I think that It is the feeling of the House that we might have a general debate on all the Prayers that are before us this morning. I must point out, however, that we cannot debate today Motion No. 20 which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

It would be convenient, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, to discuss not only the Prayers but the Government Motions. I understand that there is a difficulty about notice to withdraw but, of course, it is part of the substance of our argument that the Regulations should be annulled because the appointed day is too soon. I imagine that a general debate will be acceptable.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make his comment about the appointed day tomorrow. We cannot discuss this morning what is on tomorrow's Order Paper. I know that it is rather difficult.

I gather from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in order to deal with any of the issues raised either on the Government's Motions or on the Opposition Prayers—for example, the rate of levy.

We can debate everything except Motion No. 20, which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow. Perhaps I can help the House. If we proceed tomorrow—and I understand that the debate may pass over to tomorrow—Motion No. 20 will become part of the discussion.

It might assist the House, Mr. Speaker, if I say that the Government would not mind a passing reference to the fact that these provisions all come into effect on 6th April.

What the Government would or would not mind is not a matter for the Chair. This is purely a question of order.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a National Fund of a permanent nature to be available to those who suffer in any designated disaster; and for connected purposes.

I realise that in framing such legislation, certain important principles have to be reconciled. The first is to maintain what I would describe as the spontaneity of the moment so as in no way to discourage the generous instincts of members of the public who, faced with a national tragedy, wish to subscribe to a particular disaster fund. The second is to preserve the widest possible degree of local initiative. The third is to prevent money from being frozen in a charitable fund or trust in the event of its being over-subscribed. The fourth is to create a central fund, capable of making immediate grants for relief and thereby removing the present delay between the occurrence of the disaster and the successful launching of an appeal. The need is greatest within hours of the tragedy occurring.

Disaster funds may run into very large sums of money. The Lord Mayor's Fund for the East Coast Disaster in 1953 reached about £5 million and the Aberfan Fund has already reached £1½ million. On the Central Register of the Charity Commissioners are recorded countless disaster funds, ranging from numerous mining disasters to lifeboat and lightship disasters. Some are very old indeed and cover every form of tragedy in this century.

One colliery explosion fund, launched in 1910, still has £19,000; another has £200,000; the Titanic Disaster Fund, launched in 1912, was wound up two years ago. It is true, of course, that many funds have to make continuing provision for contingent liabilities—fot example, towards dependants and possibly future dependants.

It is also true that, under the Charities Act, 1960, the Charity Commissioners have a slightly greater discretion to enlarge the scope of charitable funds, but the cy près doctrine is such that the enlarged objectives have to be as close as possible to the original purpose and the money cannot be used for general charitable purposes. Often, references are made to the courts at great expense and the litigation is frequently protracted. The Lynton-Lynmouth Fund, launched in 1953 to deal with the tragedy in my constituency, was the subject of High Court proceedings. Fortunately that fund now has been completely spent. The Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester Fund to make provision for the 27 Royal Marine cadets who were killed involved litigation stretching over 13 years to decide what should happen to the residue of that fund, and, indeed, the litigation absorbed half the balance.

What I seek to do is, first, to set up a national disaster fund, which I suggest should be administered by the Charity Commissioners, who would submit an annual report to Parliament. Second, in cases where the Secretary of State certifies that an event or happening constitutes a national disaster, a certificate to that effect should be published in the London Gazette. The effect would be that a local authority in the afflicted area would have the right to make an immediate call upon the fund and would still have continuing rights to launch a local appeal. Third, at the end of a specified period, which I suggest might be two years, any surplus remaining in the fund should be transferred to the central disaster fund. This would take charge of any continuing obligations, for example, possible future commitments for dependants and future dependants. In many cases, funds have had to be kept going not because there is money which has to be paid out but because of the possibility of claims being made in the future.

I do not think that it is right to expect a mayor to act in perpetuity as the administrator or trustee of a disaster fund, and, therefore, it would be wise in those cases, after a designated period, to transfer any surplus to a central fund. I am certain that that would meet with the approval of the general public. It has been a matter which has been debated at party conferences, I think first at the Labour Party Conference in 1934. The Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts went into it in some detail in 1952. If the general public were consulted, I am certain that it would be agreed that this is the sort of formula which would combine the factors of which I have spoken. They want to show sympathy with victims of a disaster, but, should the fund be oversubscribed, to make any surplus available to others who may suffer misfortune in the future.

I am aware that this is a complicated matter touching upon the law relating to trusts and the administration of charities. I have been fortunate in getting wide support from all quarters of the House, and I am specially grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is here and to the other sponsors of the Bill who have agreed to support me. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it and give it a First Reading.

This may be a case where, after discussions with the Ministers of the Crown whose Departments are involved, the C.C.A., the A.M.C., the Red Cross and the Charity Commissioners and, assuming that the House agrees to the general principle, the House might agree to a formal Second Reading and then send it to a Committee.

There is great public disquiet on this matter. I believe a measure of this sort is long overdue and, therefore, I beg leave to introduce this Bill.

I beg to move,

That the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you be good enough to clarify one point in the Ruling which you gave earlier? As I understand it, you told the House that hon. Members could discuss the Government Motions and Prayers this morning but not the Motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the appointed day. If an hon. Member has the good fortune to catch your eye this morning, on that Ruling, he will not be entitled to refer to the appointed day. Does that mean that an hon. Member who wishes to raise that issue and who has spoken this morning on the issue limited to the Prayers and the Motions, will require the leave of the House to make a speech tomorrow morning relating to the appointed day?

I am afraid that he will require the leave of the House. However, in the unusual circumstances, it might be possible that the House would give him that leave.

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, it will meet with the convenience of the House to discuss with this Order the following Motions to approve Regulations and the Prayers in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). They all relate to the coming into operation of the Land Commission and the betterment levy, and they all come into effect on 6th April.

None of these provisions has occasioned any surprise; nor have the reactions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite occasioned my surprise. In most cases, the provisions of the Regulations have been anticipated during our discussions on the Bill at various stages, and they are consequential upon the Land Commission itself or declarations of intent which were made during consideration of the Bill.

That is certainly true of the Order which I have just moved, which is probably the most important. That prescribes the rate of the betterment levy at 40 per cent. Certainly that will not surprise anyone because, as long ago as September, 1965, it was said in the White Paper that the betterment levy would be prescribed at

"an initial rate of 40 per cent, which in the Government's view is a modest rate leaving ample incentive to owners to offer their land for development."

It went on to declare

"the Government's intention to increase the rate progressively to 45 per cent, and then to 50 per cent, at reasonably short intervals."

It said also:

"The question of increasing the rate further will be examined as acquisitions by the Commission, and thus their ability to provide land for development, increase."

I remain convinced that 40 per cent, is a modest rate. It has not attracted any serious criticism and seems to be generally acceptable.

That is equally true of the second of the Motions dealing with the Material Development Regulations. That has caused no surprise. It closely follows the full statement which I made in Standing Committee on 4th August last year. This, in effect, provides for exemptions from the levy. Again it is generally welcomed because, by and large, it makes a more generous provision for exemption than was made in the case of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

There has been a good deal of misrepresentation about this, but I think that the publication which we have issued recently has gone a long way to correct this misinterpretation of the Act. For instance, it is widely known that the rebuilding of a house, providing it does not increase the floor area by more than 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater, is exempt from levy; that improving, altering or extending a house, including adding a garage, providing it does not increase the floor area by more than 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater, again is exempt from levy; that turning a house into flats is exempt from levy; that the rebuilding of any other building except a house, providing it does not increase either the cubic content or floor space by more than 10 per cent. or, in the case of an industrial building, by more than 5,000 sq. ft. is exempt from levy; and that the erection of any building necessary for farming on agricultural land, except for big isolated factory farming units, again is exempt from levy.

I have given those illustrations because there has been a good deal of misrepresentation of the provisions which we are making.

In the case of advertisements, however, the provisions are more limited. This is a matter which was discussed thoroughly during the proceedings on the Bill. Sites for hoardings are not exempt. Broadly, under the first paragraph of the Schedule, only minor advertising is exempt; that is, only advertising which may be displayed without express consent under the 1960 Regulations. The third Government Motion—the Minerals Regulations—again has been thoroughly discussed during the proceedings on the Bill. They deal, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate, with a particularly difficult aspect of development. It is difficult because minerals are a wasting asset, and it is more easy to pass on levy in the form of extra price—for instance, price per ton of gravel—to the consumer.

I call attention to two factors. First, we provide that all mining leases are notifiable. They are compulsorily notifiable even though they are for less than seven years. This is because of the modern methods of extraction. Second, a substantial exemption is provided for the mineral operator in Regulation 11.

Having said that these provisions occasioned me no surprise, I should say that this particular one has occasioned me surprise, because there are three printing slips in the Minerals Regulations. All of them are cross-references. As these are draft Regulations, I would ask for the permission of the House to correct them as printing errors when the Regulations are printed.

The fourth Motion concerns the Case F General Regulations. Again, this closely follows the statement I made about the effect of these Regulations when we discussed this matter during the proceedings on the Bill.

Again, they contain nothing unexpected. They provide for three cases: first, the renewal or extension of tenancies or variation of the terms and conditions of tenancies where it makes it possible to realise the development value by releasing or modifying some previous restriction on development—that is, cases comparable to those in Case B. Second, the grant of wayleaves to Government Departments or statutory undertaker—that is comparable to Case E. Finally, there are the cases where there are rights of compensation for depreciation under the Statutes set out in the Schedule. They correspond to Case D.

There are also supplementary Regulations and Credit from Case F Regulations. I should explain why it is necessary to have separate Regulations. We have not included them in a single Case F Regulation, because the powers for those two additional Regulations derive not from Section 35 but from Schedule 7 and Schedule 5.

The other provisions are not unexpected. The most difficult and complicated are Tenancies and Reversions Regulations. Several Regulations are procedural, those providing for notification, those providing for vesting declaration in accordance with Sections 9 and 21, the Development Plan (Specification) Regulation, which are pursuant to Section 6, subsection (3)—these are necessary because they deal with subordinate legislation—the Expenditure Regulations which avoid the double allowance for expenditure on improvements and ancillary rights, and the Waiver of Interest Regulations which are pursuant to Section 51. These follow an undertaking which we gave in Standing Committee, that the collection of the levy would be postponed in the case of factory extensions, agricultural dwelling houses, development under a time limited-planning permission, indoor sports buildings, and where the interest charged is a reversionary interest.

As we have agreed to the postponement of the levy, it would be unfair—in fact, it would make the postponement of little value—if meanwhile, interest was charged, and so, by these Regulations, we provide for the waiver of interest in these cases where the collection of the levy will be postponed.

The National Coal Board Regulations are necessary to define operational land in the case of the National Coal Board.

There is also the Rate of Interest Order. I am happy to say that as the Bank Rate has now been reduced, the reduction of the rate of interest is a matter which we are at present considering.

