under consideration amends the first "pension of right" Bill which was introduced in late 1964 and which became the 1965 Act. During my 22 years in another place it was my duty—I was going to say, "pleasure", but very often it was not a pleasure—to negotiate with Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House of Commons of all complexions. I can look back on so many occasions when I asked for increases in the Members' salary and, of course, in the Members' pension which eventually was introduced in 1964. They were not easy days. When I first entered Parliament in 1945 the salary was £600 a year. I do not know what it is today, but it was difficult enough in those days to manage on that sum and to keep two homes going. However, we are not discussing Members' pay at present; we are discussing Members' pensions—Parliamentary pensions.
If I may be allowed a little historical retrospection, I should like to recall that until 1964 there was no Members' pension as of right. There was what used to be called—I think that it probably still is—a Members' Fund to which Members contributed way back in the 1930s £2 a month (£24 a year.) And the retirement pension of the day, called an old age pension—which in 1945 was 10
1604
shillings—was made up to something which enabled them to live a little easier. That Members' Fund does, in fact, still exist today. Of course, there have been many changes in it. It is still worked on the same basis; that is to say, a Member who served in the House of Commons before the 1965 Act and had the qualifying number of years—that is, 10 years, which I think has since been changed—could have his income from all sources made up to a figure which was thought enough to enable him to live—not comfortably, but sufficient to get by.
I was a trustee of that Fund for a number of years and I can assure noble Lords that on occasions the circumstances were harrowing. We took into consideration the value of the house that a man lived in and thought that that gave him certain income; whereas, if he paid rent a different figure was arrived at. That Members' Fund has been called a means test. In those days—and I suppose that we still do so—we used to camouflage it by calling it a "help" rather than a means test, or perhaps a "needs" test.
But before the General Election of 1964 there was still pressure from Members of Parliament for an increase in salary, which was then £1,750 a year, and for a pension fund. Successive Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House had always given the same answer: "Now is not the time; the country cannot afford it at this time". But it is to the undying credit of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—and I wish that he were present to hear me say this—that in 1963 he had the courage to set up a Committee under Sir Geoffrey Lawrence with a view to looking at the whole question of ministerial salaries, Members' pay and Members' pensions. A General Election was imminent and it was felt right that the Lawrence Committee should not report until after the Election. There was a tacit understanding—I do not say that it was as firm as a tacit agreement—between the Opposition and the Government that, whatever happened in the 1964 General Election, the Lawrence Committee would report to the new Government and some action would be taken upon its findings.
An Election did take place and Sir Harold Wilson became Prime Minister.

1605
The Lawrence Committee reported to him. It was from that date in 1964, as a result of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Bill, that we had the first pension in the House of Commons as of right. It was a wise and courageous step to take because there is always criticism about Members' salaries. Members' salaries were increased to £3,250 and we did a number of other things. However, that was not actually done under the Bill; it was done by order.
The 1964 Bill, which I introduced into the House of Commons, introduced payment for the first time for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords and payment for the first time for two Opposition Chief Whips, one in the Commons and one in the Lords. I had served as a Whip for 17 years and, although introducing the Bill myself, I felt a little uncomfortable about introducing a pension and a salary for the Opposition Chief Whip for the first time, having served in that Office for at least nine years and for eight years as a Whip. However, it was done and it was the right thing to do. That was the basis of this Bill. The contributions, as my noble friend has just reminded me, were £150 a year. We did a number of other things in the 1965 Act which were worth doing, but I think that our action on the pension fund was the most important. It took the place of the old Members' Fund. For a contribution of £150 a year, out of a new salary of £3,250, a pension as of right was introduced.
The Lawrence Committee's Report dealt with the current situation, but it also took into consideration the many years of service before 1964 of Members of the House who were in the House of Commons after the General Election of 1964. For example, many of us went in with a rush in 1945 and wondered how we had got there, but we were there. Others, like my noble friend Lord Shinwell, were old stagers in the House of Commons even in 1945. The Lawrence Committee reported that that service up to 1964 could be reckoned for pension purposes only as to 10 years. For example, if anyone served—and I declare an interest here—as I did in 1967, which was three years on from 1964, with 10 years' service before,
1606
he received a pension for 13 years' service. I myself had been at that time in the House for 22 years; but that provision was thought right at that time.
There is one other point in that report which is of interest; namely, the increase in salaries of Cabinet Ministers. The House will be interested to know that up until 1964 the salary of a Cabinet Minister was £5,000 a year. But it had been £5,000 a year since 1831. Therefore, an increase after 133 years was not out of the question. The recommendation of the Lawrence Committee was that a senior Minister's salary should be £12,000 a year, but the Prime Minister and the Government decided that they would only take half, so a senior Minister's salary became £8,500.
I turn to the provisions of the pensions Bill at that time. As my noble friend reminded me, the contribution was £150. For every year that we could count for pensions purposes—that is, every year actually served, which had to be a full year, plus the 10 per cent. or less that we may have earned before; and it could not be less in 1964 but it could be less at this stage of course—the pension was £60 a year in the case of a Member of Parliament and half that amount, £30 a year, for a widow: the widow received half of her husband's pension. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has reminded us, after that date in 1964 there were a number of amendments. I believe I am right in saying that the 10-year qualification for a pension became a four-year qualification, but the reckonable service remained at 10 years for any service exceeding 10 years before 1964. Of course, many Members of Parliament had served for that longer period.
I turn to the Bill before us. Although I welcome it and everything that it does for sitting Members of Parliament, I think an improvement could be made under Clause 11 for those Members who have retired from the other House. Some of them are to be found on each side of this House, but the majority are now outside Parliament altogether. In reply to a Parliamentary Question a week or so ago I was informed that this applies to 70 Members and 45 widows. I ask the Government to consider that the reckonable service of those Members whose reckonable service is 10 years—that is to

1607
say, who served many years more than 10 years in the House of Commons before 1964—should be increased to the 15 years which this Bill provides in the case of present Members. I am sure that we shall be told in reply that there ought not to be any retrospection, but, in fact, there has already been a slight element of retrospection in the Bill before us. Equally, we shall be told that it was not contained in the Boyle Report. In my view it is rather interesting that the recommendations of the Boyle Report—and, incidentally, this is the eighth Boyle Report—seem to be selected by the Government according to whether or not they want to use them. For example, there is a recommendation in the Boyle Report that the salary of Members of Parliament should be £8,000 a year. It has not been accepted. It ought to have been. It is a small amount and it is a necessary amount for a Member of Parliament. But they have decided that so far as the 70 pensioners and 45 widows, about whom I am speaking, are concerned there must be no retrospection. I hope they will he prepared to think again.
During the debates on this Bill in another place this question was raised by one or two Members, including the right honourable gentleman who was speaking from the Front Bench for the Opposition, Mr. Francis Pym; and I think it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that this small adjustment for the Members who retired after 1964 and who have 10 years' reckonable service could be very costly. I do not know what my colleagues feel but I hope I am speaking on behalf of some of them. All I am asking is that five years should be added on, and added on from the date of the Bill we are now considering, which has not yet had the Royal Assent. At the outside, according to my figures, it could mean £300 for a Member or £150 for his widow added to the existing pension.
It is true that the Parliamentary pension has been tied to (as is the Civil Service pension) and linked with the cost of living index, which has been helpful, but if one simply took the basic figure of £300 and added it on this year, the total cost would be rather less than £30,000. The Government would take back at least 33 per cent. in tax, so it would work out at about £23,000. On the other hand, if the Government care to
1608
be generous and add the cost of living index figure over that since the period when it started in 1964—again these are my figures—it would cost about £55,000.
I am sorry, in a sense, that this proposal has had to come from me and had to come from this House. It ought to have been done, and ought to have been said, and there ought to have been an Amendment, in another place, because the main recipients, the 70 pensioners and 45 widows, are outside of both Houses. They are the people we should be endeavouring to help. It is not costly. I know that anything that is suggested from this House—and I regret to say it—is treated by some people in another place who have rather a jaundiced view about this House, as though we ought not to be meddling in what is really a House of Commons matter. It is true that it is mainly a House of Commons Bill, but it applies to pensioners most of whom are outside both Houses, and some of whom are here. I hope that the Government will listen with sympathy and that my noble friend, when bringing his other Amendment on Committee stage, will bring one to put this matter right.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I must declare an interest in that I was in the other place for a period of 25 years, and as I retired from the other place after 1964 I qualified for a contributory Parliamentary pension. It is one of the embarrassing facts of our system that Members of Parliament are put in the odious position of having to fix their own Parliamentary salaries, expenses and pensions. I wish that there were some other means of doing this, with some outside body to do it. It means that Members in another place and ourselves are the only people who can speak on this Bill. But I make no apology for this because, as my noble friend has just said, most of the people who would be affected if we had the amendment that we would wish are people outside both Houses of Parliament.
I met one of them this morning in the corridors of this building. He had come to London from Scotland for a few days. When he heard that some of us were going to speak about this Bill this afternoon he was very pleased indeed that

1609
somebody was remembering him and people like him outside both Houses of Parliament. He said that it had made his day. I welcome this Bill in general because of the improvements that it makes, and particularly those for widows and children. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Parliamentary pensions are very complicated. As was said in another place, there are five Parliamentary Bills covering the pension scheme, and ten documents which Members have to read in order to to realise just what is the position.
My noble friend pointed out that previous to 1965 there existed only the Members' pension fund, to which Members subscribed, and in regard to which benefits were issued on a means test basis. When we had the 1965 pensions Bill it was only for those who were serving in the House of Commons then and not for anybody who had given service before that time, even though, like some Members of this House, that service might have been 20, 30, or 40 years.
Let us consider what kind of service it was before that time. My noble friend has just referred to the fact that when we were first elected to Parliament in 1945 the salary was £600. It was afterwards raised to £1,000, and much later on to £1,750. But not only was the position that the salary was low; there were no expenses whatsoever. We had to pay our own secretaries. There was no living in London allowance. Those of us who lived in the Provinces had to keep a home in the Provinces and a home in London. There was no postage allowance. We had to buy our own postage stamps and stick them on. There were no free telephone calls even to our constituencies. I remember that when we wished to telephone our constituents on urgent matters, or when we had to telephone to Government Departments within our constituencies, there was no STD and we had to go down to a Members' telephone room, give the number to the man in charge from the post office, and he would then set the time on a clock and at the end of our call he would then say: "Five shillings", or, "Seven and sixpence, please." I only say this to show that those people
1610
who are getting no pension whatsoever, except perhaps a means-tested one, are people who gave this service to the country at that time.
I should have thought that the service they gave, and the way they were remunerated, really means that they should have some consideration. Even though they have not in actual pounds contributed to a scheme, I think that they made a most adequate contribution in the kind of service that they rendered. My noble friend said that perhaps it is not a means-tested pension; but while I want to pay tribute to those who administer the Members' Fund because they are quite generous, nevertheless, it is a means-tested pension.
I knew very well a woman who was the widow of a Member of this House and who died before the pension scheme came into operation in 1964. She was a local public figure who had fought hard all her life to do away with the means test. She told me that the most dreadful day of her life was when she had to fill in the form putting down all her income, what she had in the bank, and so on, in order to get the pension. She was treated fairly well, but still it was a means-tested pension. Incidentally, she happened to be a member of a local authority, and when councillors were paid that was the end of her pension.
In another place it was said that any Amendment to bring in the pre-1964 people—that is the people who left the House of Commons before 1964—would not be in order in this Bill, and I accept that the way in which the Bill is drawn makes it impossible. They are a dwindling number of people and I should have thought there was a way round the dilemma. It is said that they have not contributed but, as was stated in another place, neither have civil servants. This matter should have attention, although I appreciate it is impossible to table an Amendment to this measure to put the situation right.
I now want to refer to something which is in the Bill and to which my noble friend Lord Aylestone referred. Clause 11(3) says:
"… after the words 'ten years' there shall be inserted the words 'or, in the case of a person who is or was a Member of the House of Commons after the passing of the Act of 1978, fifteen years'.".
In 1965, when the pensions Act was passed, those who were in then and had been in

1611
for some time were credited with 10 years' back service, which meant that our period began in 1955, even though we had been in in 1945; at any rate, we were credited with 10 years' back service. Clause 11(3) extends that 10 years to 15, back to 1950, but only for those who are in the House of Commons now and not for those who have left it. I cannot see the purpose of inserting that for Members of the House of Commons who are in now and not for those who have left. My noble friend the Leader of the House—I sympathise with him in his task today—has said that this is because those who have left will not have contributed to the extra amount which they would get, but a number of those in the present House of Commons will be retiring at the next General Election.
A noble Lord: When will that be?
Baroness BACON: We do not know when the General Election will take place, my Lords, but, whenever it is, those people will have contributed very little indeed to the extra five years' service with which they will be credited. Some of my noble friends and I feel that we should probably table an Amendment in Committee to discuss this matter. I do not think the House of Commons fully considered this aspect; no Amendment was put down there, and I do not think some of the Members realise what an injustice Clause 11 will be doing to those who have left another place. It is only if we in this House carry an Amendment that the matter can be reconsidered in another place. I realise the difficulty in that the Government would need to move a Money Resolution in the House of Commons. There is of course an alternative; if, perhaps, the Leader of the House could persuade his colleagues in the Government, he could table a Government Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
The Leader of the House said the Government felt they had to adhere to the recommendations of the Boyle Committee. They have accepted various recommendations of that Committee, including those on the salaries of the heads of the nationalised industries. If the Government are so keen to adopt the Boyle recommendations, I am wondering when we in this House can expect the
1612
Government to say that they accept the Boyle recommendation in regard to the expenses of Members of your Lordships' House. It is a long time since that report was received and so far nothing has been done, but I realise that that is another matter.
It is admitted by Government spokesmen in both Houses that Members' pensions are riddled with anomalies. Clause 11 produces another anomaly, and I hope that we can at any rate get rid of that one. I am sure the Leader of the House is sympathetic in this respect, and I feel sure that if he makes the necessary representations, the Government will have another thought about the matter so that the problem can be rectified.
3.55 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, most of the special pleading has already been done and I suggest that what we want to explore is the possibility of action. The traditional stinginess of public, Press and Parliament towards Members of Parliament has never really been overcome, and some of us remember the tortuous history of how the conditions of Members of Parliament came to be considered by a Review Body. Sir Winston Churchill took the view that Parliament must have the courage to settle its own conditions; it could not pass the responsibility to somebody else. But of course when Select Committees were set up to consider the matter and made recommendations, Governments were reluctant to accept those recommendations. Thus, we got practically nowhere by allowing the House the prerogative of settling its own conditions, and that is why in 1964—although the matter began in 1963—there was a pact between the main political Parties that the so-called Lawrence Committee should consider all these matters and that the report should lie on the table ready to be opened by whatever Government came to power after the General Election of 1964. I was there when Pandora's Box—the report of the Lawrence Committee—was opened.
Two views could be taken of the Lawrence Report at that stage, bearing in mind the acute economic problems that confronted the country at the time