I have briefly introduced these provisions. I have not dealt with them comprehensively, because many are subject to Prayer, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and, if necessary, with leave, I myself, will reply to points raised on them. I have emphasised that none of them is unexpected. All have been previously discussed during our proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that any of them are controversial in the sense that they go beyond what is expected of the Land Commission Act.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the details of these Motions, he told us that in the case of the betterment levy tenancy and reversions Regulations there were some printing errors. I do not ask him to go through them in detail now, but could he furnish hon. Members on this side of the House with a corrected copy before the end of the debate? We may not think that they are just printing errors. I do not blame Her Majesty's Stationery Office for getting fed up with all these Orders. I have one before me, where they have skipped from pages 2 to 7 and from pages 10 to 15—that is the tenancies and reversions Order. I do not blame Her Majesty's Stationery Office, with 22 Orders, for getting fed up.

The hon. Gentleman has failed to pay attention to what I said. I was referring to the Minerals Regulations when I said that there were three printing errors regarding cross-references. I will let the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have these immediately. They are merely printing errors in cross references. I commend this Order and the following Motions to the House.

We are grateful to the Minister of State for introducing the Regulations and the Order in this way. I quite understand why he has done so briefly. If he had attempted really to explain what has happened, he would have taken the whole of the two day debate. What we have to consider today and tomorrow afternoon and night, and what the public and the professions have to master, are no fewer than 22 Orders and Regulations amounting to 150 pages of complex detail, give or take a page or two left out by the printers. Some of those Regulations were laid as recently as 14th March and 16th March, and there are more to come.

I do not think that there is anyone in this House or outside who does not by now know that the Opposition are committed to repeal the Land Commission Act, which we think is incompatible with the needs of the nation, incomprehensible to the ordinary man or woman, and to most, if not all, experts will prove unworkable, will put up the price of houses, and will paralyse, as it is paralysing now, the land market. At the same time, we have to accept, today and tomorrow, that we have to live with this Act for the time being, and we shall try to make it operate with the minimum of difficulty and damage. Therefore—in any event, I must do so—I readily accept that we must proceed now on the assumption that this Act comes into force on 6th April.

What the Government must understand is that these Orders and Regulations, so recently laid, and which are to come into operation on 6th April, cannot, with the best will in the world, be mastered within that time by the people who have to operate them. We are therefore asking the Government to reconsider the date on which these Orders and Regulations are to be brought into operation, and to withdraw them for further study and comment. We on this side of the House have many detailed criticisms of the Regulations and Orders and I shall deal with some of them in due course.

Meanwhile, we have a completely crazy situation in this country in which developers who are lucky enough to have planning permission are desperately digging away to try to avoid the liability to pay the levy. Others are besieging, or should I say beseeching, local planning authorities to give them planning permission so that they can start digging before 6th April. I think that some local authorities are to keep their staffs working over Easter to try to help.

In those circumstances, and with so much genuine doubt about what the law is under the Act, and what it will be under this great batch of Orders and Regulations, or what it might be after the next batch to come, perhaps some of them before 6th April, it really is foolish for the Government to press ahead with this great wadge of legislation heedless of the consequences. It seems as though the Minister's spiritual home is the last ditch dug before 6th April.

In spite of the volume of Regulations, there remain numerous matters of doubt on which no guidance is available and we cannot find it in these Orders and Regulations. The Finance Bill in particular will have to provide for the interaction between, first, the levy and the Capital Gains Tax, and, secondly, between the levy and Income Tax and Surtax on land profits. The Minister referred to an initial development levy of 40 per cent., but this is not the whole story from the point of view of the land traders. The tax will be much more of the order of 64 per cent., or even over 70 per cent. if it is a close company, and the position is worse when the levy is increased, as the Minister suggested it might be, in a short period.

We have to consider, too, the interaction between the levy and the short-term gains tax. We also have to consider the interaction between the levy and the tax on rents and premiums in connection with leases. It may be that we should be arguing that the Finance Bill should be introduced before 6th April so that we can know what the position will be under the Act and under these Orders and Regulations.

Order. We must come to the Regulations.

We have said that the only thing to do is to deal with all this together. We are concerned not only about what is in the Regulations, but what is not in them. We want them to be withdrawn, partly because we think they are very bad Orders and Regulations and ought to be amended, and partly because we think that other matters ought to be added for the avoidance of difficulty.

For instance, the matters with which these Regulations and Orders ought to deal, and which—

Order. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this is a very broad debate, but it is not broad enough to include amending the Regulations.

I hope that it is broad enough to allow us to argue that the Regulations ought to be annulled so that new and better Regulations can be brought in in their place. We are asking for them to be annulled not only because some of them are, or will be, objectionable, but because they will not enable people to know what the law will be under them unless they are suitably amended.

For instance, the Regulations say nothing about the principles on which crownhold and concessionary crownhold dispositions are to be made, or how the Commission will dispose of land which it buys or acquires. Above all, a number of people are concerned that these Orders and Regulations—unless I have misread them—do not set out the circumstances in which the Commission will allow the payment of levy to be postponed or to be paid by instalments.

Some difficulties have already arisen. First, the builder does not know how slow the Commission will be in telling him when he will have to pay the 40 per cent., levy. The Order is silent on this. All we know is that the Act provides for a period of six years. On the other hand, the Commission may be too quick in asking for the levy, and the builder may be called on to pay the levy before he has sold the houses which he has erected. On both these matters some guidance ought to be given in the Regulations.

Thirdly—and if I have misread the Regulations perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell me whether it is, in fact, included—we have no guidance on the principles on which exemption from levy will be granted or refused under Section 59, which deals with the housing associations, or the circumstances under which a direction may be made under Section 60 which deals with exemptions from levy under Case C if approved by the Commission.

Fourthly, regulations are still required under Section 63, which gives the general power to grant additional exemptions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the exemptions in this batch of Regulations and Orders represent the limit. Fifthly, perhaps he can tell us when we are to get the regulations dealing with equitable interests and estate duty.

Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance. I am anxious to be at the service of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked about Section 63. I do not think that this Section as such comes into any of these Orders, although we have made some statements about this, including during the debate raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). I do not want to be discourteous, but I wonder whether you would say how far my right hon. Friend or I would be in order in replying to this point—or others—which I do not think is specifically covered in the Regulations and Orders.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. This is a difficulty. I must rule, as I rule for all debates on Orders, that the debate must be confined to the Orders and Regulations themselves. I cannot object to the passing reference which the right hon. and learned Member has made, but we cannot widen the debate too far.

I shall say no more about Section 63. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that it is not covered.

The Minister referred, I thought with some pride, to the guidance which has been given in the leaflets and booklets issued by his Ministry. This guidance, up to a point, covers the Regulations, as far as the printers can keep up with the flow anyway. Some of them are referred to, but not others. But such guidance as exists on these matters is dangerous misleading or inadequate, and the public should be warned against these so-called "child guides". They contain their own warning, but this can be missed by anybody relying on apparently straightforward statements.

For example, there is this little green booklet entitled "Land Commission and You" which starts by saying:

"There are about one million land transactions every year in Great Britain. Only a small proportion—perhaps 10 to 15 per cent.—is likely to be affected by the Land Commission"

which begins to function on 6th April 1967. That is manifestly an inaccurate statement.

Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will help. The general feeling of the House is that we can have a wide debate, but that width is not unlimited. I should have thought that in the Orders and Regulations before us we had scope for a very wide debate.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious not to have to ask the leave of the House to speak again tomorrow on what might be technically a wider Motion, but what we have to consider in relation to these 22 Orders and Regulations is how far the public will be able to understand them by the date on which they come into operation.

There is some guidance on the Orders and Regulations in the leaflets and booklets which have been put out by the Ministry, but I feel it my duty on behalf of the Opposition to warn the public that they cannot rely on the guidance in these booklets, because if these Orders and Regulations are approved there will be something to be added which may very much affect the guidance which has been given.

Many more people will be affected than may be realised. It is not a question of 10–15 per cent.—150,000 transactions a year, and probably more, as a result of the Leasehold Reform Bill; it is every transaction which has to be notified. Every person concerned with a land transaction—and not just those who have to pay the levy—is concerned with what is in these Orders and Regulations, and they should be able to understand them. They should not be misled into thinking that only a comparatively small number of people are affected.

Then we have the Guide for Builders and Developers on the Betterment Levy and the Guide for Estate Agents and Surveyors on the Betterment Levy. These also refer to what may happen under the Orders and Regulations, on the assumption that they are approved. But people are being expected to make decisions on the basis of declarations that in certain circumstances no levy will be payable. What must be understood is that people who may spend thousands of pounds in transactions will have to understand in detail the contents of these Regulations and Orders, covering about 150 pages of legal jargon.

On the first page of the Guide for Estate Agents and Surveyors it is said that

"it is intended only to be a guide to the Act and not a legally binding interpretation of it."

It says that it should often enable advisers to avoid detailed references to the Act in dealing with day-to-day matters. In other words, it suggests that the Orders and Regulations should be examined only when one is in a mess. That is exactly comparable to people being involved in a building contract saying, "We never looked at it until there was a dispute." It must be understood that if people take action without having studied not only the law as it stands but the law as it will be if these Regulations and Orders are approved, they may be in grave difficulty.

On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the effect of these publications, and has done so in a quite outrageous way. I understood that our debate on these Orders and Regulations was confined to their content. If I had realised that there was to be a general debate on the publications to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred I would have dealt with them in my speech.

I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to be that the complexity of these Orders and Regulations in some way invalidated the explanatory documents which have gone before.

So far the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made that point. He has dealt at large with those publications. His quotation has no reference to these Orders and Regulations.

I hope that we shall not get bogged down on points of procedure in this useful debate. That means that there must be good will by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) must try to keep within the rules of order.

I am trying very hard, Mr. Speaker. I say that the Government should withdraw these guides and amend them in the light of these Orders and Regulations.

That is out of order.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to improve my position, but I have obviously made it worse.

It is the same with the off-yellow booklet—the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum—which says:

"This memorandum will be supplemented by practice notes issued by the Land Commission itself from time to time and should not be considered, therefore, a comprehensive guide to the Act in itself."

We do not have their practice notes. It goes on to say a number of other things to which I will not refer but which I might otherwise have sought to challenge. What are the Government going to do to bring these booklets up to date, and, above all, to explain to the public what these Orders and Regulations mean?

That is the last thing that I shall say about that matter, because it is right that I should move on. We have these guides, which are dangerously inadequate; we have professional guidance, which is limited; we do not have the Finance Bill which is unavailable, and we do not have the practice notes which are also unavailable. It is against this background that we ask the Government at least to withdraw these 22 Orders and Regulations in order that professional and other bodies can comment on them.

It may be that the Chinese mathematicians in the basement of the Ministry can understand these Statutory Instruments. For some intellectuals they may make a change from The Times crossword puzzle. But they require hours of patient and intense study before 6th April. I am told that I have understated the position, and that they will require weeks of study. No wonder some professional men are paying up to 30 guineas for two-day crash courses of lectures in order to know where they will stand by 6th April.

With those few introductory remarks, I turn to the Orders and Regulations themselves. I shall not comment on every one but I want to say something about the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order. The Minister referred to this as imposing a modest rate of 40 per cent. I hope that he will indicate that that 40 per cent. is already in no sense the limit of taxation on these transactions, and will give a clearer indication than he gave in opening of when he imagines the levy will be raised, first to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. I hope that he will also give an undertaking that it will never be raised above 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will also take this opportunity to indicate when the second appointed day will be.

The Minister also dealt with the Betterment Levy (Minerals) Regulations. He said that this was a difficult part of the Act. No doubt, in accordance with his undertaking, we shall hear about the three printing errors in these Regulations, so that we can consider whether we should give leave for the necessary amendments to be made. As the debate proceeds we shall, no doubt, hear of the other errors and omissions in the printing.

The minerals Regulations make amendments to the Act in order that the levy shall apply to the grant of mineral leases and licences. As these Regulations are, in effect, amendments to the Act, we must be careful about giving leave for errors to be put right. Secondly, while they provide for an exemption from the levy in most cases where a mineral operator is starting work on mineral development, they do not provide an exemption for a landowner granting a lease or licence to a mineral operator. Perhaps the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why this artificial and apparently arbitrary distinction has been made.

As I understand it, the effect of Regulation 11 is to exempt projects of mineral development from the levy in Case C. first, where a developing owner was a mineral undertaker on 23rd September, 1965, and would have been a developing owner on that date t or, secondly, where he is a mineral undertaker who acquired the land concerned on or after 23rd September, 1965, but before the first appointed day; or, thirdly, where he acquired the land on or after the first appointed day under a disposition duly notified as a chargeable act or event.

Effectively, projects are always exempt except where an undertaker bought the land under a chargeable disposition not notified as it should have been. It appears that there is an exemption except in that sole instance whether the land was bought before or after the appointed day. It is difficult to understand why this was not said in five lines—that is, if my interpretation of the position is correct.

Regulation 10(3) could hardly be more unhelpful. It says:

"In relation to a project of mineral development 'specified operation' shall include, in addition to what is specified in section 64(3), any operation in the course of winning or working minerals."

That contrasts unfavourably with the precise specified operations described in Section 64(3) of the Act. Such uncertainty in defining a specified operation is inexcusable, because the commencement of one without prior notification is a criminal offence. It is no good having page after page of Regulations which do not define a specified operation which may attract levy or criminal charges.

The Minister then dealt briefly with the Case F General Regulations arising under Section 35 and said that it would be convenient to take them with the Case F Supplemental Regulations, Order No. 299, and the credits for Case F Regulations, No. 300, which derive from Schedules 5 and 7. These three sets of Regulations, which are linked also with the regulations over tenancies and reversions, are a shambles. They contain nothing which could not or should not have been included in the Act. Category 1 of Case F events dealt with in paragraph (3), are treated as grants of tenancies and Case B should be defined so as to include them. Category 2, that is, paragraph (4), dealing with the rates in the nature of easements, is indistinguishable from Case E, except for a few definitions and Category 3, that is paragraph (5), dealing with depreciations, which is similarly indistinguishable from Case D.

Provisions in the Regulations as to notification, calculations of levy and credits follow Cases B, D and E so closely that the need for Case F is hardly apparent. If it is necessary, we shall want some explanation as to why. Paragraph 3, of the Case F Supplemental Regulations, Order No. 299, perpetrates a possible injustice, in that it provides that, as in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 in relation to cases D or E events, intervention of a Case F event will prevent reliance on a previous disposition as a base value on future assessments. That is unexceptional and is, no doubt, clear to all my hon. Friends and to the general public.

However, in relation to Case D and Case E events, Schedule 6(16) provides that reliance on a previous disposition is prevented only in respect of the land affected by the Case D or E events. No such apportionment provision has been made in respect of Case F. Accordingly, if I am right, if an estate is bought, with a subsequent grant of a wayleave, to, perhaps, an electricity authority to lay an underground cable under a small part of it, no reliance could thereafter be placed on the purchase price of the estate as the base value. In other words, if there was an intervention of a Case D or E event, in the case of part of the land, the benefit would be lost of previous dispositions in respect of the whole of the land. That, I hope, is clear.

Para. (5) of the Case F Supplemental Regulations and the explanatory note to it, attain a new level of unintelligibility. Para. 5(3) provides:

"Where the tenancy the subject of the disposition (in this regulation referred to as 'the old tenancy') was granted by a disposition falling within the antecedent period, the normal reversionary element shall be an amount equal to what would have been the consideration given for the last relevant disposition of the chargeable interest if that interest had been the interest which the chargeable owner in fact had in the relevant land immediately before the disposition (no regard being had to the hypotheses which are required to be adopted under para. (4) of that regulation for the purpose of assessing levy in respect of that disposition)."

If anyone within or without the House can understand that, I admire him. They will, of course, have the benefit of the explanatory note, which says:

"These are adaptations to base value, whether found under Schedule 4 or 5 to the Act, by an amount to take account of the notional surrender of the tenancy and by an amount to offset (where appropriate) "—

What that means, God only knows—

"the additional consideration deemed to have been given by the tenant for the renewal, extension or variation of the tenancy.

Regulation 5 of the present regulations, for the purpose of ascertaining the modified value, provides for the addition to base value, whether found under Schedule 4 or 5 to the Act, of the amount which is added to base value in the Case F assessment, to take account of the notional surrender of the tenancy. The other amount mentioned above is not appropriate for the purpose of finding the modified value."

In that case, what does "where appropriate" mean?

I now turn to something more complicated, the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations, No. 298. The manner in which these Regulations have been made is inexcusable. Most, if not all, of them should or could have been contained in the Schedule, since they cover the same ground as the Schedules and make much of Schedules 4, 5 or 6 completely meaningless in relation to any tenancies or reversions. People have been studying these Schedules for weeks but must now consider them in the light of Regulations which make them unintelligible.

Paragraph (3), for example, provides that the provisions of Paragraph (3) of Schedule 5 shall apply to related tenancies subject to grants as well as assignments of these tenancies. It might have been simpler and less misleading to have incorporated the Regulation in Part III, but that is water under the bridge. Paragraph (4) in effect amends paragraph (4) of Schedule 6, which is objectionable. We must always beware of such things. We know that the Act was in a mess, but it should not be amended now, by Orders and Regulations.

The function of Paragraph (4) appears to be the correction of an error or the supplying of an omission in the drafting of that paragraph in the Act. Every Regulation, so far as I understand, alters the effect of the Schedule in favour of the Commission and against the levy payer. That must be wrong. Paragraph (5), for example, elaborately apportions base value of the reversion between the right to receive rent under the tenancy and the value of the reversionary right to possession. It also restricts the operation of the eleven-tenths formula in assessing base value for the latter element.

Paragraphs (7) and (8) appear to be wholly unnecessary. Their stated object is to ensure that a tenancy's owner does not pay a levy on development for which he has already paid. That seems fair. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of Schedule 5 would, however, have achieved this without the need for regulations. But, although they appear to be unnecessary, there is a hidden purpose. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confirm that the real object of the Regulations is to restrict the use of a Schedule 5 base value in assessing the levy by excluding from the consideration deemed to be given on the part of a tenancy any rent payable under the tenancy.

It should be noted also that, as far as I can judge, the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 13 of the Explanatory Note is quite inadequate and inaccurate. It says:

"In the normal case the consideration given for a last relevant disposition is calculated in the same way as that consideration was calculated for the purpose of assessing levy on the disposition in respect of which it was paid …"

Regulation 7 does not restrict the base value of the interest under a tenancy to the amount of a consideration for the grant, less any amount representing rent. It excludes from the definition of consideration any amount representing rent, apparently, on the grounds that he has not yet paid some of that rent although he is, of course, liable to pay it.

Regulation 14 is quite monstrous because it contravenes two principles to which there are no other exceptions in the Act. First, it provides that, in certain circumstances, the grantee of a tenancy may find himself paying levy payable by the grantor. If the grantee fails to notify the grant of a tenancy, there will be added to the market value of his interest, on the first assessment of levy following the grant, the value of the rent payable under the tenancy. Thus, in spite of the provisions of Section 83 forbidding the transfer of levy liability, Regulation 14 does this by rendering the grantee liable to pay levy properly chargeable on the grantor. This is wrong.

Secondly, Regulation 14 applies even to grants of tenancies of less than seven years which the grantee is not obliged to notify at all. Here we see how misleading the Explanatory Notes and leaflets are. All sorts of people are being caught by these Regulations, and they have no idea what is going to hit them. The effect of the Regulation if the grantee does not notify such a tenancy means that he may later find himself paying levy on the grant although the Act imposes no duty on him to notify it. That is scandalous. The explanatory note justifies the Regulation as enabling the Commission to recover levy lost as the consequence of breach of the grantee's statutory duty to notify. It does not explain why the levy has to be recovered by way of penalty from the grantee rather than the grantor, why criminal penalties existing are inadequate and why a penalty should be imposed on the grantee of a tenancy who has no duty to notify.

In spite of what is not in the explanatory note, it is still over five pages long. I think that it is the longest we have ever had. I will just read the explanatory note to Regulation No. 6. We must remember that this note is supposed to simplify:

"Regulation 6 deals with the allowance to be made to the owner of a reversion in respect of his expenditure on improvements or ancillary rights on an assessment for levy affecting the reversion. The provisions of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Act would entitle the owner to claim the whole of the expenditure which qualifies for allowance. This Regulation therefore provides for adjustment in a case where the tenancy on which the landowner's interest is reversionary (which is defined in Regulation 2(1) as the immediate tenancy) was granted after the first appointed day, this being a case where the landowner will already have received an allowance in respect of part of this expenditure, viz. on the Case B assessment made on the grant of that tenancy. Under paragraph 51 of Schedule 4 the landowner's expenditure up to the date when the immediate tenancy was granted will have been apportioned between the tenancy and the reversion in proportion to the amount appropriate to the tenancy (T) and the amount appropriate to the reversion (R). If T is the amount of the consideration given for the grant of the tenancy, and R (which is described in Schedule 4 paragraph 12 as the reversionary value of the chargeable interest) is the value of the grantor's right to enjoy the land free from the tenancy after its termination, then the amount of the landowner's expenditure which is taken into account on the grant of the tenancy may then be expressed as T/T+R, so that R/T+R is left to be brought into account on an assessment of levy on a subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the reversion.

That is all in three sentences, totalling well over 200 words. Having tried to study the Regulation, I find it simpler than the explanation. As far as I can gather, all that it is seeking to do is to provide for the possibility of an owner of a reversion claiming an allowance twice in respect of improvements under Part V of Schedule 4. What a crazy world we live in when, to say something which can be put reasonably sensibly in a sentence, we have to have an explanatory note with three sentences, the first of 66 words, the second of 47 and the last of 105.

I could spend two or three weeks going through all these Regulations. But it is easier for us here. We can pick out a sample. People who have to deal with the cases which will arise under these Orders and Regulations cannot pick samples. They have to go through them line by line, regulation by regulation, read both the Regulations and the explanatory notes, realise how complex they are and then get down to working it all out. It is intolerable.

I do not want to deal with many more of these details. I have just chosen examples to show the intense complexity of the matter. Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny, as Burke said, and these are dreadful. I do not intend to deal with the Regulations affecting Scotland. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends will do that. The House will be encouraged to know that, in general, they are even more elaborate than the English ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Scots?"] The Scots will be here tomorrow. Meanwhile they are studying the effects of the Scottish feudal system on these Orders and Regulations.

It is interesting to note that the Government benches should draw attention to the fact that Monday morning sittings are hideously inconvenient for hon. Members travelling long distances. I had to travel from my constituency in Northumberland yesterday in order to be here for this debate. It would be more sensible if the House kept to its old hours. But that is by the way.