1613
of the change of Government in October 1964. One was to do nothing about it for a while. The other was to accept the Lawrence Report, which the Parties had undertaken to do, and implement it—the whole of the report and nothing but the report. That seemed a fairly straight, though perhaps courageous, line for the Government to take, but they did not take it. They shied away from the Lawrence Committee recommendations for increases in the pay of Cabinet Ministers. In 1964, the Cabinet cut back by half the increases proposed for Ministers by the Lawrence Committee. Indeed, some people would have been willing to cut back the recommendations for Members of Parliament as well, such was the mood of the incoming Cabinet at that most difficult time.
A precedent was set on a matter which is relevant to the debate today, that of reckoning past service for pension purposes. The Lawrence Committee recommended that past service up to 10 years should be reckonable; beyond that nothing should be reckonable. Some of us—I declare an interest in the matter—lost service in the House of Commons by restricting the reckonable service to 10 years. I lost five years' reckonable service. Ever since then, that precedent has dogged Ministers, Members of Parliament and everybody; if you depart from that precedent, you are warned that all sorts of reactions and repercussions will gather forth and you will find yourself, as the Minister of State said in another place, on the slippery slope.
In another place, the Minister of State oozed sympathy; it came out of his ears—it was sympathy all along the line—and why the whole place was not reduced to tears I do not know. Of course it was very hard and one could be very sympathetic, but it was very difficult indeed to break with the precedent set so many years ago. There is only one thing to do with a precedent—unless you are going to follow it religiously and slavishly—and that is to break it, to decide that different considerations apply years after the precedent was set, and to take the ministerial courage in both hands and decide on something more equitable in the light of present conditions.
Members of your Lordships' House will find this far too tedious to look into, but
1614
I would recommend inquiry into the problems of the counting of unestablished service for pension purposes in the Civil Service between 1935 and 1949. A Royal Commission recommended that one-half of unestablished service should count for pension. That recommendation was implemented in the 1935 Superannuation Act but when my friend of great dash and panache, Hugh Dalton, became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1946 he decided to cut that and he took the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had been limited to service rendered after a date in 1935, right back to 1919. So, when Chancellors make up their minds to do something, they can do it.
I do not think for a moment that what is being sought as a change in this Bill carries any real perils at all. When are we going to realise that service in Parliament is very different from service in the public sector, where careers are continuous, where security of employment is mostly granted, where there are no elections to turf you out, where there is no Left Wing to say that it is tired of you, and where you go on until you have completed your service and then you find that you have 40 years' pensionable service, probably reckoning some part of unestablished service to count at the very beginning? What has this to do with service in Parliament, where the hazards of elections, of health and of electoral selection all have a bearing on one's continuity of service?
I hope that it is possible for us to put down an Amendment to this Bill to extend, where applicable, to those at present in receipt of a pension under the scheme the benefit of the extra five years provided in Clause 11 of the Bill. That is really all that is necessary. I know that this will be unfair in some respects. It is impossible to retrieve the meanness of the past. One can only get a fairly rough equation of what is right and proper. That Amendment would create no new pension, it would only add to pensions already in payment; it would raise nobody from the dead, it would merely add a marginal increase, based on the extra five years of service reckonable for serving Members of Parliament, to the amount of pension under Clause 11
If that Amendment is put down, I have no doubt we shall be in difficulties. I

1615
understand that another place could take no notice of it. Unless there is a Money Resolution, put down in another place to cover the expenditure of this Amendment, nothing need be done. Sometimes another place regards inactivity as by far the best answer to a difficult proposition. It may be, therefore, that another place may say, "Well, we are just going to do nothing and if we do nothing then this Amendment will be out of order when it gets to another place".
I do not know, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to guide us in this situation. Are we wasting our time or must we get militant, go marching down the corridor into another place, besiege the Members' Lobby there and tell them that we are angry at this shabby treatment of so many former Members of the House of Commons who are now in this place?
That is all I have to say. Either it can be done and there is a willingness to do it, or there is not; and I believe that this is the opportunity for the Government to show a little generosity. We are the meanest treated Parliament in the world and everybody knows it. Everybody sees the figures and other Parliaments cannot understand it. They wonder what sort of Parliament we get on the basis of the pay, allowances and expenses that are given to the British Parliament. I do not think it befits the dignity of this Parliament that we have to make this kind of plea to get a little back service counted for a small pension already drawn by many former Members of the House of Commons who are now in your Lordships' House.
4.6 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it was only today that I discovered that this Bill was coming before your Lordships' House. I had neglected to observe that this would happen. In the last few days I have been absent from the House and from London, but I put my name down at once and I knew that I was to follow, according to our usual traditions, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Obviously this is a Bill we cannot oppose. It is a House of Commons matter, but if there are defects or alleged defects in this proposed legislation there
1616
is no reason why they should not be ventilated and even exposed. I must confess that when I occasionally read in the newspapers about the moanings and groanings of some of my colleagues in another place I observe, but in a jocular fashion, that if I had only known that they were going to be so well off I would never have resigned from the House of Commons. In fact, there was no reason why I should. After all, I was only 84 or 85 and I was not asked by my constituency in Easington to resign. I notified them that I felt that I was entitled to some retirement and that I did not intend to stand at the next Election. When I met them, they were a bit reluctant to accept my proposed resignation, but I prevailed upon them to allow me to escape. It is a paradise now compared to what it used to be.
My noble friend Lord Aylestone, with his usual clarity, dealt partly with the history of this affair. I entered the House of Commons back in 1922. I stood first in 1918, but owing to the manoeuvring of Lloyd George I did not obtain the consent of the electorate by a small majority. It might have changed the whole course of our political history if I had won on that occasion; but I did not, and I had to wait until 1922. In all, in Scotland and in 35 years in the two Durham constituencies consecutively, I had about 43 years service. That is why I can perhaps claim to be the oldest inhabitant.
I can remember when I went to the House of Commons first we had £400 a year and we had to pay our fares to our constituencies. That situation was very difficult for us. There are some very amusing stories about it. I had a colleague who was a brother of Keir Hardie. He and I clubbed together, and some weekends we did not have enough money for our fares to go home, to go up to Scotland. Nor did we have very much money to provide ourselves with food. We made the acquaintance of some of the shabbiest, dirtiest, beastliest restaurants in the whole of London. We had to search the purlieus of some areas in order to get a meal, sometimes for six pence or eight pence. I remember that sometimes on a Sunday at a restaurant we would get a joint and two "veg" for a shilling. That was all right; we could manage that.
That was the kind of thing that happened. As my noble friend Lady Bacon has

1617
pointed out, we had to pay all our postage and such like. But we never complained about it at that time. I can say very sincerely and earnestly, and with no exaggeration—I am not asking for any compassionate sympathy because of this—that we were rebels against injustice. We wanted to do something for the country, and we thought that by going into Parliament we might be able to do it. I wish I could believe that we have achieved as much as we hoped to achieve. But there it is.
Then it came to 1964, though before then we had the Members' Benevolent Fund, to which we contributed £24 a year. Then along came the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, with his scheme. I do not know whether he is present at the moment, but I can say even in his absence—I think he would agree with it—that he apologised to me many times for the piece of legislation for which he was responsible, because of its effect on me. But the fact is that I never complained at any time, and I am not complaining now.
My noble friend Lord Aylestone was incorrect in one point, when he said that no Amendment was moved in the other place. It is true that there has been no Amendment on this Bill. But frequently old colleagues of mine have referred to my special case, saying that when it came to a pension I had to rely on 10 years' reckonable service although at that time I had given practically 40 years' service. However, I have never complained about it, and I do not complain now. I am not asking for sympathy or compassion.
I agree that there is a defect in the legislation. It does not much affect people like myself. It would have some effect, but not much. I should still be able to have three meals a day and so on, and I could always borrow a few shillings from my colleagues here, if necessary. I do not know whether they would respond, but I could try it on. Rather, I am concerned about one or two cases involving Members of your Lordships' House. Let us take the situation of my noble friend Lord Blyton, who is present today. He and I are old friends, and we shall remain so until the end. I do not know how long that will be; I am no astrologer. He relies on the Benevolent Fund and the means test, despite his long service.
1618
There is also the case of my noble friend Lord Boothby. He happened to resign from the House of Commons and came to your Lordships' House just before 1964, and he is therefore deprived of a pension. There are cases of that kind, and that is all so wrong. But that was what happened under the Boyle scheme. I do not for a moment blame Lord Boyle. I have no complaint against him. He had his terms of reference, and he produced the legislation which was required.
Here I wish to refer to a very important point which should be remembered. Part of the scheme was a gracious act on the part of the Government then in existence. Previously no contribution was made, apart from the £24 which we paid to the Benevolent Fund. It was only after 1964 that Members of Parliament contributed £150 a year. It all boils down to reckonable service. If the Government accept the proposed suggestion to increase the period of reckonable service from 10 to 15 years it will apply to some Members of another place now; they will get the benefit of it. If it is decided to apply the proposal retrospectively to those Members who either left before 1964, or who remained after 1964 but had not only 10 years' but 15 years' service—some, such as myself and a few others, had much longer—it would remedy a defect, and would at the same time provide some Members of your Lordships' House, as well as those who are now outside, with rather more than they have.
It should be remembered that the pension is subject to tax. I think about this point when I make my returns to the Inland Revenue and receive my assessment. I wonder whether my noble friend the Leader of the House could take note of what I have in mind here, and perhaps make an arrangement with the Inland Revenue so that, instead of receiving the amount I now get, I would receive the amount I pay in tax on the pension! I should then be much better off. I do not know whether that could be arranged, but it would make all the difference. One receives a pension based on reckonable service—which is in itself an anomaly—and then one has to pay tax on it. That kind of thing is not good enough.
I do not know what your Lordships' House will do about this matter. After

1619
all, it is not a matter for us but for the other place. However, they might take note of what has been said, and I hope that perhaps they will have regard in a compassionate way, not for people like myself—I do not bother about it at all—but for those people, to whom my noble friend Lady Bacon has referred, who are now outside the House, are still alive, but are not doing very well.
Action such as that covering children and widowers is being taken, and I agree with this. I see that my noble friend Lord Castle is smiling. He knows exactly what I mean. I do not mean that I am expecting him to become a widower. There is no such idea in my mind, though that kind of situation can arise. If it has been decided to make certain new arrangements to amend the legislation in those directions, there is no reason why the same should not be done regarding reckonable service. If that were done, we should all be very grateful and very happy, and we might be able to enjoy ourselves a little more than we do.
I want to make my own personal position quite clear. I have never complained about my own position, but my colleagues in another place have raised the matter time and time again, and I have said to them, "Don't bother me with that sort of thing". I am not complaining at all, but there are some people whose need is greater, and I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House can use his very great influence with the Cabinet and persuade the Government to remedy one or two defects.
4.19 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers for the debate, but I was away on business and I did not realise that the debate was taking place this afternoon. As one or two noble Lords opposite know, I have been connected with this matter for a very considerable time, and I feel that I could, and should, make a small contribution. First, I wish to say how much I appreciated the tribute paid, in his absence, to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. My noble friend acted very courageously in what was, after all, a pre-election situation
1620
in 1964 in appointing the Lawrence Committee. I was particularly interested because, being then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was in fact my noble friend's executive arm for the appointment of the Committee, and I think was myself responsible for what I still consider was the very good selection of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence to undertake the chairmanship of the Committee, which he did so well and so successfully.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. I was particularly interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, said about the treatment of those Members of another place who went out, in most cases involuntarily, in 1964, and therefore did not get the benefit of the 10 years' back service with which those of us who, like herself and me, retained their seats on that occasion, were credited. It has always seemed to me that that was grossly unfair; and, if the noble Baroness is successful in getting an Amendment through the procedural tangles, I for my part will be very tempted to support her in righting what I believe is a long-standing wrong. On the other point, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, like many other people I would then have an interest, and I must therefore keep an open mind on that.
What I really want to say is that, judging from the tone of this debate, I think we are at risk in kidding ourselves that we are now making things satisfactory in respect of remuneration in another place. I do not believe that that is so for a moment. The rate of remuneration of Members of another place is, by international comparison, extremely low. Noble Lords will have seen the problems that have arisen in connection with the remuneration of Members of the European Parliament, in an attempt to find a level which is not too out of line either with our low level or with the much higher levels which our European friends pay. I still regard the level paid to Members of another place as really outrageously low and, perhaps, from the broad social point of view, dangerously low.
Moreover, by this Bill we are not making life in another place into a reasonably secure career pattern. I do not suppose we should; but we kid ourselves a little if we provide (as this Bill, as I understand

1621
it, does) for those sad cases where, on medical grounds, a Member has to retire during his working life, but do not touch the far greater number of cases where a Member is involuntarily retired by the electorate. In these days, when it is becoming increasingly difficult for a Member of another place to earn very much outside, the situation of such a Member who loses his seat, perhaps in middle life, perhaps with a young family, is a very serious one indeed, and is one which this Bill does very little, if indeed anything, to remedy.
I know that there are purists who say, "Back-Bench Members ought to have another profession or means of earning", and in many cases I am quite sure that this is right. But it is frankly not always feasible for people whose occupations or whose past professional experience do not fit in with earning a living in London. It is probably all right for members of my old profession, the law, or for journalists or accountants, but for people from industry it poses a very difficult problem; and I think we want to be quite clear in our own minds that we are doing absolutely nothing by this Bill or in any other way to remedy this.
Before I make a suggestion, I should like to emphasise that this is even more extreme in the case of Ministers. I know that all Ministers, while they are Ministers, think that they are officially immortal. I know that, in the event, they are all in due course proved to be wrong. But what is so serious in their case is that there is no question of their earning a living in any other way. Except, I think, in the case of writing a book or running a farm—both of which exercises the late Mr. Richard Crossman was able to do, but either of which most of the rest of us, when in office, had little opportunity to do—one is forbidden to earn a living outside at all as a Minister. I can cite my own experience. I had been a Minister for almost exactly 13 years when my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, after the Election of 1964, tendered the resignation of the Government to Her Majesty. I had been for those 13 years absolutely debarred from earning a living in any other way. Yet my official salary—and, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, it was one in the case of which the rates had been fixed in the 1830s—terminated,
1622
not merely at the end of the week in which the resignation of the Government took place but on the Friday on which my noble friend went to the Palace. Any private employer who treated an employee of 13 years by cutting him off on the day of departure would suffer very appropriate maltreatment from Press, public and courts. But this is what is done to Ministers: and let me warn the Lord Privy Seal that if what is quite likely to happen in October does happen, he will find himself in the same position even although his long and distinguished period of ministerial service was not in fact continuous, as mine was.
So I feel that for Ministers in particular, and for Members of another place, there should be some form of resettlement arrangement; that when someone who, after a number of years as a Minister, or perhaps for a larger number of years as a Member of another place, loses his office or his seat, he should have his salary or some part of it continued for some period while he resettles himself in another occupation. That is outwith this Bill. I do not think it would be possible to set down an Amendment dealing with that, because it is plainly beyond the scope of this Bill; but it is the sort of point which, when we are discussing this. I should like to put forward.
I think it is particularly good that we in this House should ventilate these matters. As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, it is the inherent difficulty of Members of another place that most decent and honourable people hate having to fix their own remuneration or rewards. It is embarrassing, it is awkward, and you always feel that there are harder cases than your own. But we in this House, reasonably detached from these problems, can look at it objectively; and we can also look at it, not solely from the point of view of the impact on the individual Member of another place but from the broader point of view, which is very much our responsibility, of the efficient working of the British governmental and political system. I am convinced, after some experience of this, that the low level of remuneration and its precarious nature, both of Ministers of the Crown and of Members of another place, works quite seriously against the efficient operation of

1623
our Constitution and the administration of this country. I have intervened in this debate very largely for the purpose of saying just that.
4.28 p.m.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, I will detain the House for only a few moments, but I should like to endorse all that has been said this afternoon. It has been a good debate, particularly the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Like other speakers, I have been involved in Parliament for a long time—32 years. Looking round this House, I see that there are about a dozen of us here who went into the other place in 1945. In fact, there are today rather more Members in this House of 1945 vintage than there are in the other place, which is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, I do not think a country can have government on the cheap; and, as my noble friend who has just spoken said, the British Parliament is probably the worst paid in the Free World.
I recall, after the war, a few ex-Members of the House of Commons who, before they died, went on to National Assistance. They were men who had given their life's work. Then, the widows. I recall the case of the wife of a Cabinet Minister (I will not mention which side) whose husband died. He had sold out his endowment policies to keep office. She received a pension of £300 a year, and the hat had to be put round. It really is absolutely wrong. Then there is the number of men and women who have refused office in another place because they could not afford to take the job on, as they had a growing family in the middle of their education, or a mortgage on the home. We have lost untold numbers of Parliamentarians who just could not afford to take on the job. Up to the post-war years, I think a Cabinet Minister received £5,000 a year, which was about the same as the salary in 1870, when the judges got £5,000 a year.
A noble Lord: It was 1830.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, I stand corrected—1830. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who is well versed and sympathetic in these matters, to look at this matter afresh.
1624
It has always been said, "If a Government increase the pay of the Parliamentarians, they lose votes in elections". That just is not so. I have watched it over the years and when Parliamentarians got an increase it made no difference to the votes in their respective constituencies. When this Bill goes back I am sure that the other place should look at an Amendment with sympathy if one is put down here because it is a very deserving case. And when you add up the sum, it amounts to very little money in relation to what is spent by the country—a very small sum. I hope that an Amendment will be put down which will be recommended to another place.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not put my name down. I was upstairs in Committee and could not hear the first part of the debate. I should like to know whether an Amendment could be put down. To give my own case, which is not of very great relevance, I became Minister of Works in November 1951; I remained in Government until 1962, when I retired. I came back as Paymaster-General for three years, so that I was a Minister of Cabinet rank for 14 years and I get nothing. It happens that the matter does not have great relevance to me, but that is pure accident. I have colleagues and people with whom I have been friends all my political life on both sides in the other place who have served in Government and who also get nothing. For some of them this is very serious, indeed. Can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal say whether an Amendment can be put to this Bill in this House?
Lord PEART: My Lords, in immediate response to that, the answer is: Yes, of course. We shall have a Committee stage on this Bill.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House? Why is it that the Civil Service and the Members of the House of Commons who get widows' half pension are rated above the Armed Forces?
4.33 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot answer that. But I will look into the matter. I assure the noble Lord. May

1625
I say that we have had a good and interesting debate on this Bill. Naturally, it has widened into other issues; and I think that the debate was all the better for that. I welcome many of the contributions that were made. It was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who asked whether this Bill can be amended. I have told him that an Amendment can be made. I understand from the grapevine that some Members feel so strongly about this that they are anxious to move an Amendment although some of them feel that it should have been done in the other place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that this Bill is principally a House of Commons Bill. On the other hand, we have a special interest in it. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we can speak freely about these matters, much more so than individual Members of Parliament. We have not got their inhibitions.
Many of my colleagues in this House have long experience of Parliamentary activities in the other place and it is right and proper that they should draw upon their experience. My noble friend Lady Bacon mentioned the difficulties that we experienced previously: how we never had expenses (but we have them now); how we had no free postage; that we have to pay for our own stamps and so on, and for our own telephone bills. I am proud to say that I was the Leader of the House at that time who got it changed. I think that that was probably the best thing that I ever did in the House of Commons.
Still there is the problem of basic pay and other matters and I think that what has been said is right: if you have low pay it harms Parliament in the long run. After all, we are in the Community now; and when I go abroad and discuss with Parliamentarians what they earn in other countries it makes me ashamed of what is done in this country. I blame Members of Parliament for this. I do not believe that we should always play up to the public. Some people think that in not doing so we may lose votes. I believe that people should have had the courage to improve matters.
The Government are, of course, committed to Boyle in the sense that we have
1626
set up this body and it has always been said that we should take care of their suggestions because this has been a package. I think the Bill is a good Bill. I believe that some of my colleagues feel strongly that here and there changes should be made. I think my noble friend Lord Aylestone set the main theme in an eloquent speech when, from his long experience, he went back into history to talk about the days before the 1964 Act when there was no pension and no Members' Fund. He brought us up to date with the Lawrence Committee and he rightly paid a generous tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Home, did. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, emphasised that.
There have been changes. I know that many of my noble friends want to alter Clause 11 and to change the 10-year figure to 15 years. I understand that and, no doubt this is where some noble Lords are going to press an Amendment. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby feels strongly about this, and, with his long experience of Civil Service matters over the years, I must make careful note of his views. I understand; but I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I am presenting here today what the Government feel is a sensible package. There are good parts of it; we are moving forward in this direction.
Incidentally, it is not true to say that Boyle did nothing for noble Lords. We have had our maximum allowances improved to £16·50 a day; although, probably, now that is out of date—I do not know; but some of my colleagues feel that. Nevertheless, there is a body of people who can adjudicate and assess fairly and carefully. I hope that we shall not spoil that system. I take careful note of what my noble friend has said and that applies also to what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby stressed. My noble friend Lord Shinwell went back into the past. He said he did not complain. I know that some people are complaining and that you get changes only when people complain. Nevertheless, he was philosophical about it and I hope that he will still be with us here for a long time. He does not need to be pessimistic about his position in this House.
My Lords, I think that I have covered the main points in this short debate. I

1627
believe that Clause 11 is the main issue and I think it may be that noble Lords will press this on Committee. I shall have to wait and see. I will convey to my colleagues what noble Lords feel about this matter. There is a strong feeling One can feel it. It has been expressed in speeches. I will take careful note and will inform my colleagues of the views of Members of this House. Nevertheless, the Government have put this forward as a package and we believe that it is moving in the right direction. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on this matter.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask a question on this? I take it that it is in order to put down an Amendment to Clause 11. In another place when a Member put down an Amendment to cover the pre-1964 people, the Deputy Chairman ruled that it was out of order because this Bill is so drafted as to deal only with contributory pensions.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am advised by the Clerks, and it has been confirmed immediately, that noble Lords can move an Amendment to this Bill. For the convenience of the House, I may say that we shall have a Committee stage on Tuesday of next week so that noble Lords had better he thinking about their speeches.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, on a point of correction—and I am sure that my noble friend did not mean it this way—it was incorrect to suggest that the remedy for this rested in the hands of Members of Parliament who failed to exercise their position. As a matter of fact, I was a Member of every Select Committee for a period of over 20 years, and we always put up proposals which always ran into difficulties with the Cabinet. It was successive Cabinets and Prime Ministers who stopped this. The will was there in Parliament, but, apart from Party disloyalty and voting against the Whips—which my noble friend never advised us to do—it was not a lack of will on the part of the Back Bench Members, it was a lack of backbone on the part of Government.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not want to get involved in a debate on this matter because it is outside the Bill; but I was in the House longer than the noble Lord.
1628
I used to lead delegations to Lord Attlee on this subject and to write articles and complain. I used to say to my own constituents: "If you want a politician on the cheap, you vote for the other candidate". I have always been strong on this. I am only saying that Members did not bestir themselves enough; but that is another matter.
On Question, Bill Read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
4.41 p.m.
Report received.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of 1973 section 4(2) and (5) as respects proceedings' in Parliament and proceedings of local authorities etc.
(".—(1) Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to a programme broadcast by the said Authority so far as the programme consists of proceedings in either House of Parliament or proceedings of a local authority, a committee of a local authority or a joint committee of two or more local authorities.
(2) In the preceding subsection "local authority" means any of the following bodies, namely, a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972, a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, a district council in Northern Ireland, the Common Council of the City of London and, without prejudice to the effect of the said Act of 1972, the Inner London Education Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should say that Amendment No. 3 is related to it. During Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, moved an Amendment to reinstate Clause 2 of the Bill as it was introduced in another place. This clause excluded Section 4(2) and (5) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation to the broadcasting

1629
of Parliamentary proceedings. We discussed this in Committee, and I do not think it is necessary to rehearse the points that were then made, except to say that I agreed that this provision should be reinstated and that, if it was the view of the Committee—as it clearly was—I would move an Amendment on Report to reinstate the provision in the right place in the Bill that is after Clause 1. This reinstatement is achieved by the Amendment we are now considering.
The noble Lord also moved an Amendment in Committee to extend the exclusion of Section 4(2) and (5) of the 1973 Act in relation to broadcasts of the proceedings of district or county councils. I pointed out that there were other local authorities in the United Kingdom as well as district and county councils and that, before we made an Amendment of the kind he had suggested, the local authority associations should have an opportunity to consider the matter. The local authority associations have indicated that they would be content to see the exclusion of Section 4(2) and (5) extended to the broadcasting of local authority proceedings. I should like to take this opportunity to express my own, and I am sure your Lordships', thanks to the associations for the speed with which they responded to our request to them for comments on this proposal. In the light of this response, we have incorporated in the proposed new clause an extension of the exclusion of Section 4(2) and (5) in relation to the proceedings of local authorities and their committees or joint committees. I beg to move.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 2:
At end insert—
"(3) Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor. about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to a programme broadcast by the said Authority so far as the programme consists of statements made by
1630
candidates or spokesmen for political parties made in connection with a Parliamentary or local government Election or a Party Political Broadcast made under the arrangements governing such broadcasts by the Committee on Party Political Broadcasting.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to declare an interest once again as a director of an independent radio company. I share an interest in this matter with many Members of your Lordships' House and even more Members of another place. I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to say everything that I have to say on this important and interesting matter at one time, and in so doing I hope to keep to the Rules of Order. Since my Amendment seeks to amend Lord Harris's Amendment, I must at once record my gratitude to the noble Lord for the speedy and wholly efficient way in which he has responded to the requests which were made to him in Committee. He has brought forward an Amendment which deals entirely effectively with the anomaly which would have have arisen in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in another place if ever a person who was a prescribed person under the rules of Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, were speaking, either in your Lordships' House or another place. If that were so, the Independent Broadcasting Authority would have immediately been in breach of the law had not they excluded that contribution from the programme. The noble Lord's Amendment deals entirely with that matter, so that particular difficulty is overcome.
I am also particularly grateful that the Amendment deals with local government sittings. Obviously, if it is right that Section 4(2) of the Act should not apply to the broadcasting of proceedings in Parliament, it seems only reasonable that nor should it apply to broadcasts of proceedings of local authorities. I am deeply grateful for the speedy way in which this has been dealt with in the Amendment. I am frankly surprised that it has been possible to resolve this matter so rapidly. It will remove a number of difficulties which arose and could have continued to have arisen: for example, in broadcasts of proceedings of the Greater London Council and many other council bodies which are regularly broadcast by independent radio.
I seek to amend the Amendment by trying to deal with two outstanding matters concerning Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act to which I have referred previously. Briefly, my Amendment seeks to exclude the application of Section 4(2) of the Act which requires the Authority to exclude from its programmes contributions on various matters by a whole list of prescribed persons: member of the Authority, members of the board of the company, employees of the Authority, employees of the independent contracting broadcasting companies, and so on. I am endeavouring to exclude the application of Section 4(2) from broadcasts of statements in connection with a General Election. Secondly, I seek to exclude Section 4(2) from applying to Party political broadcasts which are made under the arrangements of the Committee on Party Political Broadcasts of Parliament.
These are two important and relatively urgent matters. If we proceed without doing anything in relation to the matter regarding elections, we are going to be in a difficult situation when the election finally arrives. There is not the smallest doubt that a number of candidates in the coming Parliamentary Election from all Parties will be people whose contributions have to be excluded by the Independent Broadcasting Authority under that Act. One will then immediately be faced with corresponding difficulties because the Authority will be required to include their contributions under the terms of the Representation of the People Act. If it has to exclude one candidate, it will then have to exclude all the other candidates. That would apply to a number of candidates in the forthcoming General Election.
If it is reasonable for a Parliamentary election, it is also reasonable regarding local elections, though it is seldom that there are broadcasts of speeches made by candidates in local elections. I have also extended that provision to include broadcasts made in connection with the coming General Election or any General Election by spokesmen for the political Parties. This is a fairly important matter. It is not unlikely that perhaps the Labour Party might wish to use the services of a skilled and experienced broadcaster—such as Mr. Austin Mitchell—from another place, handling their Press conferences, or doing something else in
1632
connection with the regular broadcasts which take place during an election period. Yet, although he is an unpaid director of an independent radio company, his contributions would have to be excluded only from independent broadcasts, not from the BBC. That would surely be a nonsense.
Similarly, we have Sir Paul Bryan on the Conservative side in another place who might also be required to make certain broadcasts, and his contributions would have to be excluded. Even my own would have to be excluded, if it so happened that anyone asked me to make a contribution. It is at least an anomaly, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says about how the situation will in fact be dealt with in a General Election period.
Let me move now very rapidly to the point concerning Party political broadcasts. Here we have a situation at present, if the Act remains unamended, in which, if any one of the Parties, putting on a Party political broadcast under the arrangements made by Parliament as one of the Party's allotted times for broadcasting, chooses to use in that broadcast a person who is required to be excluded under Section 4(1) of the Independent Broadcasting Act, then indeed we have an extraordinary situation. We have the law and the agreement, which I understand requires simultaneity of transmission of a Party political broadcast on all channels; but then we shall have a situation in which, if the law is to be enforced and the Independent Broadcasting Authority is to follow the rules under which it operates, it would have to exclude that Party political broadcast. So then we should have not simultaneity but a Party political broadcast which could go out only on BBC television or BBC radio. Independent Television presumably would have to go to "black", and therefore the people who chase up and down the various channels looking for something other than a Party political broadcast would presumably find nothing at all on Independent Television.
This is really a very difficult problem. It is an anomaly and I am quite sure that it ought to be dealt with. Whether or not it can be dealt with here and now along the lines suggested in my Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment, I do not yet know; but I shall listen with interest