I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not go into all the 22 Orders and Regulations before the House but my right hon. and hon. Friends will, no doubt, choose to do so. I hope that I have given sufficient examples to establish, first, the hideous complexity of the Regulations and, secondly, the wide areas of doubt and difficulties which still remain to be dealt with, both in matters in the Orders and Regulations and mat- ters which are still outside them. It is on these grounds that we hope that the Government will, even at this late stage, listen to reason and withdraw them and give an opportunity to us and people outside to improve them where they clearly need to be improved. We want to bring some semblance of order out of chaos, as the right hon. Gentleman does.

I have described the Act and its stream of Orders and Regulations as a veritable library of absurdity. But it is one that we have to try to deal with. The real tragedy is that confidence in the law and its administration is bound to be undermined when it is well nigh impossible for ordinary citizens to understand it, much less lawyers and other experts.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Stationery Office is refusing to give hon. Members more than one copy of the explanatory memoranda so that they are not even able to send to their constituents all the information available?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am sure that he has drawn attention to a matter of very grave concern. Apart from copies available to hon. Members, one of the difficulties that arise is, as I have heard, that many local authorities which are supposed to have copies to make available to the public have run out of them. It may be just as well, because they are dangerous documents to have.

I note what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said. The fact is that we have reached the third reprint. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's comment is conveyed to the Stationery Office but, in the light of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has said, I again emphasise that we have got to the third reprint. We have published 300,000 copies each of the guides to builders and estate agents, and half a million copies of the general leaflet.

That is a dreadful statement. We know that there are over a million transactions in land each year. What is the good of 300,000 of these leaflets? Every member of the public should have one.

I said 300,000 copies each of the leaflets to estate agents and builders.

That only comes to 600,000 copies. What about copies for the other people? This makes the point we have made over and over again, that so many people are affected by these provisions that they are almost desperate to get hold of some information. It is intolerable that local authorities and town halls should have been allowed to run out of copies.

Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say that I have here a letter dated only four days ago saying that the Stationery Office is out of print of these pamphlets and quite unable to supply copies to hon. Members.

I am sure that the Minister has taken note of the matter.

There has been nothing like this rubbish since the notorious Egg Orders, when it was necessary to X-ray an egg before selling it to make sure one had not committed a criminal offence. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister will know all about that, because he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in the Labour Government after the war. He no doubt feels he is back to those far off happy days of incomprehensible law. I have called this Act this Order and those Regulations incomprehensible but, in a sense, as an intellectual exercise, they can be comprehended after a fashion, although many matters of doubt will have to be resolved by the House of Lords—probably just about the date of repeal.

All I say now is that these Regulations and the Order ale such that it is simply beyond reason and common sense to try to comprehend them. But we have to try now, to say nothing of the leaflets and the other so-called guidance. All these publications are supposed to be aimed at clearing up confusion, even to the extent of amending from time to time the Act of Parliament itself, but they are all doomed to end in confusion worse confounded. I beg the Government to think again about all this misplaced ingenuity, and try to tidy up the legislation until such time as we can make a bonfire of it all.

After the devastating onslaught on these Regulations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), any Minister who cared more for the interests of the public than for any loss of face would withdraw them so that they could be, first of all, redrafted and put into a form which ordinary citizens would have some hope of understanding and, secondly, could come forward at a time when there had been proper opportunity to study them. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to add greatly to his stature by getting up now and saying that these Regulations and the Order were for the time being withdrawn though, of course, he would reserve the right—indeed, it would probably be the duty—to put them forward in new form at a time when they could be discussed properly and at leisure by this House.

I must enter my protest at Statutory Instruments of this importance being taken at a morning sitting. Not only are they, as my right hon. and learned Friend has shown, of immense practical importance to the citizen, but one of them imposes taxation—bringing in, gross, according to the Minister himself, £80 million a year. It is quite outrageous that they should be taken at a morning sitting. People outside who will be affected by these Regulations, and who read of our debate, should know that they are being pushed through the House on a Monday morning with the Government benches containing the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, two zealous Parliamentary Secretaries, an intermittently wakeful Whip, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and two back-bench Members—no, one back-bench Member who has just entered the Chamber having, if I may say so, shown his discrimination in not seeking to listen to the Minister's speech.

This atmosphere, this state of affairs, should be known by the large numbers of our fellow citizens who will read this debate and will wish to know the circumstances in which this Government saw fit to push through these Regulations. If they had been taken in other circumstances one would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been forced by the opinion of his own hon. and right hon. Friends to withdraw the Orders after the drubbing they have had. Yet we are dealing with this business on a Monday morning, irrespective of the undertaking given by the Leader of the House as to the nature of the business to be taken at morning sittings. I make no protest about the first item of business, when the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), dealt, with unconscious appropriateness, with national disasters.

These Regulations constitute far too serious a matter to be taken at this morning sitting.

I want to direct some observations to the Order which determines the rate of taxation, and which, I repeat, has been treated in the most lighthearted fashion, by being put down for this morning at all. It is the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order, which fixes the rate of betterment levy. The Minister said, I thought somewhat provocatively, that he regarded 40 per cent. as a low or moderate rate. I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the Government will be able to reconcile that approach with the original purported purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce the price of land for housing. I hope we may have explained to us how the imposition of the tax at this high rate will lower the price of land required for people's homes, and why this particular type of taxation should be expected to work in precisely the opposite way to every other form of taxation we know.

The House has heard from Ministers again and again that they are raising the levels of indirect taxation for the purpose of raising the price of the commodity on which the taxation falls in order to withdraw purchasing power. That has been the whole object of at least half the emergency measures in at least half the emergency Budgets for which this Government have been responsible. How, then, has the Minister succeeded in deluding himself into the belief that a 40 per cent. tax on development value will reduce the price of land? Will he deal with the view which my right hon. and hon. Friends hold, that there is no more effective method of inflating the price of land than the imposi- tion of a levy of this kind, widespread in scope, at a rate of 40 per cent.? This is a measure to increase the price of homes.

If the Minister will not take that from me, I hope that he will at least take it from the man whom he has appointed Chairman of the Land Commission—Sir Henry Wells. Sir Henry was reported a fortnight ago in the Press as having said that the Land Commission will make substantial profits out of their dealings in land; in particular, in the sale of agricultural land for building. If these substantial profits are to be made through a levy at this prescribed rate, either one or other or both of two things must happen. Either the farmer, who is losing his livelihood because his land is taken, will get less than a fair price for it, or the purchaser will pay more than he need for it and so inflate the price of a home. This and this only is where the profits about which Sir Henry was gloating the other day will come. For what purpose? Because as Sir Henry Wells said he would fight to the death to prevent any Government laying a hand on his profits.

For what purpose are they? They impose a tax on the price of land, a tax on the building of homes, and at the same time give no relief to the general taxpayer. Is not this the very reductio ad absurdurn of taxation? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how long the 40 per cent. rate is to last. He went out of his way to threaten higher rates. Under this miserable Act he has power by order subject, I believe, to affirmative procedure to increase the rate. He is threatening to increase it even further to 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. I think he will agree that there is nothing in the Act to prevent him raising it even further.

Does he not realise that by high and increasing rates of this sort he is increasing the chance of his committing the same mistake as Lord Silkin did—I do not mean the mistake of producing the Government Chief Whip but the mistake of the 1947 Act and causing, as these high rates of levy undoubtedly will, an unwillingness of people to bring forward land for development?

The right hon. Gentleman was priding himself the other day that land was coming forward quickly now. Of course it is. Between now and 6th April there will be a natural desire for landowners to bring their land forward. But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is simply eating the seed corn, because landowners realise that there will be little advantage in bringing it forward after 6th April? He is merely creating a situation in which those who seek to build next year will find the greatest difficulty in getting land as the sole and direct result of prescribing a 40 per cent. rate for this levy.

I am informed that in the Midlands, particularly in Derby, Inland Revenue valuers and valuation officers, have adopted a curious line when asked by people whose land is being purchased either compulsorily or voluntarily by local authorities to get the transaction through by 6th April. I am told that at least one district valuer is saying that he will do this only if it is agreed that he should knock off the purchase price half the amount which otherwise might have fallen as levy.

I want to know whether this is being done with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. I have already written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and drawn attention to this matter. But it is directly relevant to the imposition of a levy of this kind at this stage. I want to know whether it in fact results in a loss to the vendor of the land of half the amount of the levy in respect of a transaction operating at a date before the levy lawfully comes into operation and whether that has the approval of the Government. If not, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with the Chancellor the steps to be taken to put the matter right so that people who have suffered from taxation without he authority of Parliament may have their position reinstated.

To use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, my next question will not be unexpected. I ask what he expects the net yield of the levy to be at the rate of 40 per cent. He has told us again and again although without supporting figures that he expects the gross yield to be £80 million. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that some of that will be offset by the reduced yield of Income Tax, Surtax, Profits Tax, Corporation Tax, Estate Duties and Capital Gains Tax. All those will show a lower yield because in some cases the taxes are alternatives and in others the taxable capacity is reduced. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman asking Parliament to fix a rate of 40 per cent. Now that we have reached this stage I hope that he will feel it is a stage at which Parliament is entitled to be told how much he expects to get.

When we are asked to approve a tax which I hope I have demonstrated will undoubtedly raise the cost of land and I think of homes, at least we ought to know how much the net revenue is that it will produce and what is the counterbalancing advantage, whether the Land Commission is able to hang on to it all or some of it goes to the relief of the general taxpayer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who so far has been insensitive on this point will appreciate that it is wrong to ask Parliament to approve a rate of tax when he is not prepared to hazard even the roughest estimate of what the net yield will be. This is not the way to treat Parliament.

It is fair to say that this is not the way the Chancellor treats Parliament. Although the estimates of the present Chancellor are generally wildly wrong, he at least tries. The objection to the Minister is that he is not even trying. He is literally asking for a blank cheque from Parliament, a blank cheque for taxation he is to obtain from the taxpayer. This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman must have some idea. If he has no idea how has he reached the gross figure of £80 million. I assume that this is not just part of a numbers game—think of a number—but was based on some rational calculation. If there are rational calculations they must have a bearing on what the net yield will be.

I pay the right hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that even if he believes the net yield will be absolutely trivial, only a million or two, even he would not be so doctrinaire as to ignore the cost of collection. The relevant figure, as anyone familiar with taxation knows, is the net figure. Will the cost of collection be close to the net yield? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us? He cannot be urging the tax on us without at least being satisfied himself. If he is satisfied, there must be some material available to him. If there is material available to him, why cannot it be made available to Parliament? It is the ulti- mate function of this House, and has been for 500 years, to approve taxation. It is no proper discharge of that function by this House to approve taxation when the Minister asks for it without being prepared to tell us what he is expecting to get. This is an abuse of the whole process of Parliament. It may be typical of the contempt this Government habitually show to this House, but it is going a little too far in this case. The right hon. Gentleman will be pressed very hard indeed before he can be allowed to impose taxes and not tell us what he expects to get from them.

My right hon. and learned Friend referred very properly to the incomprehensibility of the Order and the Regulations. This again has a bearing on their being taken this morning when owing to the ineffectiveness of the Government's arrangements it is not possible to fill the public galleries. Surveyors, solicitors, people concerned professionally might well have wanted to crowd the galleries this morning to hear the explanation of a law on which they are to advise their clients and which is to come into force in just over a fortnight's time. But this is being done this morning.

I must say, in fairness, that if they had heard the right hon. Gentleman they would not have been very greatly advantaged. They will have to construe passages like this from the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations 1967. The right hon. Gentleman is, I hope, familiar with Regulation 3(1) and no doubt will rise to his feet instantly to explain it when I have read it:

"Subject to the following provisions of this regulation and of regulation 9, the provisions of Part III of Schedule 5 shall have effect for the purpose of assessing levy in respect of a chargeable act or event where by a relevant disposition there was granted to the chargeable owner, or to a predecessor of his, a related tenancy which, by merger after it was granted to him, has ceased to exist before the relevant date, as they have effect for such a purpose where by a relevant disposition there was assigned to the chargeable owner a related tenancy which, by merger after it was assigned to him, has ceased to exist before the relevant date as if any reference to an assignment were a reference to a grant, the words "assigning" and "assigned" being con-trued accordingly."

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you as an experienced lawyer know that all citizens are presumed to know the law, with the possible exception of Her Majesty's judges, who have a court of appeal to put them right if they go wrong. Is it not nonsense to impose this kind of verbiage in a very important matter on the citizen by Orders laid in the last few days—this was laid on 6th March—and which are to come into force in just over a fortnight's time?

I do not want to weary the House, but I must stress to the Minister that legislation—for this is delegated legislation—of this kind simply will not do. An enormously important provision is contained in Regulation 8(3,a):

"the capital value at the date of the disposition of the right to receive the rent (if any) which, in accordance with the terms of the disposition or of any contract in pursuance of which the disposition was made, was or is payable in respect of the immediate tenancy, calculated in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, but reduced in accordance with paragraph (5) of this regulation where that paragraph is applicable".

This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman must rely, not on beautiful explanatory documents, even if they are there, though we have heard from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that they are out of print already, though I repeat that this law is to operate in just over a fortnight's time, but on legislation which is reasonably comprehensible, at any rate to lawyers.

I could go on, but I do not want to weary the House, because these Measures are riddled with oblique, confused, complex, ill-digested and hopelessly ill-drafted verbiage of this kind.

I want to make just one further point of substance on the Material Development Regulations, 1967. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it was something of a virtue of these Regulations that they exempted from the levy expansion of industrial premises to a lesser extent than 5 per cent., as compared with 10 per cent. in respect of houses.

Has the right hon. Gentleman applied his mind on this point to the purported purpose of this Measure? What on earth is the justification, in social or economic terms, for imposing any levy on the expansion of industrial premises? It has been the policy of successive Governments for years to encourage this. Under the Conservative Government we had the extremely effective investment allowances and initial allowances, with special extra provision to encourage the expansion of industrial premises in development areas. This Government have a much less effective system—that of investment grants—which at any rate is claimed to work in the same direction.

It can surely therefore be said that the public policy of all Governments has been to encourage the expansion, the improvement, the development, of industrial plant. Everybody recognises this, except the right hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on the fact that a person who makes only a small expansion of his factory is exempted from levy, whereas a person who makes an expansion of any practical or economic size will be subject to levy.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that not only is the whole of this dead against provision for the increased efficiency of industry, but by putting the figure of 5 per cent. in this Measure he is deliberately encouraging industrialists to make niggling little additions to their property whereas what they want to do is expand on a large scale? The development of industrial plant is made difficult enough today by penal and ill-directed taxation and by a brutally administered system of I.D.Cs. For the right hon. Gentleman to provide that an industrialist's improvement of his plant is a matter that the Government particularly intend to tax is a new low in the inconsistencies of which the Government are guilty.

Is it not right, too, that the exemption in paragraph 7 of these Regulations not only applies only when the factory is extended up to 5,000 feet but only when no industrial development certificate is required? As my right hon. Friend says, that is a particularly brutal process at the present time.

I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has rammed home the point that, whatever view is taken on this levy at this rate, whatever view is taken about its general application, whatever view is taken—I have strong views—on its application to owner-occupiers, to apply it at all to industrial premises is dead against what every economist in the country would regard as the national interest—the modernisation and improvement of plant.

It is bad enough that at this moment industrial investment is now forecast as being 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. down in the coming year on last year, as a direct result of the Government's Measures. It is quite intolerable for the right hon. Gentleman to add to that process by making industrial investment more expensive and more difficult.

The right hon. Gentleman was warned of this during the proceedings on the Bill. Right back on the Second Reading of the earlier Bill he was warned that this was a wrong and foolish action. This small exception in favour only Of the least worth while of industrial expansions in no way mitigates his offence.

Therefore, before we pass from these Measures we must leave it on record that their net effect is to impose on the public a mass of legislation which it is an affectation to suggest even trained lawyers can fully understand and which must bewilder and muddle the enormous numbers of people whom it will affect. These are Measures which will increase the cost of housing, adding another vicious turn to the inflationary rise in the cost of houses for which this Government has been responsible. This legislation contains the innovation, even for this Government, of taxing industrial efficiency.

I apologise for not being present throughout this debate, but I am sure you will understand my position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I tell you that I have been engaged this very morning on trying to sort out queries on behalf of my constituents who are completely at sea in trying to interpret this abominable Act. I had two people at my advice bureau on Saturday. I have received further letters this morning asking for some further explanation, which I regret to say I was not able to give off the cuff.

I think I may be excused for that, because I have obtained copies of the publications issued by the Minister and have studied them. There is nothing in them about this vast shower of Regulations we have this morning. I have sought the help over the telephone of the Land Commission in relation to the explanations I must give my constituents.

Let me give one example to the Minister of a person in my constituency who has bought some land on which there is an old and derelict house. He wishes to build, for his own use and that of his family, a new dwelling on the same site. After considerable trouble, the person at the Land Commission to whom I spoke was able to refer me to the Material Development Regulations, 1967, which provide that if the rebuilding is less than 1,000 sq. ft. more than the original building no levy is payable. But the publication on the betterment levy does not tell us that. One has to look through the Regulations as well. Apparently, my constituent is expected to have knowledge of Statutory Instruments which have come before Parliament only this morning and to know whether he is liable to pay the levy. This is why it is most important that all the documents available to the public should be free to hon. Members so that they can send them to their constituents.

I was extremely upset as a result of writing to the Stationery Office about these four publications—I have questioned the Minister on them, asking if he would publish them—to be told that they were out of print. As a matter of courtesy, considering that I put the Question to the Minister, I should have thought that he would have made copies available to me as soon as they were published. I had to ring up the Stationery Office, only to be told that they were out of print, and I got an apologetic letter from the Stationery Office.

I then got in touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to ask whether it had some spare copies. I told the Ministry that I was receiving all these queries which I was unable to answer. This morning I received a letter from the Ministry saying:

"I am afraid the booklet on the betterment levy published by H.M. Stationery Office at 4s. 6d. is temporarily out of print but fresh supplies are being prepared as quickly as possible."

Even when those fresh supplies are available, I will not be supplied with copies unless I pay 4s. 6d. to the Stationery Office for each copy. I suppose that I can bear that expense, but why on earth should I? I almost said, "why the hell should I?". It is my duty, as a constituency Member of Parliament, to explain the working of the Act to my constituents. Therefore, all the documents published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should be available to me free of charge.

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government said with regard to the other publications:

"I am sorry I must limit myself to sending you two copies "—

I said earlier that it was one copy, but it was two copies—

"but I am sure you will understand."

I do not understand at all. Already at this early stage, before the Act has come into force, I am receiving quite a large number of queries, and I anticipate that they will grow in volume considerably as people begin to understand the import of this abominable Act.

I appeal to the Minister to help us to explain the Act as best we can to our constituents and not to penny-pinch in the way that he is doing by depriving us of copies of documents. If the Government can afford to pay 24,000 extra civil servants, then surely they can pay a little extra in printing costs so that we can do our jobs as Members of Parliament.

I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). These Statutory Instruments will create widespread confusion in the minds of the public. They will give rise to large expenditure on legal advice and accountancy fees which would not otherwise have been necessary. I endorse the right hon. and learned Member's plea to the Minister to take these Regulations away and have discussions through the usual channels so that they can be put forward again in a more comprehensible form. If he is not prepared to do that, at least he should consider having additional notes published to explain the explanatory notes.

We have listened to a fascinating debate. The only speech which did not tell us anything was that of the Minister who presented the Motions to the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is in the same position as I am: perhaps he does not understand his own Orders and Regulations. I make no apology for saying that as a layman I have very little idea about what the bulk of these Regulations mean. I have read the Explanatory Memorandum. That only makes confusion worse confounded. Then I am told that the booklets of explanation are out of print.

This is a most terrifying process. The Government are presenting a group of provisions on a most controversial and very confusing Bill. They present them on a Monday morning when the Galleries are not as well attended as usual and therefore people who want to listen to the debate are deprived of the opportunity and when the bulk of the Minister's own supporters are not present.

My hon. Friend is being unduly kind to the Government. The only supporter they have present is the highly mobile P.P.S.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not absolutely certain that she is not also a temporary P.P.S. This shows the depths to which the Government have been reduced by sitting on Monday mornings. Even the reserves are working, and temporaries are taking the place of permanents.

I do not understand the Minister. He sits there looking benign, and yet I believe that he is one of the most evil members of the Government. He said with unctuous arrogance that the levy would not apply to a householder who was extending his house by 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft. by building a garage. Was he putting this forward as a virtue? Of course, he had to explain the point to the House because he did not make it clear during the passage of the Bill. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman sees virtue in the fact that people who wished to make such an extension would be exempt and could build a garage without incurring a penalty. It is outrageous that the thought should ever have entered the Government's mind.

To say that the levy will apply to industrial premises which are extended by over 5 per cent. or over 5,000 sq. ft. is the politics of Bedlam. The public, very misguidedly, returned the Government to power on a so-called gritty programme of instant efficiency, high cost-effectiveness, under which money would not be wasted, with everyone being encouraged to introduce more efficient systems. Yet, as soon as a firm wishes to expand and to show that it is efficient, what happens? It gets hit on the head. Is this the way to achieve efficiency?

Will the Minister tell the House before these Motions are accepted the net amount which he expects the State will get from the levy? I remember raising this point when we debated the Bill during the 1964 Parliament. We have never had a satisfactory explanation. I accept that this year the levy will bring in more money than the Capital Gains Tax, because the gain would be only on the difference between two given points of time. But over the next five years the difference will narrow. The Department knows that the levy will bring in a very small sum of money. Probably this is why the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was amalgamated with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—because it would not raise enough money to pay its own on-costs. The public are becoming aware of the complications, red tape and bureaucracy which will save no house purchaser one penny. They will probably have to pay more. It will bring the State a very small net revenue after all the balancing charges and reductions in taxes have been laid against it.

This Ministry was formed to bring efficiency, taking 2,000 of the most scarce brains into its employment—

Maw.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought at first that he meant "more". I accept his term. I was about to add that this is the Ministry's first estimate, and the more I study the debates on the Bill and these provisions, the more I realise how complicated they are and that 2,000 is probably a gross under-estimate.