1633
to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has to say about my suggestion. With that, I beg to move.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should like very briefly from these Benches to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for moving so quickly. In fact, I am somewhat surprised that he moved as quickly as he did. I think he has gone a lot further than I anticipated he might do on this occasion and, as I say, we are extremely grateful.
Referring to the exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, of his Amendment, I should like to say from these Benches, as I said on Committee, that we have considerable sympathy for what he has said. Perhaps at this stage, as I think he realises himself, he may be asking for a little too much. I do not think it is quite "tacking" but it is taking the matter a lot further. I can anticipate a number of problems one might find in trying to put this through at this stage and although, as I say, we have sympathy for it, I do not know that one could ask for too much at this stage. It will be interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has to say.
4.54 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have said in relation to the first Amendment which I proposed. I have expressed my gratitude, and that of the House, to the local authority associations for the speed with which they gave their response to this matter. I should like to add, if I may—though this is perhaps not normally done—that I extend gratitude to the officials of my own Department, who have given a great deal of care and attention to this matter, and it is entirely as a result of that that we are able to consider the Amendment today.
I fear, although I have reflected on this matter since our last debate, that I do not think it would be right to make this Amendment today. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, expressed his sympathy and also his doubts on the last occasion, and he has repeated them today. I regret to say that from our point of view
1634
this Amendment would be more difficult to accept than that which we considered on the last occasion.
If I may just go over the ground again—I recognise that this is an important matter, and it is right that it should be ventilated because there is widespread concern in some quarters, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, indicated—let me say, first of all, that the problem (which I acknowledge) is that which can arise from the combination of Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act with Section 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1969. A candidate at an election who is a director of an independent television or radio company cannot, by virtue of Section 4(2), have his views broadcast by the IBA. The real difficulty is under Section 9(1) of the 1969 Act he can insist that the views of the other candidates are not broadcast either. This is a problem which we shall have to face in the White Paper, and since it relates to electoral law it will have to be discussed through the usual channels.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, goes a great deal wider than this limited, though complex, problem. Indeed, it extends the new clause into the realm of Party politics. Of course, Parliament and local government is about Party politics, but Parliament and local authorities are elected bodies. I accept also that Section 4(2) should not apply to their proceedings, and indeed we have dealt with that problem by the Amendment we now have before us. But I think we must be extremely careful before we dispense with Section 4(2) in relation to our activities not only as members of these bodies but also in relation to our purely Party political activities. We must be careful before we adopt the stance that somehow there is one law for the politicans and quite a different law for everyone else. But this, with respect to the noble Lord, is exactly what his Amendment is proposing. It seems to me that, leaving aside the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament and of local authorities, the law relating to the broadcasting of the views of directors of independent television or radio companies should not, except for good reason, be more favourable for politicians than for other people. It may be that the Government's proposals

1635
for changes to Section 4(2) will be of some assistance to the noble Lord, but that will be for him to judge in the light of the White Paper.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley regards this problem as urgent, in view of the fact that there has to be a General Election before October next year. To that I would say that it has been urgent ever since this provision first came on to the Statute Book in the Television Act 1954. This is not a new problem. It is a matter in regard to which Parliament quite deliberately decided to impose these conditions. Certainly I recognise that many now challenge this decision and think that Parliament made a mistake on that occasion, but there is no question of a misunderstanding having arisen. It was a quite deliberate decision by Parliament to impose these conditions on the directors of these companies.
In conclusion, I should like to return to my main argument that politicians should not, except for good reason, be treated more favourably than other people. I do not in any way belittle the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has directed our attention this afternoon, as he did on the last occasion this matter was before us. But in the Government's view the solution, if there is one, lies in an Amendment to Section 4(2), which is of general application. Such an Amendment, if there is to be one, must await the White Paper and the ensuing legislation. However, I would assure the noble Lord that, as I have indicated already, we are well aware of the problem I have mentioned of the combination of Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act and Section 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1969.
This problem is one where politicians can be treated less favourably than other people, in some instances undoubtedly through no fault of their own. There was no disposition, therefore, on our part to minimise the extent of the problem, but we do not believe that this is the way in which to set about dealing with it.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having addressed his mind to these problems and for having accepted so readily that two rather difficult problems here do exist. I should also like to thank
1636
him for having replied to my Amendment in the way in which he has done. He has hinted, I think, that these are matters which might well he dealt with following the White Paper, arising from the report of the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and if that is the case then so be it. But with regard to what he said about not wishing to sec politicians or politics treated in any way differently, I entirely share his view on that.
I should also like to underline something which he implied just now, and also said at Committee stage. I should regard it as intolerable if directors of independent broadcasting companies and any of the contracting companies, or indeed any other persons, such as members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, were in some way permitted to use their position of influence and were enabled to express their political or other views in a more favourable way than other persons. So there is no gap between us on that. I entirely share the noble Lord's view, and therefore I completely share his feeling that some kind of Section 4(2) must continue to exist, White Paper or no White Paper.
The noble Lord referred to one of these matters as urgent, but said that it had been urgent for many years. It is only right to remind your Lordships that it has been urgent, but it has been dealt with. In the main, it has been dealt with by inadvertence, because over and over again—and I can count many examples—the law has, in fact, been broken. Prescribed persons have broadcast, and afterwards the Independent Broadcasting Authority has noticed what has happened. Whether it has been blind by malice or otherwise, I do not know. But it is true to say, as the noble Lord has said, that this has been urgent for some time. It has, in fact, been dealt with merely by ignoring it, whereas I suspect that at the moment, now that the matter has come to light, the Independent Broadcasting Authority will feel that it must apply the law with very much more stringency than it has done in the past. Therefore, even though it was urgent before, the matter may now become even more urgent. I shall reflect upon what the noble Lord has said. I am most grateful to him for the nature of his response and for its mood. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 3:
Line 4, at end insert ("and to exclude section 4(2) and (5) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation to proceedings in Parliament and proceedings of local authorities and committees and joint committees of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[References are to Bill [125] as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 1.]
Clause 1, leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
Obtaining services by deception
("1.—(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. As your Lordships will be aware, this clause replaces one which was inserted by this House during the Report stage of the Bill last February, when an Amendment was carried against the advice of the Government in an attempt to simplify the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who
1638
proposed the Amendment on that occasion, made it clear during the debate that he did not regard his own draft as necessarily wholly free from difficulty, and other noble Lords took the same view. In the circumstances, the Government thought it right to refer the matter again to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, now under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Lawton. I am glad to say that they agreed to look at the problem and produced a revised clause which was entirely acceptable to the Government, and also to another place.
I hope the House will agree with me that this clause, which is a great deal simpler than their original version, is satisfactory and will meet the objectives of clarity and simplicity which certainly we all share. It creates an offence of dishonestly obtaining services by deception, but in subsection (2) "an obtaining of services" is defined as being where a person.
"is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for".
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am afraid that I am extremely concerned about this Amendment. I only wish that I had had an opportunity of explaining and giving the noble Lord, Lord Harris, some warning, but the task fell upon me at rather a late moment, and consequently I have not been able to do anything about it. But I envisage a great number of problems arising under this new clause. It is, after all, the third shot at it—in fact, it is the fourth shot at it, if you take account of the original Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act. But I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would consider the following points, which I think are in ascending order of difficulty.
First, where subsection (2) says "by doing some act", does that include by omitting to do some act? The original section, as drafted by the Law Commission, specifically dealt with this in subsection (3)(a), and it has not been reproduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, or in the

1639
Bill today. Secondly, there is the question of what is a "benefit". There are two points here. First, I suppose that it will have to be settled in due course by litigation—and, after all, I think that this clause will be a fairly common source of prosecution—whether benefit necessarily means something that is good or advantageous. I can envisage situations arising where somebody, by deception, obtains a service, but it is not one which he says is beneficial. In other words, he denies that it is of benefit to him, although he admits that he received it or induced another person to give it to him.
The second limb of that question is this. In whose mind is it to be a benefit? Is it to be a benefit to the person who is induced, so that he thinks that he has conferred a benefit, or does the prosecution have to prove that the person who was deceitful, and managed to get the other person to confer that service, thought of that service as a benefit to him, the inducer? I can envisage that there will be hearty litigation about this until the matter is resolved by the Court of Appeal, or possibly this House. Of course, the difficulty arises from the fact that when the Government criticised the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for not defining "services", as they did on his clause, they sought to put this right, or the Criminal Law Revision Committee sought to put it right. But in the process of putting it right they have raised that point, which, so far as I know, has not been discussed in Parliament before. That is the second point.
We then leave the pure confines of the new Clause 1 and look at it in conjunction with Clause 3. Clause 3 has been in the Bill all the way through, and I do not think it has had anything very substantial done to it. It is, therefore, one which the Criminal Law Revision Committee invented in the first place, but they have had to do a quick draft—I hope that that is not taken in any way to be in the least derogatory to them—of the new Clause 1, and I wonder whether they have looked at the interrelationship between that and Clause 3. There are two points here. First, in Clause 1 we have defined "obtaining a service", and that is the matter that we have just been looking at. In Clause 3, however, there is a similar expression; there is a "service done".
1640
The criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when he introduced the concept of "service", which was the underpinning of his substitute Clause 1, was that "service" was not defined. It is defined in Clause 1 as we have had it from another place, but it is not defined in Clause 3. Is not the defence going to say that a difference must be intended when Parliament defines "service" in Clause 1 in a fairly careful way but leaves the word wholly without definition in Clause 3? I understand how it has happened, but it seems to me to point to a distinction, which is certainly not intended, between what is comprised by "service" in the two clauses. May I ask the noble Lord whether he has any answer to that, because it worries me?
My fourth point is one which I find to he wholly insoluble. In the case of a service which is done under Clause 3, there is the defence in subsection (3) that the offence cannot be committed at all where
"the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done … is not legally enforceable".
No such defence occurs in the case of subsection (1). Let us take two fairly similar sets of circumstances. Thank goodness that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not here to expose my ignorance! I do not know whether one can obtain credit in a betting shop because I have never been in one. Let us suppose, however, that one can obtain credit there, that one goes into a betting shop and gives a dud cheque in order to gain credit to gamble and that it bounces. One has been dishonest from the beginning and has obtained the services of the betting agency. Since there is no reference to unenforceability in law, clearly an offence has been committed under Clause 1. If, on the other hand, one goes into a betting shop with the intention of paying but one makes off after one has lost all five races without producing any money, prosecution would have to take place under Clause 3. However, since the debts are not legally enforceable as gambling debts, there is a complete defence. What is the logicality of that? It seems to me to he mad. I do not know that I understand why there is the defence of illegality in Clause 3(3); but if there is, one has to ask why it should be differentiated from Clause 1 as it now stands.

1641
Those are my doubts. I do not know whether they are shared by anybody else and I hope that I have not got them hopelessly wrong. Since I have the right to one speech only at this stage of the Bill, I have to consider what to do about it. I have not had time to draft any Amendments. It may well be that I am wholly wrong and that Amendments are unnecessary, anyway. If, however, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thinks that there is anything whatever in the problems I have raised, may I suggest that the way to deal with the matter would be to adjourn consideration of the Commons Amendments to another day so that it may be looked at; then we could perhaps suggest to another place that yet again their new clause requires additions or alterations.
I know that this is an unattractive procedure to suggest to the noble Lord at this stage of the Bill, and, indeed, at this stage of the Session, particularly when the Criminal Law Revision Committee have been so careful about producing it again. However, when we set about trying to clarify and simplify the law in this Bill and it gives rise to points which strike my mind—although perhaps that is due to my lack of skill—as being unquestionably dubieties in drafting, I think that we should have one more look at it to see whether we can get it right. I am not trying to be in any way destructive, but I believe that here we have the seeds of yet further litigation in the courts and all the tiresome difficulties which we are trying to overcome by this drafting. Therefore, I make these comments in an attempt to he helpful, and I hope that that is how they will be seen to be.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, this new Clause 1 has had a somewhat chequered history. There was an old Clause 1 in the Bill as first drafted, which has now gone for ever. A new Clause 1 was substituted in your Lordships' House, I think during the Report stage. It is that new Clause 1, in a slightly amended form, which is before your Lordships today.
So far as I can see, the Amendments are not substantial; they are matters of detail. I ought, perhaps, to say that I am grateful both to the Government and to the Criminal Law Revision Committee for
1642
considering the matter expeditiously and for returning with this new draft, which certainly accepts the principle which was established in your Lordships' House when the Division at Report stage took place. For my part, I find the difficulties not quite so substantial as those foreseen by the noble Viscount who has just spoken.
As I understand the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, he is querying various matters. First, he is querying whether doing some act under the new Clause 1(2) includes omitting to do some act. I find it difficult to envisage a situation in which a person dishonestly induces somebody else to confer a benefit by omitting to do something. It might be possible to devise a very fanciful set of circumstances to cover that situation. Listening at only a moment or two's notice, I cannot, offhand, think of any situation which would arise there.
Then it is pointed out that there is no definition of the word "benefit" in the new Clause 1. Surely it is not necessary to define every word that appears in every section of an Act of Parliament. Just as one might have left the word "services" to the jury in the first place, I should have thought that now one could perfectly well leave the jury to decide whether a benefit has been conferred.
The noble Viscount queried whether it should be a benefit looked at from the point of view of the giver of the benefit or the receiver of the benefit. Although I have no anticipation of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will say, again I should have thought that that would be according to the ordinary use of English—the benefit as conferred on the receiver of the benefit. The issue would be whether a benefit had thus been obtained.
It was then pointed out that the word "services" is defined in Clause 1 but is not defined in Clause 3. That is so, and this was pointed out in your Lordships' House at an earlier stage. However, I cannot foresee the difficulty arising which the noble Viscount anticipated. I should have thought that it would follow from the construction of this Bill as a whole that "services" in Clause 3 would be construed in the same way as it is defined in Clause 1.

1643
The noble Lord's final point was that under Clause I it is immaterial whether payment is legally enforceable, whereas under Clause 3 no offence is committed unless the payment is legally enforceable. That is perhaps not so illogical as it sounds. In Clause 3—making off without payment—if payment is not legally enforceable in those circumstances, it would follow that there would be no civil liability for what took place. It would be a little curious to create a criminal offence in those circumstances, where there was no corresponding civil liability.
In Clause 1, the question as to whether or not payment would be enforceable is not the crux of the issue. The issue relates to the dishonest obtaining of services, and I see no inconsistency between the two clauses in those circumstances. The new Clause 1 differs in two respects from the new Clause 1 as passed by your Lordships' House. First, there is now a definition of the word "services", and I have no further comments to make about that. Secondly, the new Clause 1 omits the words in the original Clause 1:
"… with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another".
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has seen an article which appeared last week in the New Law Journal. A distinguished contributor queried whether the absence of those words might lead to some rather unexpected consequences. I do not think that this is so, but in view of the distinguished periodical in which the article appeared it might be that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would like to take the opportunity to put briefly on the record why it is possible to omit those words without the disastrous consequences arising which the author of the article fears. With those observations I hope that your Lordships' House will accept the Commons Amendment as being at least as good as the Amendment which your Lordships passed at Report stage and as covering the situation in this very difficult field of law, so far as one can see, entirely adequately.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I just throw out the suggestion that something is of benefit within the meaning of subsection (2) not if A or if B thinks it is of
1644
benefit but if the court thinks it is of benefit.
5.21 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the history of these very unfortunate clauses has been detailed at length and we now know that the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in consultation with the judges and the Law Commission on an almost short time re-reference of the matter from another place, reconsidered the clauses and submitted these two clauses. It seemed to me that we had reached the circumstance in which the noble Viscount said that there was no other step to be taken but to accept their Lordships' advice and show as little reluctance about it as was consistent with the courtesy due to the judges. They have given an immense amount of devotion to a task which seems to have been created rather unnecessarily in a field in which, as I have said before, there has not been much controversy for years. The controversy which arose about the Act of 1916, which has lasted for 50 years virtually unamended, has led to more confusion than before.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is fully capable of plumbing my own shallow and diminishing mind with perhaps clearer comprehension than I have, and he at once detected in the previous debate the division that was arising between the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and myself, in the sense that he saw that I wanted—and wanted quite passionately—to say that the boundary between the civil law and the criminal law should, if possible, remain inviolate.
This is not the time for reminiscences, but perhaps I may be permitted one which is historically relevant. It is exactly 150 years since the Member for Winchelsea came into another place bearing a hat full of Bellamy's oranges, which indicated a disposition to do justice to the subject on which he spoke, which was law reform. He made a speech which has been extolled as one of the most remarkable and one of the most productive ever made by man in this particular field, and indeed by J. B. Apley, as I understand it, as one of the greatest speeches ever made. We are told that he covered 29 subjects which could have occupied the time of the House for a Session. He spoke about 148 printed pages in the record, and sat down with