My hon. Friend refers to 2,000 but, with 10 regional officers, does he not think that this is an under-estimate?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have consistently made this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to accept that his forecast, which he made throughout the proceedings on the Bill, is right, but I would put it nearer 4,000 or 5,000, and still rising.

People affected by the Bill will want advice, and it will have to come from the Land Commission itself, because in some of these small transactions, people will not know what to do. This is a very small field in many of these transactions. Therefore, the on-load of the Land Commission will cost the State more than the States receives from it.

These are complicated proposals, and people have only until 6th April to understand them. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the state of the printing industry in relation to Government publications. These explanatory booklets are out of print and, as a result of these new Regulations are out of date. Therefore, they would have to be revised before the next printing, and perhaps ought to be called the "authorised version", as they will be very different from those at present in publication.

How can people prepare for the operation of the provisions, and the Act, if they cannot even read the present explanatory booklets? Therefore, should not the right hon. Gentleman say that he will withdraw these Regulations, so that they can be put into understandable language, the explanatory memorandum made at least as clear as the original Act, and the booklet explaining the explanatory memorandum put into language that hon. Members might have a reasonable chance of understanding? I am certain that the public will be in a complete sea of fog as the result of the activities of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department

Not being a Member whose constituency is close to Westminster, I had to travel down to this debate by the night train last night and I wondered what malign fate had had it in store for me to come here at 10 o'clock to debate these Regulations and Orders. I consoled myself with the thought that at least some Government back benchers would be suffering the same fate, but, apart from the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who has been with the Minister throughout his journeyings on the Bill, the place has been singularly empty—

Should not this occasion be placed on record, in that, for the first time, the number of hon. Members on the Liberal benches exceeds the number of Government back benchers?

I agree, and perhaps we ought to have had also the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), who seems to think that we ought to earn our Parliamentary salaries by being here at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning—

Where is he?

I support what my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) have said. We are united on this. We thought that the original legislation would not be too bad, but, as we know, there has been a flood of books and pamphlets, issued not only by the Government, trying to explain the Act and what they expected these Regulations and Orders to produce. There has been a tremendous demand for these books.

I received an invitation to a cocktail party to launch one legal textbook which is probably the first time that such a book has been given such treatment. This is the sort of treatment normally reserved for a book like "Lady Chatterley's Lover". If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I might tell him that more four-letter words have been uttered by people who have read the Act than ever D. H. Lawrence put in his masterpiece—

At least they were comprehensible.

Yes, at least we could understand what D. H. Lawrence said.

The difficulty in trying to understand this gritty language of Socialism is that, basically, one cannot. The professions do not understand it, which is why they are being lectured and reading books about it. We have not had time to digest these Regulations and Orders. In this, I am borne out by an article in today' sedition of The Times. Headed "'Beat the Levy' Rush Grows.Land Act spurs builders." The article read:

"A Birmingham builder said: 'I think this Act will be called the Navvies Act. I have never seen so many trenches being dug. The big boys have been doing it for some time. In fact they have been doing it so blatantly and talking about it, with the full approval of the Land Commission office, that the rest of us began to sit up and take notice.'"

Thus one can see what is happening. The big boys perhaps understand some of the implications, but the small man is only beginning to understand and will be further confused by these orders.

Later on, the article said:

"Estate agents describe similar conditions. A lot of people are making last-minute efforts, says a large firm in Bedfordshire, even if it means only getting the foundations in for a road. Some councils are being very co-operative in pushing planning permission through. But it is professional developers taking action, not the private client'. The Act is being described as 'the most undemocratic law ever'. and 'an even bigger muddle than the Finance Bill of 1965'. Its unpopularity with some of those it affects could have been predicted, but even now it seems to be understood by scarcely anyone."

That has been the burden of our attack—that the Act is not really understood by anyone and my right hon. and hon. Friends have given examples of the way in which this works. I join with those bedazzled by Statutory Instrument No. 298 dealing with the betterment levy, which is a real bobbydazzler. The third paragraph on page 13 says:

"But, where the first chargeable act or event affecting a tenancy is in question, that is, where the last relevant disposition is the grant of the tenancy, the amount which under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 would be taken as the amount of the consideration for that grant on the Case B assessment would, if the provisions of Schedule 5 were not adapted, include, not merely any capital sum which the tenant paid on the grant, but also a capital sum representing rent which he has not then paid (see section 30(3) and paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 4 to the Act). Regulation 7 therefore restricts the base value of the interest under a tenancy to the amount of the consideration for the grant less any amount representing rent."

My complaint about that paragraph—which is in the explanatory note—is that it contains so many references. We are referred to paragraph 7 of Schedule 4; to case B; to Schedule 5; to Section 30(3); to paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 4 and to Regulation 7. If one happens to carry in one's mind paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 and what it means, it might be possible to understand the explanation. But really one cannot understand the explanatory note without having before one separate copies of the references.

Perhaps this is why the publishers had that cocktail party. It might be easier to understand these notes after a few drinks.

I agree that one needs strong stimulants to understand what on earth one is studying.

L.S.D.

I think that people will probably need that as well before this is finished.

I turn now to a practical point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—the effect of the 40 per cent. levy on the price of land. I can give a good example from my constituency of the way this is working. A land owning company there has been releasing land over the past years to small builders to build in blocks of 10, 20 or 30 houses. Now, if one gets a contract from the company before 6th April, it has to be completed by 3rd April or the job is off, and the deposit is returned. The contract is quite specific on this point.

The object of this is clear. Before 6th April, the company will not have to pay the levy but after 6th April it will. It is crystal clear that the land it will sell after 6th April will cost more because of the 40 per cent. levy. The effect of this, as predicted, will be that the extra costs will be passed on to the builder. He cannot afford to absorb the levy and will pass it on to the ultimate purchaser. So the man who will suffer in the end, although he was promised that he would have cheaper houses, is the house purchaser. He will have to pay more and this fact is becoming more and more self-evident.

Another point made by my right hon. Friend gave me a great deal of food for thought. In my constituency, in Fleet-wood and Thornton-Cleveleys, we have an unemployment rate of 8·3 per cent. We badly need factories there. I recently asked a Question of the Board of Trade and was told that the best hope for my constituency was industrial development certificates. But, under these Regulations, that will not be much help. People coming into North Fylde to develop factories in an area screaming out for new industry will find that the cost of factory sites is being raised because the landowners will not just absorb the levy but will pass it on.

Perhaps I may now turn to some more points of detail and the Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, be able to help because they arise out of a matter that I referred to in Standing Committee. The first concerns physical recreation. As I understand it, under the Regulations concerning material development, the exemption is for buildings or the use of land where people are participating in outside sports. For instance, this exemption would not cover a gymnasium, where the sport is inside, or a badminton hall, indoor tennis court, fives court or squash court. It seems strange that there should be this difference between indoor and outdoor recreation, especially in view of our wretched climate.

In the Waiver of Interest Regulations, paragraph 3(4,c) states:

"where the relevant project consists of the erection or construction of a building intended to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of the taking of physical recreation therein;"

I understand that if it is an indoor sport, there is discretion in the Commission either to waive interest or delay the payment or even to remit some of it. That is a distinction between an indoor sport and an outdoor sport.

indiciated assent.

I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding so that appears to be the true explanation. But it is a distinction that I find hard to understand. I presume that it would apply in the case of a commercial bowling alley, which would possibly get some concession on the payment of levy.

There seems also a rather strange sort of thing in Statutory Instrument No. 354, where we have the prescribed forms of the vesting declaration. For once the language is simple—because the Government are getting what they want—but the public should know the meaning of the words used on page 3 in giving the form of notice stating the effect of the general vesting declaration. They are as follows:

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that in exercise of the power for the purpose conferred on the Commission by section 9 of the Act the Commission hereby declare as follows:

1. The land described in the Schedule hereto (being the whole/part of the land described in the Schedule to the compulsory purchase order) and more particularly delineated on the plan hereto annexed together with the right to enter upon and take possession of the same shall vest in the Commission as from the end of the period of (insert period of 28 days or longer) days from the date on which the service of notices required by section 9(3) of the Act is completed.

In these few simple words, the citizen can lose his land. The words do away with the necessity for conveyance or assignment. From the day those words are used, the land is no longer his. He may have the right of compensation, but that is all. Deeds in his possession are worthless because they only prove title to land which, from the date of vesting, becomes the property of the Government.

I am worried about the position of mortgagees once a declaration in these terms has been made. I presume that the rights of a mortgagee will attach to the compensation which is payable to the owner of the land, but, in reality, once a general vesting declaration in this form has been used, a first mortgagee whose security was the deeds has no security. That is bound to cause confusion in the lending of money from now on where there is any possibility of a general vesting declaration. I hope that the Minister will consider publishing an explanatory leaflet going much further than the explanatory note at the end of Statutory Instrument No. 354 to make it clear to people who have lent money and to owners what will be the true effects of a general vesting declaration.

It is true that the words:

"The effect of the general vesting declaration is as follows"

appear in Part II, but they do not go sufficiently far. There is little enough there to indicate to people who are not owners but who have an interest in the land what their rights are under the scheme.

I am convinced that these Regulations will bring chaos and confusion to an already chaotic and confused situation. The best thing that the Minister can do is to withdraw them and give time for the professions particularly to have a full mastery of them and the Act on which they are based.

The most interesting feature this morning is that, so far, we have not heard a single speech in support of the Government's proposed Regulations, with the exception of the perfunctory opening remarks of the Minister. In fact, the Government have not had any supporters present in the Chamber, and that shows how mystified, bemused and worried hon. Members opposite must be about these Regulations.

I notice that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has just entered the Chamber, and I am glad that the Government now have at least one of their supporters present—

Let me assure the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that I do not come into the category of those who support the Land Commission Bill.

The views of the hon. Gentleman are well known. It is interesting that the only speaker from the Labour back benches should be one who is against the Land Commission.

Since the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has told us that he supports the Land Commission, perhaps he would be good enough to explain the Explanatory Memorandum to the House.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has it all wrong. The hon. Member for Rugby has told us today and on many other occasions that he does not support the Land Commission. We are united in this Chamber, with the exception of the Minister, and I suspect that even he appreciates what a lot of gibberish he is asking the House to approve this morning.

I must apologise for having taken no part so far in the debates on the Land Commission when the Bill was going through the House. If my mastery of it is not as great as that of some of my hon. Friends and I make a few errors in what I say, I hope that I shall be forgiven. I am sure that most of them would be able to explain what these provisions mean. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, we have had an authorised version, and now a revised version is to be pub- lished later. However, it seemed to me that these provisions had been produced in the original Hebrew. My only criticism of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was that I wondered if at times he was talking in English, so incomprehensible are the provisions of the Bill, even when explained by someone as lucid as my right hon. and learned Friend.

They raise matters of great importance to Parliament both now and for the future. It is a scandal that a Government should put through legislation which it is freely acknowledged is incomprehensible to laymen, to the average hon. Member and to highly trained people such as lawyers and others who have to administer its provisions.

As I have pointed out again and again, the Bill went through the House without a Closure being moved. If it is suggested, in view of that that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed a Clause which was incomprehensible to go through without a full explanation, they neglected their duty as hon. Members.

If the Minister puts forward that argument seriously, it underlines the complete lack of logical reasoning power which he has shown throughout the passage of the Bill.