1645
an audience undiminished after six hours and three minutes, after a peroration that was certainly part of what I came passionately to believe. He said that Augustus claimed that he found Rome of brick and made it of marble. How much greater the sovereign who can say, "I found the law unclear and left it clear. I found it the patrimony of the rich and left it the inheritance and the protection of the poor"!
Legal commentators have pointed out that most of that speech was put into force in the course of the next 20 or 30 years. In 1947 I had the privilege of voting for the Bill which put into force his last recommendation and some reforms of judicial doctrine. That of course was the Bill which established that the postman could not bleed—the Sovereign's protective right against an action for carelessly riding a cycle and causing damage. And of course we repealed the judicially made doctrine of common employment, which we are now told very few of the judges liked, and according to the Vice-Chancellor two or three nourished and nurtured and perfected. Is it now an open book?
A question was raised—and I desire to make this one point although perhaps testing the patience of the House a little, I have no intention of going on for six hours and three minutes although I should very much like to. The question was raised, during a very brief Third Reading debate in another place—where not much time was given to the matter from start to finish—for whom are we drafting the law? Are the judges drafting it for the judges to be able to say "We can interpret this with clarity"? Are they drafting it so that it can be understood (after explanation) by a jury? Rule might have asked and Rule indeed said—or is it to be understood fairly clearly, at least in matters of this kind, by the lady who buys the milk and runs up a debt for the milk and has not the protection of tax havens, resource from the law, the limited companies and so on?
In this House I have seen and regarded with intense admiration the devoted labours of Her Majesty's gifted judges. I had the privilege of being a very undistinguished member of the Law Sub-Committee on the EEC which raised a debate on a Paper as to which I agreed whole
1646
heartedly with every word and was fully committed. It concerned what might happen to our law in the European Economic Community. We are living in a time of doubt, we are living in a time of difficulty; we are living in a time of increasing grave crime when it seems rather silly to multiply minor wrongs.
I therefore finish by saying two things. I have seen this brilliant work of Her Majesty's judges and I have seen their sincerity. I have seen them reconsidering again and again and refining and, in their view, completely improving. It is a spectacle which has been remarkable but it is true. It is strange. It is one of those mysteries that law, apparently, does not permit any two experts to agree. We are told that the greatest court in the world frequently decides by five to four; that our court of last resort so frequently overrules the unanimous decisions of the lower appellate court, both in criminal and in civil matters.
I hope I will hear, by the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Harris who is always very courteous, that the Government are setting up or have set up another Commission to consider the general working of the criminal law and that some consideration may be given to the remaining doubts and difficulties of all those who really wonder whether there is a spirit of obscurantism abroad and whether clarity could not be found on the older method and not by the effort to deal with each point in detail. I hope the Commons Amendments will be passed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated in our relatively short debate this afternoon; to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, whom we welcome to our discussions on the Theft Bill—the veterans on the Bill are glad to be joined on an occasion like this by someone taking part in our deliberations for the first time; to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has given up an enormous amount of time, for which we are all grateful even when we have disagreed with him. The amount of effort he has put into this important Bill has been of very considerable benefit to the House. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and, of course my noble friend Lord Hale, who has participated in many of our debates.

1647
I will, if I may, begin by dealing wjth a particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and then deal with some of the more detailed questions put to me by the noble Viscount. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, did draw my attention to this particular article which appeared in the New Law Journal. As he said, I have written to him about it, but I will gladly put our view on this matter on the record. As I explained to him in our correspondence, this revised form of Clause 1 is closely parallel with Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, and the Criminal Law Revision Committee could see no justification for distinguishing between the two provisions once it is accepted that "services" is to be equated with "property". The Criminal Law Revision Committee did, however, consider whether the formula—and I quote—
"with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another",
should be included, but found that it produced inconsistent results when applied to services. Depending on the nature of the transaction, if the services do not involve the handing of any property to the rogue, such as with a haircut, the only loss or gain which is relevant is in fact the price. Where, however, the service has a property element, such as the hire of a car, the provision of the service itself involves gain to the rogue and loss to the victim.
Even if the Criminal Law Revision Committee had seen objections to leaving Clause 1 as wide in this regard as Section 15 of the Theft Act, it is difficult to see how a limitation to such frauds could be imposed without going back to something rather like the original formulation that we had when we began our labours on this particular measure so many months ago. We do not, therefore, accept that the new form of this clause could with advantage be amended in the way which was suggested in this particular article.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised a number of questions, and I shall do my best to satisfy him. He raised a question as to whether doing some act includes omitting to do some act. Our view is no, but this particular case is covered by "permitting some act to be
1648
done". Then he went on to ask, "What is a benefit?" There is no need, in our view, to decide this, because the benefit is the doing of the act or permitting some act to be done. Then the question is raised, "Benefit to whom?" Certainly, the clause does not specify, but, in our view, the point does not arise since "benefit" is equivalent to the doing of the act or permitting of the act to be done.
The noble Viscount went on to refer to Clause 3. The Criminal Law Revision Committee did in fact consider the use of "services" in Clause 3. But in Clause 3 we are concerned only with services for which payment on the spot is to be expected. Then there was the question of unlawful services. I join with the noble Viscount in expressing some slight relief on my part that my noble friend Lord Wigg with his formidable knowledge of the betting industry, to which I could not possibly at short notice hope to provide an adequate reply, is not here. But I am advised that betting frauds are covered expressly by Section 16(2)(c). Clause 1 does in fact cover unlawful or unenforceable contracts, but so, of course, did the original Clause 1 which we had before us some little time ago.
The noble Viscount said that he was a little uncertain whether, in the light of the doubts he had expressed, it would be right to proceed this afternoon. I think in fact it would, because we have devoted an enormous amount of time to this Bill, and rightly so because it has raised such formidable problems in the courts. It has received most detailed attention in this House, thanks to the labours of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and, indeed, many others. It has been considered again by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It has been considered by another place. I do not believe that further adjournment of our proceedings such as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, suggested would carry us any further. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that he was uncertain whether an adjournment would be desirable. I do not think it would be. I believe we have done a good job on this particular piece of difficult legislation, and I very much hope that the House will accept the new clause from the Commons.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.38 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2.]
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
Evasion of liability by deception
("2.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception—

(a) dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another's; or

(b) with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or

(c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment;

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section "liability" means legally enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission.
(3) For purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment.
(4) For purposes of subsection (1)(c) "obtains" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Your Lordships will recall that during the passage of this Bill through the House the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, moved, again in the interests of simplicity, an Amendment to replace with a new version the Criminal Law Revision Committee's original clause, which was of course in the Bill as introduced. This was successfully carried against the advice of the Government.
Certainly, we recognise and share the noble Lord's view that the utmost importance should be attached to clarity and simplicity in drafting new provisions to replace Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act. But in the case of this clause we did not consider that the revised version did satisfactorily achieve its object. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going
1650
in detail into all the reasons why this clause which was carried against our advice on the last occasion is unsatisfactory. But I should perhaps reiterate what I said at Committee stage and also at Report stage: that the wording of the clause is far too close to the original Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act to be a suitable substitute for part only of that provision. Moreover, it widens the Bill by catching the stalling debtor who intends one day to pay. Accordingly, in Committee in another place it was decided that the right course was to reinstate the original clause in the Bill, and this was accepted by another place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, there is not perhaps very much more to say on this clause. The noble Lord's colleague in another place did explain what were the defects in Lord Wigoder's drafting. I am bound to say that I can see that the Bill as it left this House did impinge upon areas which really ought to be left to the civil law—that is the stalling debtor point—in very much the same way as does that part of the existing Theft Act that we are trying to replace. There were other defects as well.
The only comfort that I have about Clause 2 is that I do not think that quite so many stages will be required in the directions to the jury. The three separate paragraphs are independent of each other and each of them contains its own offence. Therefore, we are not involved in the tremendous complexity which attended the original Clause 1.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will wish to say about this, but, having seen the criticisms that were made of our efforts when the Bill left this House, I think that it would probably be right now to revert, as we are doing, to the original text of the Criminal Law Revision Committee with, of course, the notable exception of the letter "e" from the word "forego".
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, the new Clause 2 is, in fact, the old Clause 2 which was contained in the Bill when it first came to your Lordships' House.

1651
It does, in fact, modify the existing law to a small extent. The Clause 2 that your Lordships' inserted on Report restated the existing law—I was under the impression, rather more simply than it is stated at present—which, so far as I know, has operated quite satisfactorily since the case of Turner. However, there is perhaps very little point in going over that situation again. The only alternative before us is either to accept the Commons Amendment or to reject it outright. To reject it outright would, I suppose, lead in due course to the invocation of the Parliament Act and I doubt whether that was ever contemplated for a measure of rather technical law reform.
So, in those circumstances I can only say that I have no enthusiasm whatever for the new Clause 2. I fear that it will give rise to some tortuous litigation, for the reasons which I indicated several times in the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, but I comfort myself by thinking that my noble friends at the Bar will regard that as a gain! In those circumstances I find it difficult positively to oppose the new Clause 2, but equally I do not, I am afraid, find it possible to welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3.]
Clause 7, page 3, line 40, leave out ("shall not extend to Scotland or") and insert ("except section 5(3) shall not extend to Scotland; and except for that subsection, and subject also to section 6, it shall not extend to").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4.]
In the Title, at end insert ("and for connected purposes.").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth
1652
agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. Again, this is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOMES INSULATION BILL
5.43 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a relatively short Bill, but a very important one. It marks another stage in the energy conservation policy which has been pursued by this Government since 1974.
Before 1974, fuel was comparatively cheap, and there was plenty of it. This meant a natural reluctance on almost everyone's part to do or even think very much about ways of saving energy. There were a few voices crying in the wilderness for a halt to be called to the over-indulgent use of our resources, but these were for the most part ignored. But, in 1973–74, the situation changed dramatically almost overnight, when oil prices rose five-fold. The United Kingdom may not be so badly off as some countries, since we have quite large reserves of coal, oil and gas, but these are not going to last forever. So the Government started an energy conservation programme, which we still regard as of major importance to the whole country. Noble Lords may recall that this was reaffirmed in our response to the First Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and in the Energy Policy Green Paper earlier this year.
An important part of the Government's energy-saving policy has been the "Save It" campaign. For that campaign, the Department of Energy published advertisements, booklets and films to communicate the energy conservation message. The campaign was aimed first at industry, since this accounts for 40 per cent. of all energy use, and is therefore the main single consumer. A 100 per cent. first year tax allowance on the cost of insulating

1653
industrial buildings was then introduced. But in 1977–78 the campaign was extended for three years to the domestic sector.
It is said that some countries are doing more than us in energy conservation. I agree that some are spending more, but comparisons of this sort are always extremely difficult to make. We are at present collecting material on what other countries are doing and the information we already have shows some of the problems that they are experiencing. However, we continue to study what is happening abroad, and hope to learn from their experience wherever possible.
Last December, the Secretary of State for Energy announced in another place a wide-ranging energy conservation package. In April, we brought in a 10-year programme for installing a basic level of insulation in council houses without any insulation at all. There are about 2 million of these, and funds will be made available to deal with about 200.000 houses a year. Local authorities will get an annual expenditure allocation for this work, as they do for all housing programmes, and they will also be paid housing subsidy for it. Housing association and New Town Development Corporation houses are also being insulated under similar arrangements. We shall be taking steps to make similar provision for other public sector housing.
This Bill introduces similar measures for the private housing sector. Private houses account for a staggering one-fifth of the total national energy consumption, and 5 million of them have no roof insulation at all. Your Lordships would rightly be horrified—if not slightly surprised—if I started throwing eggs around the Chamber or burning pound notes. But these are some of the ways in which, through television advertisements, we have been trying to get home to people how much energy they are wasting. Some noble Lords—those who are knowledgeable in these matters—may readily envisage a therm or a unit of electricity, but to most people these are difficult concepts for us to understand. We are seeing a scarce natural resource going up—literally—in hot air.
About half the energy used in the home goes on space-heating and another 20 per cent. on water heating. We all know
1654
hot air rises, but not enough people realise that as much as a quarter of the heat can be lost through an uninsulated roof. On top of this, an unlagged hot water tank in the house can cost the owner up to £1 a week more. This waste of space heating is an expensive enough luxury for those with solid forms of heating, like coal fires, where they can see what they are burning. But those with central heating cannot so easily see how much they are consuming, and often do not realise how much more they are wasting through their uninsulated roof.
This is not a small problem. There are about 1 million of these heat wastrels, as one in five of the uninsulated houses has central heating. I agree that it is equitably tempting to leave them to pay their own high heating bills. But the point is that, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to squander our scarce energy resources in this way. Hence this Bill, which I agree has some Gilbert and Sullivan overtones.
New houses have to be built to a specified standard of loft insulation, and nearly all have a conservation jacket on the hot water tank. It is the older houses where most heat is lost and many of these are occupied by elderly people and poorer people. These are people who cannot afford to lose this heat—either economically or in warmth terms. It may be that providing help with insulation for many of them is not going to save a great deal of energy, but, even so, the measures to be taken will help to achieve a more effective use of energy and keep the people warmer. When the house changes hands and the pattern of occupation and of energy consumption changes, the insulation will still be there, doing its job.
We know from work carried out in the Department of the Environment, at the Building Research Establishment, that the insulation measures which provide the best and quickest return are reasonable thickness of loft insulation, and a jacket for the hot water tank. Therefore, we decided as a priority on this basic insulation in all houses which do not have it. The aim is to insulate about 500,000 houses a year, or a tenth of the uninsulated stock—which is parallel to the council house insulation programme. After allowing for some loss of energy-saving

1655
through increased comfort levels, these insulated private sector houses would save annually up to 1 million tons oil equivalent after 10 years. This is a very considerable annual saving—valued at up to £70 million at current prices—and one we cannot afford to ignore.
The next step was how to encourage people to insulate. It was fairly obvious that those who had not already done so, after several years of Government exhortation and rising fuel prices, were those who either could not afford to or who were not sufficiently motivated. This meant that any financial incentive had to be generous.
There was a range of possibilities: from tax allowance to tying insulation grants in with the improvement grant system under the Housing Act 1974. But none of these was really simple enough and some, like tax allowances, could discriminate against those who need help most. The work involved is fairly simple, can be carried out quite cheaply, and there is likely to be a large demand. A complicated system would therefore mean administration costs disproportionate to the amounts being given.
We also needed to get a system into operation quickly. We know that most people put their insulation in in the autumn and any delay in introducing a scheme would mean that the normally quiet period in the summer would be prolonged. This would have serious consequences for the industry. Therefore, after consultations with the local authority associations, which have given us great help, we decided on flexible, simple arrangements which could be brought into effect as soon as possible. This Bill is the result and our aim is to get the first scheme into operation in the autumn, when we shall be putting basic insulation into all our housing stock.
My Lords, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. The basic provision—in Clause 1—is for local authorities to pay grants to private householders in accordance with schemes prepared by the Secretary of State. Authorities will be reimbursed in full for grants paid. They will also be paid a sum in respect of their costs incurred in running the scheme for the Government.
1656
The schemes will be laid before Parliament. Noble Lords will by now have had copies of the latest draft of the first scheme, and an explanatory paper, which I hope they found useful. Incidentally, I shall be making Notes on Clauses available to any noble Lords who want them. This first scheme will cover the insulation of the loft space and the water supply installations. These will include both the hot water tank—because of the alarming energy waste which can arise from an uninsulated tank—and the cold water tanks and pipes up in the loft, as once heat is prevented from rising into the loft space there is a real risk of pipes and tanks freezing.
The measures included are essentially the same as those being carried out to council houses, except that we do not propose to include draught-stripping, which is very difficult to define for grant-aid. The amounts involved will in any case usually be very small; in fact, the administrative costs of including it in the scheme could outweigh the grant given.
The Bill limits the measures in the first scheme, but it does give powers for further schemes to be introduced. Some noble Lords may feel the first scheme is too limited and that we should be offering grants for double-glazing, cavity wall insulation, or other measures. It is true that these all have conservation validity, but our first priority must be the measures we have chosen, which are easily the most cost-effective.
The Bill, however, provides a good deal of flexibility and it will be easy, once we have tackled this initial task, for other energy conservation measures to be brought in without the need for more primary legislation. However, I must emphasise that we have no immediate intention of introducing further schemes. Our priority must be to get the basic insulation into the greatest number of dwellings possible, before we start to think about more sophisticated measures. These basic works are the ones which will give the greatest benefits, and so the limited resources available must initially be concentrated on them.
Under Clause 1, schemes may also be brought into benefit people in special need, for example, the elderly or disabled. This provision was put into the Bill by the

1657
Government in another place in response to views expressed by all Parties. One of the many uncertainties in the future is the cost of undertaking further insulation measures. The Bill, therefore, provides for the possibility of special grant rates and grant maxima for applicants with special needs. It also allows for schemes related only to applicants with special needs. The Bill indicates clearly the particular factors, such as age or disability, to be taken into account when determining eligibility.
The percentage rate of grant payable for the first scheme will be 66 per cent. up to a maximum of £50. We chose this percentage—which is considerably more than what is usually paid under, for example, the improvement grant system—partly as a parallel with the council house programme, and partly to reflect the high priority we attach to energy conservation. There have been criticisms that the £50 limit is too low to help many people. However, this limit was set after consultations with the manufacturing industry, which informed us that £75, which would he the expenditure needed to qualify for the maximum grant, will be sufficient to cover both materials and labour to insulate the roof of an average, three-bedroomed house.
For many people it will simply be a question of buying the material; for installing it will be well within the capacity of the average householder and it will be both quicker and cheaper for him to do this himself. Any new grant rates and amounts for subsequent schemes will be prescribed by order, and this will give us sufficient flexibility to change them according to need, while still retaining Parliamentary scrutiny over public expenditure.
The details of the administration of the first scheme are still being finalised, in consultation with local authority associations. However, noble Lords will have seen from the draft they have been given that we intend to make grants available as widely as possible. All occupiers, whether owner or tenant, and all landlords may apply, as long as their dwelling has an uninsulated roof space. Applicants will, however, have to get any necessary consents first; for example, landlords may need tenants' agreement to access.
1658
There will be a simple application form requiring details of the dwelling and a declaration that it is uninsulated. Applicants will also have to agree to permit the local authority to carry out checks if it so wishes. Local authorities will deal generally with applications on a "first come, first serve" basis, which is the easiest way to administer the scheme. Once approval has been given the work can be done. Grants will be paid on production of receipts for materials purchased or work carried out.
I have referred specifically to the requirement that in order to qualify for grant the house must have an uninsulated loft space. But I should also make it clear that under this first scheme we shall not be giving people grants to top up their existing insulation. Some people may think that this is unfair. Whatever scheme we have, there is bound to be a certain amount of rough justice about it. This will apply to whatever form of grant is introduced. But those who have insulation in their lofts have made a sound investment and are already reaping the benefits. The objective of this Bill, or more particularly its first scheme, is to encourage those who have not already done so, to take these basic measures in the national interest—but also in their own interests.
I shall now turn to the financial provisions of the Bill, under Clause 2. We have a total expenditure provision of £15 million for the rest of this financial year, and £25 million a year in 1979–80 and later years. Out of this the Secretary of State will make allocations to local authorities within which grant can be paid. Local authorities will be paid sums towards the expenses they incur in administering the scheme. We thought it right to do this, as it is a completely new system run by local authorities on behalf of central Government. Given the number of potential applicants, the scheme is bound to create additional work, and we are discussing a fixed fee with the local authority associations. This is not likely to be more than £5 per grant paid and will represent their average cost.
I believe that this Bill reflects the priority we must give to energy conservation measures. With its wide enabling powers, we can act quickly in response to future circumstances and future resources by bringing in further schemes. For the

1659
time being, however, we have to concentrate, as I have emphasised, on the basic and most cost-effective measures at our disposal.
My Lords, I hope you will agree that it is important that this Bill although a modest measure, should be brought into effect as quickly as possible, so that the benefits can be felt this coming winter and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk).
5.59 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we can wholly support the purpose of the Bill. I was rather surprised to find that legislation was needed for the purposes involved, and I am even more surprised to find how long it has taken to produce this Bill. I think that my criticisms are principally directed—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, clearly foresaw this in what she says—to whether the Bill does enough and some of the questionable logic in it which the noble Baroness called "rough justice". I shall not bandy words about that. I think there is a suggestion that, as so often happens, it does too little too late. I should like to remind the noble Baroness of the old adage, "He gives twice who gives quickly".
There is no doubt that we want to get on with it. If we, in saying that, are accused of advocating profligate expenditure, let us remember that in some cases the pay-back period of hot water tank insulation is sometimes in weeks or months, particularly if you are using electric heating. Even in the case of loft insulation I think you are talking about a pay-back period of probably two or three years.
I personally have been engaged in a number of debates over the last few years, and it is not the first time that we have urged the Government to get on with energy saving, so at least let us welcome them into the ranks of those who believe in that because we have been imploring them to get on and produce incentives to persuade people to do something which is in their own interests in any case. It is strange, however, that this Bill has taken four years to come after what the Minister
1660
in another place called "An active energy conservation policy". I do not wish in any way to damn it, but I am bound to say that it is a somewhat paltry and pathetic mouse which has been finally produced. We shall do our best to speed it on its way so that, as the noble Baroness says, the work can get under way in the autumn. Perhaps it will be one of the last Acts of a dying Government—we shall hope so.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness to expand on something. Her honourable friend in another place, having said that all sorts of other schemes had been considered, was coy about saying what the schemes were. It would be useful to know how the Government arrived at the point that caused them to suggest this Bill. I believe, for example, that in some countries it has been suggested that some of this insulation should be done by some of the energy-providing undertakings, such as electricity boards and gas boards. I should be interested to know whether that suggestion was considered, and, if so, why some of these alternatives were rejected.
There are one or two specific comments I should like to make and one or two questions I should like to ask. As the noble Baroness said, private houses use about one-fifth of national energy consumption: about half of that goes in space heating and one-fifth in water heating. You end up by saying that we are talking about something like one-seventh of the total energy consumption of the country. They got into a certain amount of muddle in another place when they started talking about heat loss through walls. I believe that this amounts to something like one-third of the energy in a house. But of course the point is—and the noble Baroness made it clear—that loft insulation in particular is deemed to be the most immediately cost-effective and yields the quickest return, whereas tackling the problem of the walls is more expensive although there is in fact a bigger potential saving to be made.
It is also a fact that windows lose about the same amount as roofs do. I have seen calculations—and I have no doubt the noble Baroness has seen calculations—which show that certainly in the cases of houses which have not got central heating, it is in fact possible to demonstrate that double-glazing can be more cost-effective

1661
than loft insulation, in particular if you can keep the price of the double-glazing below something of the order of £30 a square metre, which I understand is not too difficult to do. Of course if you restrict your double-glazing particularly to living rooms, which are liable to be heated for a long time and, by definition, are almost invariably heated during the course of the day, I think you will find that the cost-effective argument is quite impressive. So I hope that possibly we can at least tempt the Minister into saying that, should it happen that not all the money is taken up in loft insulation, then conceivably the Government would agree to consider other steps—such as double-glazing of living rooms—for a grant. I shall come in one moment to this question of the size of the fund available.
There is one other curious feature which seems an anomaly. I think I am right in saying that, although the Bill does not state it, the proposal is that 80 millimetres should be regarded as the loft insulation requirement for a grant under this Bill, and yet the building regulations call for 50 millimetres in a new house. That does not sound a very consistent stance to be taking. I am also bound to say to the noble Baroness that it is a disappointment to find that they will not consider the topping-up aspect. It looks as though you are being a little unkind to the wise virgins. It was even suggested during the discussions in another place that it would make sense to nip up to the loft and take out the insulation you have already, claim the grant, and then put back both of them, if you are a sufficiently energetic do-it-yourself man.
There also seems to be a slight contradiction between the idea of granting £125 for local authorities to insulate houses, but then saying that for private dwellings the allowance should be based on a principle of £75, of which you get two-thirds—or 66 per cent., as the Bill calls it—which is the £50 grant. This leads to the question of the houses which, in a happy phrase used during discussions in another place, were described as "houses with no roof". What one is in fact talking about is blocks of flats and houses which do not have a roof space. It is an interesting fact that there are roughly as many of them as there are of the houses we are discussing which have a loft which
1662
one can get at. Here again I should have thought that there was a case for saying that in that instance double-glazing should be considered as a possibility. I heard what the noble Baroness said about draught-stripping, but again is it not curious that we find it possible to define what we mean by draught-stripping when we talk about council houses and yet find it difficult to make a similar definition when we come to a private dwelling?
I can give an unequivocal welcome to subsections (5) and (6) which, as the noble Baroness said, were put in under pressure from all sides in another place. Here again this has been a particular interest of a number of us on this side of the House, and indeed on the other side of the House. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, is not still here because this is something that his organisation, Help the Aged, has campaigned most effectively about so far as the elderly and disabled are concerned. However, I hope that the Minister will use his discretion here.
There are such possibilities as electric blankets and the need to make one room energy-efficient for those who are elderly or disabled, because keeping the heat in one room is frequently more important for a disabled person than having loft insulation where you are trying to heat the whole house. Here, again, is there any possibility that in applying these grants the Minister might use these sub-sections to give some kind of priority to those less well able to look after themselves? As I shall be saying in a moment, there is a fear that the amount of money will run out, and that those who are less well able to look after themselves might find themselves at the bottom of the queue. I therefore hope these provisions will be used in that way. In another place it was suggested that further research was going on and was needed, but it has been represented to me that the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs has produced a report on thermal improvements, and one has to ask: what more information do the Government want beyond that?
I come to the question of administrative cost. The noble Baroness suggested that £5 per application might be the figure, which is very much in line with the suggested figure of 10 per cent. That seems appallingly high in the sense that 10 per

1663
cent. of our effort will go in simply pushing paper round the office. That would represent, in the first year based on £15 million, £1½ million, and if one takes it as being £50 per house, that is 30,000 houses liable to go uninsulated because that amount of money has been gobbled up in administration.
I cannot help wondering whether local authorities need this assistance. This is something beneficial to people in their areas and I did a little sum to try, as they say in defence arguments, to enhance the teeth-to-tail ratio of the use of this money. If we are talking of insulating 270,000 houses, which is presumably what would be involved in the first year, among 500 authorities, that is 550 houses on average per authority, which would be an average of 11 a week or two applications a day. That does not sound an enormously onerous task to put on a local authority and I really do not see that large numbers of extra staff would be needed when, in any case—I do not wish to sound provocative—the amount of house-building going on is regrettably very low. So what will these people be doing?
The next worrying thing about the way in which the grant is to be applied is that, according to the Memorandum:
"The annual cost of grant will be controlled by allocations made to individual local authorities and grants may be given by an authority only within the total amount allocated for this purpose".
Does that mean that a certain sum of money will be made available and that, when that sum runs out, the scheme will come to a halt? If so, that reinforces the question I raised earlier about giving some kind of priority to the aged and disabled, and it raises spectres in my mind of the worst sort of local authority administragion; of schemes coming to a halt just when they are getting under way. Is that really what is intended? Surely we should be saying that the £15 million mentioned in the Memorandum is merely an allocation for budgetary purposes, to give some indication of what the cost of the Bill is likely to be.
There are some unanswered questions and shortcomings in the Bill. Nevertheless, we welcome it as a belated start on the road to catching up with the very much more advanced provision made by some of our European neighbours, as the Minister said. We will help the Bill on its
1664
way, and I promise that any Amendments we seek to make will be constructive. I hope the noble Baroness will succeed in convincing us that this will rapidly grow into a vehicle for urgently-needed and justifiable extensions both to remove anomalies and to achieve the maximum effectiveness in this field.
6.15 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in saying that the Bill certainly does not come to us before its time. Why other countries are so far ahead of us in the matter of thermal insulation is not altogether clear. I dare say it relates to the fact that within the memory of most of us this country enjoyed ample supplies of cheap coal, and that was before any Clean Air Act prevented us from burning as much cheap coal in every grate in the house as we chose. Also, of course, the economic advantages of thermal insulation in those days were nothing like what they have become, particularly in very recent years. The fact remains that, as was neatly stated by the honourable Member for Faversham in another place, when it comes to lagging, we lag behind.
The Bill is inflexible—I do not think there is any argument about that—though it is not quite so inflexible and rigid as it was when it was originally presented. That is because, as both noble Lords have said, the Government gave way to pressure in Standing Committee in another place. Having originally said that it was an energy conservation Bill and not a social welfare Bill, that position has now been breached because we have Clause 1(5), which deals with people applying on grounds of special need. However, that applies only to schemes for the future and what we are most interested in this evening is the first scheme, described in Clause 1(3), and that is a very rigid scheme because it provides grants only for the insulation of roof spaces and water supply.
The first question that comes to mind is about those people who do not have access to their roof spaces. There is not an enormous number of dwellings to which that applies, but there are some. Supposing those people, rather than continuing to endure a cold house and not being able to insulate the roof space,