Perhaps the Minister would say how many times we voted against Clauses in Committee, on Report, and against the Bill itself.

Before the Minister intervenes to answer that question, I would emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has pointed out, that we have opposed the Bill on every possible occasion. The Minister is delighted that he did not have to move the Closure. It is as well that the Government Chief Whip is not here, because, if that is a doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward for the guidance of future opposition, he will not find himself very popular with his right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.

I have been trying to understand these provisions. It is a disgrace that not only are they put forward in such an incomprehensible form, but that the House should have been given so little time to understand them. As the hon. Member for Orpington and others have pointed out, it is extraordinary that, in the case of some of these Measures, it is still impossible to get the relevant documents. A number of them have been printed only recently, yet this Act is to come into force on 6th April, with the immense consequences which flow from it.

I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary told the House recently that he had arranged for 500,000 copies of these Regulations to be printed. There have been three reprints, and even now the printers have not been able to get them completely right. We know what an excellent service Her Majesty's Stationery Office does for this House and for the Government. When a Government introduce a Bill which is so complicated that the printers cannot get Regulations completely right even at the third reprint, obviously it is the Government's Bill which is at fault and not the printers.

The Minister made a passing reference to the change in Bank Rate, and it appears that one of the Regulations which we are asked to pass this morning already is virtually out of date. He said that he would change the rate of interest to 6½ per cent. for those who do not pay the levy and have to pay interest to the Commission or to whom the Commission has to pay if they have overpaid. This morning he said that Bank Rate has gone down and that he may have to change that. The House is entitled to know the Minister's intentions. Does he want us to pass this Motion or not? If he does, how long will the provision last and on what basis are people to make plans for the future? Is it not a courtesy to the House, with the appointed day only a few days off, that the Minister should come before it with Orders which will stand the test of time?

What is his intention under the Betterment Levy (Rate of Interest) Order, 1967, in which he prescribes the rate of interest to be 6½ per cent. per annum? That is the rate of interest under Section 51 of the Land Commission Act. Looking at that Section, it appears that the Treasury can make Orders from time to time, but it is not good enough for the Minister to say that this Order is one which he will ask us to repeal in about a week's time. What are his plans, and why can we not have Regulations in a proper form before we come to discuss them?

If it is the Government's intention always to reduce the rate of interest as prescribed by Statutory Instrument No. 366 whenever there is a fall in Bank Rate, it would be better to take this Order away and bring before the House another Order prescribing that the rate of interest shall be the Bank Rate "for the time being".

That is an extremely valuable point, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it when he replies to the debate. It seems likely, otherwise, that we shall have a whole series of Orders changing the position as years go by. This is one small example of the extremely complicated way in which this Act has been brought forward and these Regulations are being laid before us.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was too generous to the Government when dealing with page 13 of the notorious Regulations dealing with the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations which came in for a great deal of criticism from my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Hexham. The more one looks at it the more one feels that it is an abuse of Parliament to have an Explanatory Memorandum which fails so totally in its purpose—which is to explain.

The bottom paragraph on page 13—I am sorry to weary the House by reading it out—shows what nonsense the Government are producing. It says:

The adaptations made to Schedule 5 in relation to a reversion arise from the fact that in law the reversion is the same interest (though now subject to another interest) as existed before the grant of the tenancy. The last relevant disposition of that interest is therefore the transaction by which the chargeable owner acquired it before that grant. But, where the tenancy is granted after the first appointed day, an assessment of levy will have been made, and, as in the case of expenditure on improvements or ancillary rights, the proportion T/T+R of the consideration given for that disposition will have been allowed as his Schedule 5 base value on the Case B assessment on the grant of the tenancy. Accordingly only R/T+R of that consideration remains to be taken into account on an assessment of levy affecting the reversion, and this is provided for by Regulation 8(3)(b).

I certainly cannot understand it, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can understand it, perhaps he will tell us what it means when he winds up the debate tomorrow night. The House knows perfectly well that my hon. Friends and I are bitterly opposed to this Bill, which we think to be completely unworkable, and to be a gross distortion of individual rights, because it is so incomprehensible. We are delighted that we are pledged to repeal the Act at the earliest opportunity. What I complain about is that these Regulations should have been laid before the House in a manner in which they are totally unintelligible to the public, to the average Member of this House, and I suspect jolly nearly unintelligible to even the most well-informed Members of the House. This is a state of affairs which the House of Commons should never tolerate. My right hon. and hon. Friends are quite right to complain about having been brought in this Monday morning at great inconvenience.

The Government have been unable to find any supporters for these Regulations. The Government are introducing a tax which will raise a great deal of money, but they have given no indication of its yield. They have introduced one Order, which the Minister said he is going to change virtually at once.

Inadequate notice has been given to the House and to the public. The appointed day is far too soon. No one can appreciate the complexities and the difficulties which will face him under the Land Commission Act, and the Act and the Regulations which have been laid under it, represent one more arbitrary extension of the State's power in a way which will cripple the rights of the individual more than he at present realises. Very few people realise the extent of the provisions which the Government have put forward in this way.

I strongly oppose the Regulations. They are not the sort of benevolent things which the Minister said they were when he introduced them. This is an attack on individual liberties, and I resent very much being asked to pass a set of Regulations which are totally incomprehensible to even the most well-informed hon. Members in this House.

I want to limit my comments to the issue of the first appointed day. That is the essential ingredient of many of the comments which have been made. I am not qualified to judge the merits or demerits of this Act to any great degree, and I do not think that I am alone in that. The confusion which is already present, and which undoubtedly will follow from the administration of the Act, and the Statutory Instruments which we are considering this morning, will put a great demand on the time of professional people, and will be a great embarrassment to those engaged in the use and development of land.

We were all surprised this morning to hear the views of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on the unavailability of the booklets.

They are not unavailable. They are in the hands of local authorities, citizens advice bureaux, and such bodies. Some local authorities have disposed of all their copies, and we are reprinting them. The booklets are not out of print. I would say to the hon. Member for Orpington that I regret the difficulties he has had, and I will see that they are overcome.

That explanation from the right hon. Gentleman confirms the very unsatisfactory situation with which Members of this House and the public are faced.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that my copy of Statutory Instrument 298 goes from page 2 to page 7 and then from page 10 to page 15. Not being clever at this sort of thing, I find it even more difficult when half of it is missing.

The Land Commission is not a new idea. The right hon. Gentleman has been hammering away at this for 18 months or two years. Why is it that the wretched thing is coming into force a fortnight on Thursday and we are left in this position in regard to the explanatory memorandum and the booklets which are not available to the professions and to those in the building industry? It is quite a ridiculous state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has made no apology for this. That is what surprises me. In one of his earlier interventions, he spoke as though it were somebody else's misjudgment that led to their having to have second and third reprints, and that it was a fault which lay with the printer. But this is part of the administration. It represents a complete failure.

The timing has been well known for many months. What is the explanation for the unavailability of adequate material or explanation of the tight schedule which has developed as the result of the Government's programme? Is it that the Government are having to rush this Measure through after all the time and consideration it has had both in the House and in Committee? Is it a complete misjudgment of the interest which the public would of necessity have to show, as well as that of local authorities and those engaged in the building and development of land? Where does the fault lie? Why is it necessary to hasten the matter at the last minute in this way?

Is there something significant about 6th April? It has nothing to do with the annual tax year. It could have been the 6th of any month, surely? I cannot see what possible explanation the Minis- ter can give. The hastening of this matter is not only an embarrassment to himself and his colleagues, and to the House in general, but it is also an embarrassment to the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) mentioned earlier that planning authorities are having great problems because of the flood of applications which are reaching their offices. There will be no equity in the way in which planning applications, received hastily at the last minute, are dealt with. There will be great hardship on owners and would-be developers, and there will be great criticism by local authorities, as well as planning authorities, all following from this apparent misjudgment of timing. It can be nothing more.

There is no ill will within the Government, I am sure. It is a failure of administration. It is a failure in programming the thing successfully. I should have thought that we would have had an apology from the Minister on be half of himself and his colleagues. Can we be assured that the offices, which are all so neatly set out at the back of these explanatory notes—

On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1, I propose to raise the subject of aid to Zambia. This subject is, of course, inseparable from the policies of Her Majesty's Government in proceeding with sanctions against Rhodesia. I am wholly opposed to this policy.

The extent of the aid which today is being given by Britain to Zambia is consequential on the sanctions policy against Rhodesia. The country which has been hurt most by the policy of sanctions against Rhodesia is Zambia. Britain has been hurt next most. Rhodesia has been hurt least of all, and it seems to me notable, from the reports in the Financial Times this morning, that little difference has been made to the Rhodesian economy by the policy of sanctions, though we in Britain are being called upon, on an increasing scale, to give financial and other forms of aid to Zambia.

The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to try to elucidate and drag from the mouths of the Government a detailed statement of the forms of aid which we are giving Zambia. All the Parliamentary Questions on this topic have led to inconclusive replies, one Department shuffling off the answer against another Department, and it has been wholly impossible for my hon. Friends and myself to find out what is the aggregation of aid to Zambia proposed in this year.

First, I want to refer to the gravest consequence of the Prime Minister's adventure in the form of Rhodesian sanctions which is the alienation of opinion in Zambia against Britain. As a result of this there has been a very large loss of British trade in Central Africa. This was summarised in an article headed "Trade Blow to Britain" by Mr. Peter Younghusband in Lusaka, and printed in the Daily Mail on 9th January, 1967, when he said:

"Britain's dispute with Rhodesia is costing far more than Whitehall will admit. Zambia, disillusioned with Mr. Wilson's handling of the issue, is giving rich contracts to European and Japanese firms. Once they would have gone to Britain."

All the efforts by my hon. Friends and myself, and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), to secure details of monetary and economic aid to Zambia have met with the reply from the hon. Gentleman's Ministry that this year's aid amounts to £13·85 million, and that it is all tied aid. The Answer given by the hon. Gentleman's Department to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) last Thursday was:

"Under the agreement with the Zambian Government grants of up to £13·85 million will be made for the following purposes:

(i) Development, including some tar surfacing, of the main road links between Zambia Tanzania and Malawi.

(ii) Improvement of the capacity for Zambian cargo at Tanzanian ports.

(iii) Provision of British heavy road vehicles and railway wagons.

(iv) Development of Mtwara airfield for Zambian traffic.

(v) Assistance with new coal mine and power projects in Zambia.

(vi) A contribution, at the request of the Zambian Government, of £250,000 to an airlift of aviation turbine fuel into Zambia by Laker Airways, a British independent airline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 147.]

The total of that aid is said to be £13.85 million, but it appears to me that it represents only a relatively small part of the aid which is flowing from Britain to Zambia.

At various times during this Parliamentary Session Ministers have referred to "aid to Zambia", "assistance to Zambia", "grants to Zambia", and "loans to Zambia". My first purpose this morning is to find out what sums of money are being given or lent by Britain to Zambia, apart from the declaration of £13·85 million of direct aid which the right hon. Gentleman said last Thursday was tied aid, because I am pleading for a policy of entirely tied aid, call it if one will British-African Tied Aid, B.A.T.A. I am saying that all forms of aid, or assistance, or grants, or loans from Britain to Zambia should be tied. They should permit expenditure by Zambia only on British goods and services and should not be expended with our European industrial competitors, or others, such as the Japanese. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, forgive the suspicions which my hon. Friends and I have.