1665
decide instead to double glaze the living room? Why should they not qualify for grant? The two Front Benches will not quibble with each other over the term "rough justice". I shall not quibble about it at all; I say that this is a manifest injustice and that there is absolutely no need for it. Why cannot those who cannot insulate the roof space get a grant for double glazing the living room?
So far as I understand it, the Government's answer to that is two-fold. They say, first, that one must consider the question of administrative cost; that the scheme should not increase the amount of inspection needed to be done by local authority officers, and that if there is only £15 million in the first year to spend on the whole scheme, administrative costs must be kept down. I entirely agree, but we are here dealing with a very small proportion of houses—those which do not have access to the loft—and if they must be more carefully inspected, the increase in adminstrative cost overall would be infinitesimal. So why worry about that?
The second limb of the Government's argument, as I understand it, is that double glazing is more expensive than insulating the roof space and that people would be calling for a higher grant. My answer is that I would not give them a higher grant, and I think they would understand the position to be fair if it was explained to them: "The only grant that we can afford to give you is the maximum £50 grant which the other people will get, for this reason, that if we have only £15 million to spend on the whole thing and all the available grants are applied for, the result of giving you an extra grant for more expensive work will mean that somebody else will be shouldered out of the scheme altogether. Therefore, although it is bad luck for you to have to provide a higher proportion of the cost of the double glazing yourself, in equity and fairness to everybody you shall have a grant but it shall be limited to the £50 which the other people get". I hope that this suggestion will be considered and that if in Committee I put down an Amendment to secure that situation I shall get a favourable response to it.
The only other thing that I want to say is that it is a great mistake to regard
1666
thermal insulation as something to be considered in isolation from anything else, because in so many cases thermal insulation brings in its train a secondary benefit. I should like to give just two examples of what I am talking about. The first is that our ancestors, who were not fools, built for themselves solid stone-built houses, which last far longer than some of the houses that we are building for ourselves today. Some of them in the thick wall space of their stone houses provided wooden shutters which were fitted inside the windows and which could be closed over the windows. In the day-time they would fold back into the width of the wall space. I am not talking about those attractive outdoor shutters of which the French people are so fond. They have a different climate and a different problem and they use those shutters in the summer time, which are closed from the outside, to keep the house cool. I am talking about shutters fitted on the inside of windows which you close at tea-time in mid-winter in England when it gets dark, and from then until the next morning during the coldest part of the 24 hours your shutters keep the warmth in and they keep the housebreaker out.
One can well imagine the peace of mind of an old lady living by herself who, at tea-time in mid-winter, puts the chain on the door, fastens the shutters over the windows and feels secure until daylight the next morning. I cannot help thinking that the security aspect of this question is not present to the mind of the Department of the Environment in the way that it should be, because the security aspect is a Home Office matter. I cannot help feeling that if the Department of the Environment and the Home Office jointly put forward a plea for grant-aid for shutters for these houses, that joint plea would carry very much more weight than any plea that the Department of the Environment could put forward by itself.
My second example relates to noise insulation. Double glazing not only keeps in the warmth but keeps out excessive noise. I should have thought it would be very easy to draft a clause in the Bill which said that a local authority, if satisfied that a particular dwelling suffered the nuisance of excessive noise, whether from being too close to a motorway or a street having exceptionally

1667
heavy traffic—and I do not mean the ordinary street traffic in towns; it would have to be something exceptional—would be able to grant aid for double glazing because of its two-fold advantage of keeping the warmth in and keeping the nuisance of noise out.
Again, the trouble is that the noise insulation topic is not really a matter for the Department of the Environment because we already have a scheme for dealing with noise insulation; namely, the scheme for people living too close to airports who suffer from the noise of aircraft. That scheme is run not by the Department of the Environment but, as I understand it, by the Board of Trade. If the Department of the Environment care to consult the Board of Trade they will, I should imagine, discover much more than they know now about noise insulation and its problems and the way in which it can be cured. Again, I should have thought that a joint plea on behalf of those two Government Departments for grant-aid for double glazing for these two advantages would be much more likely to succeed than a plea from one Government Department going it alone. My Lords, with those few observations I give a welcome to this Bill as being just a small step in the right direction.
6.27 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, for a very long time I have been keen to try to get improved insulation and I have raised the matter in the House on many occasions, and so one welcomes this Bill. In the main, I agree with what has already been said on criticisms of or improvements to the Bill. Particularly important is the idea of double glazing in flats or "roofless" houses, as has been said. Also, help to the aged and disabled—the hypothermia problem—is extremely important. But there is one overriding consideration. Already the announcement of this scheme has meant that people who would otherwise have been buying insulation and doing the job themselves have not done so. If this Bill does not go through—and of course one has to take into consideration the possibility of an Election—it will be disastrous. Not only would we not get the benefit in energy saving, but it would have an utterly disastrous effect on the industry because the autumn season is the time when people normally start to
1668
buy. If the Bill does not go through they may well decide to do nothing about it, in the hope that when the new Government come in the Bill will come forward once more and get on to the Statute Book.
I think we must consider whether it is wise or not to put forward Amendments to this Bill, however good, and that is a matter on which I would ask the Government to advise us. If their advice is not to do so, then I would hope that those noble Lords who have thought of an Amendment will feel that even half a loaf is better than none. It is strange to me that it has taken so long for the Government to produce what is now a very small Bill.
There are a large number of other areas which so far have not been touched. An obvious example is industrial buildings. Again, the agreed building standards at present are far too low. If the Government really take the energy problem at all seriously—and one often wonders whether they yet do—I believe that they should press ahead with proposals more fully than they have done so far. I hope that they will do this in the future. Having said all that, I welcome the Bill, and I particularly want the advice of the Government as to whether, if we put forward Amendments, excellent though they may be, we stand a chance of losing the Bill, and therefore meeting with disaster.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I should like to ask him whether he agrees that it is always a good thing to table Amendments and argue them in Committee. One need not necessarily press an Amendment, but it rivets the mind on a problem and one can have a useful discussion.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. Perhaps I should have framed my remarks so as to have referred to pressing an Amendment to a Division.
6.31 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, your Lordships may, or may not, remember the exchanges which took place at the end of June between myself and the Government on the question of off-peak

1669
tariffs. In the course of his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, then mentioned—quite rightly—the forthcoming introduction of this Bill. Of course the broad principles of the Bill are to be supported, and I agree here with all noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that everyone is agreed that the Bill, though late, requires supporting, and I look forward with great interest to the reply of the noble Baroness to the noble Viscount's suggestion that it might be wise not to extend our consideration of the Bill by amending it, so as to increase the speed with which it can be brought into effect.
One supports the broad principles of the Bill, but whether the proposed method is the best way to achieve the objective is quite another matter. I feel certain, particularly after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that this House could improve and extend the Bill. It will be interesting to learn whether that would be prudent in view of the urgency which the noble Baroness emphasised in her introductory remarks.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating so far as the Bill is concerned. It appears to me that it will involve much paper work. My noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal touched on that point, so I will not go into it at any length. There is bound to be considerable to-ing and fro-ing between the different levels of authority, and one can only hope that the final sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill will not prove to be an under-statement. We shall see. The noble Baroness touched on this point in her opening speech.
I now wish to turn to the Bill itself. I am not sure that I like the final sentence of Clause 1(3):
"The Secretary of State may by order alter that percentage or money sum, or both".
That seems to be fairly open-ended, and one wonders whether the urgency of the matter merits our agreeing to what amounts to a complete sanction to the Government to do what they think best. Clause 1(7) states:
"In the administration of this Act, local authorities shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State (after consulting their representative organisations) …".
I wonder whether that part of the clause goes far enough.
1670
It so happens that I was today discussing the Bill with a businessman who has technical experience of thermal insulation, and he has urged me to suggest that great care must be used in specifying the materials which may be used—or perhaps I should say which should not be used. I believe that highly efficient thermal insulation material may at the same time be highly inflammable. I refer here to polyurethane. It is not only highly inflammable, but its flash rate is 180 feet per second. Furthermore, not only does it burn with lightning pace, but it also gives off intensely toxic fumes and very dense clouds of smoke.
I suggest that perhaps it would be wise to include some control of materials within the scope of the Bill. There may be other regulations which cover this point, but I think that it is worth looking into and possibly including in the clause a requirement that any standard specified should be approved by the relevant fire-master.
Following those few suggestions, I wish to make a general comment on the Bill. I make no apologies for again referring to the importance of cheap rates for the supply of energy for space heating. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has had to leave the Chamber. It is no use insulating a house if it is not capable of being heated, anyway; that is manifestly obvious. I wish to emphasise that I am not decrying the need to encourage, indeed subsidise, thermal insulation, not only in order to improve the living conditions of occupants of houses but also—and this has not yet been referred to in the debate—to cut out the condensation which in many modern houses causes tremendous deterioration, which is quite unwarranted, but which arises from the fact that in many areas houses are not being properly heated because of the high cost of energy for domestic space heating.
Unquestionably, the most economic domestic space heating is provided by gas. I believe that that can be accepted. However, it must be remembered that there are large areas of the British Isles, including nearly all the rural areas, where gas is not available. Gas may be crossing the country in great pipelines, but it is not generally available to some people who have no other heating facility to hand

1671
except electricity. Experience shows that the electricity rates now are so high that much space heating equipment simply is not used. Thousands of night storage heaters lie idle. Several noble Lords have told me that this is the case in their homes. It is also the case on a large number of council estates where houses have been constructed without any ventilation adequate to deal with conditions which would not arise if electrical space heating were in use. Some time ago, one noble Lord referred to night storage heaters as being the biggest swindle of the century—or words to that effect—but I think he would agree that, intrinsically, the night storage heater is an efficient appliance. The swindle, if indeed it is fair to refer to it as such—and I hardly think it is—is that, having at that time very properly recommended to consumers the installation of these articles, the Electricity Boards became compelled to raise their tariffs until this form of space heating is now beyond the means of many consumers, some of whom have no alternative but electricity—which is the point I have already made.
What is to be done? Promote insulation, certainly. That is what we are doing today, and will continue to do in supporting the Government's Bill tonight. But it is clear that, despite the urgency which the noble Baroness expressed, this Bill is bound to be a fairly long-term affair. The figures given show that it will be a good many years before it spreads; and it will be a great achievement if a start is made as soon as was considered possible in the noble Baroness's speech. What we are up against now is an approaching winter which may be very severe, and the poor people, the old, the infirm and the handicapped, who have no other provision but electricity, are bound to suffer. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and, today, the noble Baroness, have mentioned the very proper steps which are being taken—electricity discount schemes, easy methods of payment, relaxation of disconnections, et cetera—to make it easier for the less well-to-do to have their homes properly warmed. But, of course, there is the problem of unpaid bills, which I believe is a very serious one. A large sum is involved, which presumably is never going to be paid.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his technical defence of the
1672
off-peak tariffs, but where are the gas and electricity surpluses going to go? Surely a Socialist Government could introduce a social angle to the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, was of course right when he pointed out that it was not within the powers of the nationalised industries to dispose of surpluses otherwise than within themselves. But, although the nationalised industries are thus in a straightjacket, this is not a debate on energy supplies so I will leave it at that. What I do urge, however, is that, if the will was there, the electricity rates for domestic space heating could be reduced. I believe that on technical grounds—and my knowledge of electricity supply, though not extensive, is fairly liberal—a number of Boards could reduce the off-peak tariffs without offending technical straight-jackets.
What can be done so that the surpluses can be used to this end? After all, the surpluses have been paid for by you and me through our bills for energy, and I believe that they should not be used—certainly not in a nationalised industry—so that rates to other people can be reduced in years to come. It is the consumers today who deserve careful consideration in regard to the disposal of profits such as are reported.
My Lords, I was encouraged the other day when two Peers, neither of whom sits on this side of the House and who spoke to me after my Question and Answer, supported my view that this was a problem with a social angle. I dare say that a lot can be said for that. There is a social angle to be applied here, not only for the people who are old and infirm but also for the maintenance of buildings which are deteriorating through lack of proper heating. I think that possibly there are many in the House who might agree with me that time spent on protecting the fox might well be spent on protecting the aged and the infirm among us.
6.45 p.m.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, we are here talking about a Homes Insulation Bill, but we have been bringing in very many issues other than those in the Bill. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the window tax, which went out some centuries ago. Of course, when we are talking about shutters on the inside of windows

1673
one can ask, what does a person do who has a 12-ft. window? It would be very inconvenient. This is a Bill which is going to provide money for people who desperately need some assistance in insulating their lofts, and I believe we have a duty to see that this Bill goes through speedily. If we put down too many Amendments, we shall lose the Bill; and I am pretty certain that the people on whose behalf the Government have brought this Bill forward will not thank us if we delay it or are the cause of the Bill being defeated.
There are five million homes without proper insulation in their lofts. I think we must move as quickly as possible in this field. It is a question of energy conservation, and I think it is important. I do not believe that, here, we ought to talk about the price of electricity or of gas, because we are here concerned with the question of conservation of energy and of making the best possible use of the resources that we have. I want this Bill to go through, and I would be very loth to see Amendments which are going to be embarrassing on the grounds of cost. I think that if we do everything we can to push it forward, we shall certainly get the thanks of the people whom the Government have in mind.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, although a number of noble Lords have expressed reservations about different parts of this Bill—I will ignore the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona; not his constructive points, but his side sweep at the Government: we shall be here enjoying the energy conservation programme which we shall have put into being—what pleased me was the general welcome given to the Bill and the acknowledgment that we need something of this sort. I think my noble friend Lord Plant was absolutely right when he said that this debate had ranged fairly wide, and I must admit that there were a number of extremely valid points which were made by various noble Lords but which, really, I think they will agree, are not strictly the subject of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, pointed out that the Bill was a long time coming. I think it would be extremely
1674
irresponsible of any Government to commit themselves to spending money in this way in order to help people save their own money without trying very hard to encourage and exhort them to do so. I am certainly one of that group of people who have already insulated their own lofts and walls, and therefore I shall not benefit from this Bill, or even from the topping-up, which is something to which reference was made. The other ways of dealing with the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made clear, will no doubt come up in Committee; and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, also referred to that.
I think several noble Lords referred to the question of double-glazing. It is perfectly true that in some situations it can be extremely effective, particularly when there is only one room which is being occupied. But, as I explained when introducing the Bill, this scheme has been designed to be the most cost-effective and to be the most widely used. If there is any under-spending—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, who raised this point—we will gladly consider what else can be done, but I very much doubt whether that will be so at this stage.
The noble Lord also made a point about the local authority grant of £125 against the £75 in the private sector. The local authority has to include all work done by the local authority because of the system of local authority financing. In any case, one is dealing with a smaller number of houses than when taking on the whole of the private sector. Anyone can apply. There is, as is quite clear, no means test in this at all. I do not think that 10 per cent. of the cost will go on people pushing paper around. We are putting an extra burden on the local authorities. They will have to monitor this scheme. It will mean a series of spot checks to see that the scheme is not being abused and, therefore, there will be extra work. Because, as noble Lords are aware, we have cut down expenditure on local authorities and their manpower, in putting this extra burden on them we have to make some compensation.
I will not deal in detail with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about dwellings without loft access, except to say that if a house has a loft and there is no means of access, then the cost of cutting the access and making good afterwards would be included in grant eligible