Under the heading "Switch," the Daily Mail of 9th January, 1967, also said:

"A £20-million contract to build the 1,100-mile pipeline from Zambia on the coast was taken from the British company Lonrho and given to the Italian group ENI.

The switch occurred while Zambia's President Kaunda was in Rome homeward bound from Chile. He had pointedly avoided visiting London and spoke publicly of Mr. Wilson's 'deceitful and dishonest ways'."

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rise and give us the academic answer that £13·85 million of aid from his Department is tied to British orders. This is not enough. Britain is giving generous financial aid to Zambia. Zambia does not reciprocate our generosity. Zambia displays the utmost animosity towards Britain and delights in the practice of kicking us in the wrong place. In return for our generous financial aid, Zambia deliberately discriminates economically against Britain. My information, from a most excellent source, is that our tenders for this long pipeline were lower than that of the Italians, that the delivery of the pipes would have been faster than by the Italians, and that the pipeline would have been operational under British contractors earlier than under the Italians, but the animus displayed by President Kaunda towards our Prime Minister was so great as to cause him to guide the Zambians in placing this important contract with our industrial competitors.

The Daily Mail, in the article to which I have referred, quoted an editorial in The Times of Zambia which said:

"We have seen Britain discredited as both a world power and the moral head of the Commonwealth during the past year of evasions on the Rhodesian issue. It has opened the eyes of Zambia and many other Commonwealth countries."

The Daily Mail went on to say:

"To Britain's losses in Zambia must be added the losses in Rhodesia, admitted by the British Government to be £30 million in export trade as a direct result of sanctions.

Indirectly the loss has been far more. In spite of international sanctions agreements foreign competitors are there too, grabbing the vacated British markets."

All that underlines my statement that the generosity of Britain towards Zambia is repaid by a policy of discrimination against British goods which is wholly harmful to our trading interests. Last Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and I raised the question of tied aid. My hon. Friend said:

"Can the hon. Gentleman explain why all the major Zambian Government contracts since last summer have been placed with Italian, French, American, Japanese and Yugoslav firms—the Yugoslav contract worth over £20 million, at a time when the British taxpayer was paying £15 million towards Zambia? Should we not have a quid pro quo?"

to which the Parliamentary Secretary replied in the most guarded terms—and this shows the disingenuous if not ambiguous character of the answer. The hon. Gentleman said:

"The question relates to the provision of British aid, and the contracts to which the hon. Member referred are not financed in that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 689.]

If they are not financed with British aid, "in that way", will the hon. Gentleman tell us how they are financed? Will he tell us this morning what is aid, what is assistance, what are loans, and what are grants? Will he tell us how much money, in all, the British taxpayer is furnishing for Zambian aid? Is this aid all tied?

Are not we entitled to say that not only the £13·85 million should be spent on British goods and services, but that in return for our generosity all contracts for economic and financial development in Zambia should be placed in Britain? I thoroughly resent African emergent States—highly nationalistic in character—demanding large sums of money from us, passing round an ever deeper begging bowl for our financial subventions, and then harming us financially by outpouring our reserves from the sterling area and placing contracts with Italians, Germans and the rest—countries which are supposed to be operating selective mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia, and often do not.

On behalf of British exporters everywhere, I thoroughly resent our gifts to Zambia being used for the purpose of subsidising our European industrial competitors, as well as the Americans and the Japanese, because of the specious assurances given by our Prime Minister to the Zambians at the last Commonwealth conference. The pipeline contract to which I have referred would have been invaluable to the British steel industry, which in its present debilitated condition due to the Government's financial, economic policies is working at only 70 per cent. of capacity. The pipeline contract has now been awarded to the Italians.

In my judgment, it is futile for the Prime Minister and other members of his Cabinet to exhort British manufacturers—in spite of their magnificent export achievements during the last few months—to make even greater export efforts while the Prime Minister and his colleagues deliberately undermine their markets abroad by political blundering and miscalculations of the kind manifest in their policies of non-tied aid to Zambia and other African countries.

Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) nor myself are in any way anti-Zambia, but we feel that British taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. Since November, 1965, with the declaration of U.D.I., the British taxpayer has put a great deal of money into Zambia, first, by way of military aid for example in respect of Javelin squadrons. I should like to know how much that cost, and also from whom the Javelins were to protect Zambia. Is it suggested that they were to protect Zambia against Rhodesia? That would be nonsense.

Zambia regards this money not as aid but compensation for U.D.I., because they regard the Rhodesian situation as being the fault of the British Government. Therefore I repeat my hon. Friend's question: is this sum of nearly £14 million to be regarded as aid? Is it tied? Is any other aid going to Zambia, for instance, to help their students, or their budget? Zambia is one of the richest countries in Africa; what other normal aid is going to Zambia, and how is this aid tied?

My hon. Friend has referred to the way in which foreign firms seem to attract the major Zambian foreign contracts. He mentioned Italy. In that connection I refer to the Fiat Tanzam contract, worth £5 million; the contract for the Tanzania oil pipeline, worth £16 million—for both of which contracts British firms tendered—to the fact that Alitalia has been allowed to operate from Zambia, which she was not allowed to do before, and will probably operate Zambia Airways if and when the Central African Airways break up, also that Italian contractors are said to be favourites for the Kafue hydro-electric project, which is worth £25 million.

It is alleged that estimates from British firms are shown to foreign Governments by somebody in the Zambian Ministry so that we can be deliberately undercut. I do not know whether that is true, but that is the rumour going round Lusaka, and it could explain what has been happening. The Minister has a duty to the British taxpayers to explain how these large sums of money, which are going to one of the richest countries in Africa, are being spent, in what way this money is tied to British firms, and why the Zambian Government in return for this aid or compensation have placed all their major contracts with foreign firms. I have mentioned Italian firms, but the Japanese have a contract to supply 800 rail trucks and the Americans have a contract to supply 26 new diesel motor locomotives. Yugoslavia is consulted on most major building contracts, France is developing the coal mines in Zambia, and so on. Many countries are involved, but not one single major Zambian Government contract since the summer of last year has been awarded to a British firm. Why? Broadly speaking, our firms are competitive with foreign firms. It is an extraordinary situation.

I echo the wise words with which my hon. Friend began his speech. Sanctions, and the whole related policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government, are affecting, first, the economy of Zambia, secondly, the economy of this country, and lastly, the economy of Rhodesia. What they have done is to so unite the Rhodesian nation—both black and white—that it is now prepared to fight the majority of the world.

Both the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) have pointed to the fact that this debate is inevitably linked with political and trading considerations. Therefore, we cannot avoid a somewhat confused approach to the question. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that his main purpose was to obtain a statement from the Government about the aid being provided for Zambia in order to clear up a number of misconceptions which he claims to have arisen recently.

I agree that there have been some misconceptions—and they lingered in the hon. Gentleman's speech. For instance, he referred to the £13·85 million that is being provided by my Department this year. This is the complete reverse of the case. This sum is the contingency fund provided by the Commonwealth Secretary. I understood that the hon. Member was going to raise the question of development aid. He was courteous enough to write to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations that he would talk about this, rather than contingency funds, which is why I am replying instead of my hon. Friend. I will proceed to do what I can, and I agree that it is desirable to have as clear a statement as possible of the aid provided.

There are, broadly, three categories of aid. There is development aid, under my Ministry, defence aid and this large sum of contingency assistance. Development aid consists of a loan of £3 million to meet the cost of compensation for expatriate officers, that is to say, it is related to personnel. We also provide assistance tawards the cost of expatriate staff still serving in Zambia under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme which we sponsor, amounting to about £3 million a year. All this is clearly spent on the provision of British services. It is provided only to British personnel and there is no doubt about its being tied.

Then there is the sum for technical assistance, which is not a great amount, about £¼ million, which is used for the provision of British experts and consultants and some equipment. This also is fully tied to British goods and services. As I pointed out in an Answer last Thursday, we have made a grant of £1 million for the building of the second phase of the University College.

About 40 per cent. of this is tied to British goods and services, and in case the hon. Gentleman wonders about the other 60 per cent., it is almost entirely used for local costs. It is a feature of our aid operations that we tie as far as possible either to contracts placed in Britain or for the payment of local Zambian costs. I am sure that he will recognise that there are local costs which have to be met in this way.

My Ministry has provided also for a £10 million loan over the next two or three years, which is expected to be disbursed in 1969–70 and 1970–71. Of this, £2 million is for defence aid, which is also entirely tied to British equipment. The details of how the other £8 million will be disbursed remain to be negotiated, but our usual stipulations about the tying of aid to British goods and services will apply in our negotiations.

Now we come to the sum of money particularly referred to by the two hon. Gentlemen. What I have dealt with so far is that which comes under my Ministry, but the £13·85 million is that which has arisen out of the special circumstances following U.D.I. This was to help Zambia with the immediate difficulties created by that situation. I am not going into the rights and wrongs, on which we have differing views, but this is what we mean by the contingency fund assistance. My hon. Friend the other Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations made clear the distinction that this was not development aid but assistance for short-term purposes like the air-lift and the provision of such things as British locomotives, rolling stock, heavy lorries, petrol tankers and airport equipment needed to deal with the immediate situation.

This, too—as to the vast bulk, as the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made clear—is also tied to British aid. Then we come to the contracts, which are a different issue—

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the total aggregate this year is about £14,500,000 in his Department, plus the £13·85 million?

No, that from my Department is about £3 million in regard to compensation to personnel and a continuing £3 million per year for O.S.A.S. One is compensation and one for continuing services, plus the technical assistance of £¼ million—

And defence?

Defence aid is part of the £10 million. Perhaps I did not make my self clear—

Is that £8 million from this fund or from the other one?

It comes from our funds, but that is not being disbursed and does not relate to this year. It is a loan which we have promised. The details have not been worked out, but it will be disbursed in succeeding years.

The hon. Gentleman will probably recognise that trade is not my field, although it is clearly related. Whatever may have happened in what he referred to as Central Africa, United Kingdom exports as a whole to Zambia do not appear to have suffered. As the President of the Board of Trade pointed out recently, United Kingdom exports in 1965 were £15·1 million and in 1966 had gone up to £26·3 million. So we were benefiting in that sense from our relationships with Zambia, and there is an upstepping of £10 million in our exports—

But did Zambia pay for them; was it long-term credits or was it unrequited exports against grants in aid for the future? This is what we are trying to get at.

I have explained what funds go from this country to Zambia and they clearly have not covered the commercial aspects of the exports—

Are they paid for?

In some cases they include the equipment, which is covered by aid, and in other cases not. We recognise that we have an obligation—

I am sorry to cut down on the time for the hon. Gentleman's reply, but he has again used the word "aid". What is this aid in the context of these exports? Are our exports unrequited? Are they being paid for in Zambian currency or set off against some hypothetical reduction at some indeterminate future date?

I am sorry if I used the word "aid". My hon. Friend suggested that we should try to keep a distinction between development aid, which is the long-term provision of loans, and the immediate assistance of the current period. I have no doubt that if these exports were analysed they would be of three kinds—some paid for out of funds provided by our Ministry, some out of funds provided under the Commonwealth Office—