1675
work. He did say that he was going to put down an Amendment over the whole question of grant aid for further measures such as double glazing; so I will leave that point and other Committee points for the Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to the timing of the announcement. Whenever any scheme is announced it is bound to discourage insulation activities. We chose to announce in the summer when people's minds are rather less turned to it. We hope to get the Royal Assent by the summer. He is right when he says that if a number of Amendments are put down and if they are carried in this House, it could lead to delay in the passage of the Bill.
It is an extremely straightforward Bill. It is the start of a series of schemes, we hope; but we have to start in a fairly modest way. As I explained when I introduced the Bill, the Government specifically mention special categories of people: the old and the disabled. It will not need further legislation, as I emphasised originally, to bring this in directly we can expand the scheme. I would assure noble Lords that there is no question of not taking this not only into consideration but having great sympathy with and having it much in mind. This is why this is specifically written into the Bill. On the question of off-peak tariffs, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I cannot add more to what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and in his reply. I will pass his further remarks on to my colleagues in the Department of Energy. As to the high cost of electric heating, I would only reply in the words of my noble friend Lord Plant, that that is another point and is really not the concern of this Bill. The wide enabling powers provide for improving the Bill in the future; and we shall try to make each scheme as sensible and straightforward as possible.
It seems to me—and I am sure it would seem so to others—that it is a great pity that encouragement and exhortation has not, in fact, resulted in people saving energy and, in doing so, helping themselves. It is as a last resort that the Government have had to enter into a scheme which costs money and which falls on public expenditure. The energy
1676
situation and need for energy conservation is so important and, as all noble Lords have recognised, the urgency of it is so great, that we must go ahead. We hope to get this Bill through as quickly as possible because the first scheme can have an immediate impact on thousands of homes. It can produce significant energy savings, encourage people and set a good example so that some people will not wait without doing it themselves; and, as I pointed out, it is a great incentive for the "do it yourself" schemes to go ahead. I hope that noble Lords will agree to give the Bill a quick passage (as they have indicated) so that we can get it into operation in time for the autumn.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I ask again about the question of the sum of money, how it is to be operated and whether there is a danger of it running out? I made this point. It is an important and general one which greatly affects the whole operation of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I do not think there is any danger of it running out at the moment. We have given our, selves the flexibility commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to alter the amount. There is no doubt that if the Government find it is working successfully and we can allocate more resources to it, we shall do so. When one starts a scheme like this one must start it in a modest way, get it working and then see what the response is. It has been carefully costed. It has been discussed with the Building Research Establishment of my Department and with the local authority associations. They all feel that the amounts put forward by the Government at this stage are about right. This does not mean, I imagine, that there will not need to be increases in the future. Also, as the noble Lord will be aware, as new houses are built insulation is being incorporated in them, This means that one is really all the time increasing the housing stock with the insulation measures.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Baroness has said, if the applications flood in at a rate which will show that the £15 million allocated is likely to be over-subscribed, does it mean that when the Bill says that the Secretary of State may alter the percentage

1677
or money sum or both, that he might even reduce the modest £50 per dwelling in order to make the money go round to more people?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think that this is what the Secretary of State has in mind. I think that for a Second Reading I have answered sufficient points. I think that a number of points being raised now are Committee points and not substantial points for Second Reading. They are arising out of a general debate which seems to have started again; so that I will now sit down and "stay sat".
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EMPLOYMENT (CONTINENTAL SHELF) BILL
6.58 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Employment (Continental Shelf) Bill be read a second time. This Bill will enable the Government to extend the employment legislation we already have to a small and rather special set of circumstances: cross-boundary petroleum field. Most of the petroleum fields in the North Sea lie clearly on one side or the other of the median lines that have been drawn in the North Sea to separate each country's sector of the Continental Shelf. A few fields, however, do not fit neatly into this diplomatic packaging and lie across the median line.
Just like other petroleum fields, it is essential that they should be run smoothly. But cross-boundary fields lying partly under the control of one country and partly under the control of another, have particular problems so sort out. As if to compensate for that, the cross-boundary fields where the United Kingdom is currently involved—the Frigg, Statfjord and Murchison Fields—are among the best prospects in the North Sea. Statfjord is the biggest oilfield and Frigg is one of the largest gas fields, so far discovered in the North Sea. Frigg, Statfjord and Murchison all lie on the United Kingdom/Norweigan median line east of the Shetland Islands. The Frigg Gas Field was the first of these, and with its cluster of
1678
installations lying on both sides of the median line and its workers crossing and recrossing that line several times a day, it has posed the problems of cross-boundary fields particularly clearly.
An agreement between the United Kingdom and Norway on how the Frigg Fields should be operated was concluded in 1976. As regards employment legislation, the two Governments agreed that this should be applied consistently with the exploitation of the field as a single unit. Since then, we have been in touch with the Norwegians on the best way of extending employment legislation to the Frigg Field. We think that the most sensible arrangement would be for United Kingdom employment law to apply to United Kingdom based firms, irrespective where their employees happen to be working in the field, and that Norwegian law should apply likewise to Norwegian-based firms. This would mean that each firm would be working with the law it knows. We have consulted organisations representing United Kingdom employers and unions working offshore and they have both given their support to this proposal.
This Bill would give us the powers to give effect to this arrangement. At present, we have the power to extend our employment legislation only as far as the median line that separates the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf from the sectors of other countries. This Bill will enable us to extend employment legislation to the Norwegian part of the Frigg Field.
Although it is our discussions with Norway that has prompted us to take these powers at this time, the Bill will serve us well in any subsequent negotiations on other cross-boundary fields. Any order that is made under the Bill will be carefully tailored to the requirements of each particular case, and the Bill allows us flexibility to deal with a variety of circumstances. Any such order will of course have to be agreed with the foreign country controlling the foreign sector of the field, and there will have to be consultation with both sides of industry on the terms of the order. Both Houses of Parliament will then have the opportunity to examine the order.
As I am sure noble Lords realise, without the Bill we would find ourselves

1679
seriously handicapped in our dealings with the Norwegians. We would be trying to reach agreement with one hand tied securely behind our back. More than that, we would not be able to play our full part in ensuring the smooth running of this field and others, where we are in partnership with Norway. If we were unable to extend our employment legislation to the Norwegian side, this might well lead to a situation where employees of a United Kingdom firm working on one installation would be covered by United Kingdom employment law, but other employees of the same firm would be covered by Norwegian legislation, or, indeed, that they were all covered by Norwegian legislation. Obviously, moving employees from one job to another could lead to serious problems in deciding which law should apply.
This Bill has made rapid progress through the Commons, and arrives at this House unamended. Perhaps, however, I may comment briefly on why this Bill includes the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. This Bill is an enabling measure. It establishes the principle, and the subsequent orders made under it will sort out the matters of practice. The principle is that the Government be given powers to extend their employment law to a handful of new areas. It would be strange indeed if we were to make an exception to these enabling powers by excluding part of our employment law. This Bill is a small but sensible piece of legislation. It brings the scope of employment legislation into line with the requirements of work in the North Sea. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now Read 2a.—(Wallace of Coslany.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for explaining the purposes of the Bill. I must declare an interest, as I have done before, in being directly associated in part-time work with the offshore oil industry. As the noble Lord has said, this is an enabling Bill from which we can expect to have orders laid which would extend United Kingdom employment legislation beyond the median line separating the United
1680
Kingdom Continental Shelf from the Continental Shelf of other countries. It will apply to particular oil or gas fields which lie upon a median line and are divided in two by it. As the noble Lord has said, there are only three oil or gas fields at present in that situation. So the Bill is vey limited in its application; but it will fill a gap and I see nothing objectionable about its purpose. I commend it to your Lordships.
There are, however, some comments and questions which it prompts. It is an interesting example of reciprocal arrangements with another country. In all three cases, the country is Norway. I understand that Norway has already applied her own domestic legislation to the parts of the fields lying in our sector, so in fact they have moved before us, and what we are doing is reciprocal. When our Bill is passed, the results must depend upon negotiations with the other countries concerned. In the case of Norway, of course, this should not be difficult since they have the same idea in mind and have already passed their own domestic legislation. May I say in passing that, because I am involved in offshore exploration and production, I studied the agreement of 1976 between the United Kingdom and Norway upon the working of the Frigg field. That is a remarkable gas field, rather like a huge factory built across the frontiers of two countries, as if there were a factory which extended across the frontier between France and Germany. That is the kind of situation involved, but it is Continental Shelf instead of land.
The first question I should like to put to the noble Lord is this—and I was able to give him notice yesterday, so I hope he will be able to provide some information. Are there any significant differences between Norwegian employment legislation and ours? That is the important point where these three existing fields are concerned. So far as I know, no other country is yet in prospect; no fields are emerging upon medians involving countries other than Norway. Perhaps the Government may have greater information. If so, I hope that the noble Lord will tell us.
Then I come to another point. The Bill applies to fixed installations, and that was made clear when it was discussed in

1681
another place. But I think that some clarification of this is needed. The Bill is clearly intended for what are known as platforms, the structures installed on the seabed for a period of 15 to 20 years—that is, the life of a field. From those platforms the pumping and the controlling of the oilfield are carried out. The Bill clearly does not apply to vessels. Presumably tugs and supply boats working in these oil and gas fields will have applying to them the normal maritime codes under which law applies to ships on the high seas or in territorial waters.
However, then we come to the borderline. What about drilling rigs? Some of these are attached to the seabed while they are drilling or carrying out operations. Do they fall within the definition of fixed nstallations during that period? Of course, in the public mind and in the Press rigs and platforms are very often used as if they were the same thing. But in the offshore industry they are very different. Here is a case in point where it is quite clear that platforms will fall within the Bill but it is not at all clear whether rigs will do so.
If, as I assume, rigs are not in the Bill but platforms are, what about other equipment installed in offshore oilfields: for example, pipe laying barges and other offshore equipment that is manned and attached to the sea bed at various times while it is operating? There are floating systems as well a platforms for oil recovery at present, and in the future it looks as though there will be more of these as exploration and production move into deeper water, especially to the west of Shetland, where recently a new find of some magnitude has been announced. There were also prospects of subsea installations; that is to say, instead of having a platform subjected to wind and waves on the surface, in deep water it may be possible and more practicable in the future to have some installation on the seabed which is manned but like a permanent submarine on the bottom. Would that fall within the ambit of this Bill? What I am really asking the Government—and I do not ask for a detailed reply at this point; I have given some examples—is this: are the Government sure that the dividing line is clear and certain as to what will fall within this Bill and what will not? Can they be certain that they have covered
1682
all the various kinds of installation in use or in prospect?
Now I come to another point about which I have given notice. In relation to employment, I cannot resist referring to the fact that the Bill particularly makes the Sex Discrimination Act exercisable in these fields. I understand that it applies already up to the median and so it is logical to include it in this extension of employment legislation beyond the medians. Here some statistics and information would be relevant and interesting. Can the Government give a figure of the number of women working on platforms or rigs in the United Kingdom sector at present and, if so, on what kind of work? Do they work as cooks or as cleaners, or do they do other domestic work? The noble Lord might also be able to give some information about women working on offshore installations in other parts of the world. We know, for example, that the Soviet Union are starting exploration in waters round their coasts, and it would he no surprise if women were working there, because we know that they do undertake heavy manual work. There are also several countries in the Far East where one sees women, and not men, doing the heavy work on the roads and elsewhere. An enterprising Amazon in this country or a women's lib. enthusiast may well aspire to becoming a roughneck or a roustabout, and in the spirit of the Act, therefore, I shall speak of "oil persons".
If mention of this Sex Discrimination Act means anything, we must consider the possible future impact on the two heads. The first is that equal pay must be given for equal work done in the same conditions. That should raise very little difficulty. There has been no past tradition of lower rates for women, because this is a new industry for Britain. More difficult is the question of equal opportunities. Applications to work in domestic or other jobs on the rigs or platforms may already have come in. Presumably any rejections would have to be substantiated, if they were contested through the channels which the Act provides, if the women who had applied felt that they were being turned down and not given equal opportunities. I should be grateful for any comment from the Government on this. I would add that at the moment there is no outward sign

1683
of women being involved in work offshore. There is a shift system which most companies operate, on the basis of their men doing ten days to two weeks at a time working on a rig or platform and then having the same period off duty ashore. It is hard and concentrated work during the days when they are on the job and they work unsociable hours, but for rewards in pay which in general are thought to be satisfactory.
A reflection of the present system is evident at airports, where the turnover of personnel working offshore continually takes place; for example, at Aberdeen or, even more so, at Sunburgh in the Shetlands, where I was only six weeks ago. The "oil persons" are easily recognisable in jeans and waterproof jackets, with here and there a stetson; but at Sunburgh in particular they form at least three-quarters of the traffic passing through the airport. They are being flown in on charter flights and then out to and from their North Sea work by helicopter. I have seen no women among them, but I think I should say here that of course we ought to recognise the important work they are carrying out. I include in that the company's engineers and all their technical staff who work in difficult conditions—important work for the United Kingdom economy. Since the Sex Discrimination Act is to be extended in this way, I would ask the Government whether they can enlighten us about the employment of women in offshore work in this new industry. It would be interesting to know whether or not the proposal is purely an academic one.
7.16 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, particularly for having advised me in advance of two of his very pertinent questions. He asked me first about the differences in legislation between Norway and our own country. There are some similarities but also some important differences. Norwegian law regulates working hours in terms both of the length of the working week and day and in limiting the night work and overtime permissible. Working hours in the United Kingdom are in general a matter for negotiation and
1684
agreement between the employer and his employees.
Also, Norwegian law contains no provisions relating to race or sex discrimination in employment matters. One of the most important differences in practical terms concerns the different processes involved in resolving a dispute arising from the provisions of the legislation. In the United Kingdom, employees can apply for an industrial tribunal hearing. In Norway, employees who feel they may have been unfairly dismissed may demand negotiations with the employer. Only if this fails may the employee open legal proceedings in the local town or district court, acting as a labour disputes court. I would add that it is important for United Kingdom employers and employees to deal with legislation with which they are familiar, and I do not think the noble Lord would disagree. It would be difficult for a United Kingdom employee, for example, to pursue a claim under Norwegian law through the Norwegian courts. I think the arrangement is a very sensible one, as it is projected at the moment.
The noble Lord asked me whether any other countries apart from Norway are at present involved, and the answer to that question is "No". As to the application of domestic legislation to our sector by the Norwegians, I can say that they have power to do so but have said they will not apply it to United Kingdom employees.
On the question of drilling rigs, offshore installations and the innumerable other examples that the noble Lord gave us, I shall be very brief about this. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity to clarify what employment will be covered by the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, we already have powers to extend employment legislation offshore up to the median line, but those powers are limited to employment connected with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of the national resources in any designated area. This Bill extends the geographical scope of these powers to foreign sectors of cross-boundary fields, but the limitation on employment remains the same. The employment has to be connected with the exploration or exploitation of the Continental Shelf. The Bill does not seek to specify any more closely the nature of this employment and

1685
it does not deal with offshore installations, ships and the like. These will be matters for the orders to be made under the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, would he therefore confirm that vessels such as supply boats, which will be wholly engaged in helping with exploration, would none the less not come under this legislation, because they are already covered like other vessels at Sea?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, giving an immediate answer on the spot, I would say, Yes, that is so, because they have a port from which they sail, a depot and a headquarters area. So I take it that that is definitely so. If there is any change, I will certainly notify the noble Lord, but it seems obvious to me.
On the question of women, I cannot give figures. I do not know how many women are involved in offshore exploration and exploitation. Companies do not have to provide the Government with such details. I believe there are a few, but in these changing times their numbers may well be expected to increase. If the noble Lord has, like myself, received a publication from the Equal Opportunities Commission, he will have been staggered to see the fields which women are now entering, and I do not see why they should not. The noble Lord said that life is tough in these fields. We are tending to be a little old-fashioned. Women are very tough, too, and there is not the slightest reason why, if women can become engineers and scientists, they should not be given the same opportunities and rates as men.
I am going off at a tangent, because this is a subject on which I have very strong views. In any event, I think the noble Lord will agree that it is not relevant at this stage. Even if no women are employed in this way at present there may well be some later on and, in fact, I expect there to be. We just have to provide for that eventuality. What I said about sex equality also applies to the subject of race. Obviously, British subjects of a different colour might be involved and probably are, so cases may arise. However, we shall deal with them in legislation as they arise. But there is need for the Sex Discrimination Act and
1686
the Race Relations Act to be included. I hope that the House will support this Bill and give it a very quick passage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  REVENUE COLLECTIONS: RATES AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  REVENUE COLLECTIONS: RATES AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE