Lords Sitting of 13 November 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ALCOHOL AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the report on the experimental work in connection with drink in road accidents carried out under the auspices of the Committee appointed jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Road Research Board has been published; what action is contemplated regarding it, and when will this be taken.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the report on the experimental work in connection with drink in road accidents, carried out under the auspices of the Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council and the Road Research Board, is in course of preparation and will be published as soon as possible. Some delay has been caused because the interpretation of part of the data is proving difficult. It will describe some experimental studies of the effect of small doses of alcohol on human reactions relevant to motor driving. I cannot at present say whether it will provide a basis for administrative action, but I have no doubt that as soon as it is received it will be given careful consideration by the Ministers concerned.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, which seems to take us a little further than we were on June 26 when I last raised this matter, may I ask him whether he considers his Answer indicates the importance of the subject and also whether he will bear in mind the vital necessity of getting action on this matter,
  296
  which should be looked upon as one of urgency?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my Answer does indeed indicate the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to this matter. I am sorry that there has been some delay about it, but apparently it is not possible to confine research within a rigid timetable.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate the great anxiety of many people in this country who are interested in this problem? Might I ask him whether he is aware that your Lordships gave great attention to this matter in the passage of the Road Traffic Bill through this House, when the penalty for, and the whole conception of, being drunk in charge of a motor car was altered? Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us whether he will make a special effort to see if it is possible for statistics to, be produced from the Home Office, even though this Act has been in operation for only twelve months, to find out whether any of the ideas put into the Bill by your Lordships' House have had a beneficial effect?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will certainly try to obtain those figures for the noble Lord.

  GRANTS TO BRITISH COUNCIL AND ARTS COUNCIL
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state (1) the amounts of the grants from the Exchequer to the British Council in the financial years 1954–55, 1955–56, and 1956–57, respectively; and (2) the amounts of the grants from the Exchequer to the Arts Council in the same financial years.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the information about Exchequer grants to the British Council and to the Arts Council for which the noble Viscount asks consists of a number of figures, I will, with the permission of the House, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures referred to:

  —

  1954–55

  1955–56

  1956–57*

  British Council

  Grant-in-Aid

  …

  1,675,000

  1,720,400

  2,187,650

  Repayments of Net Expenditure incurred on behalf of:—

  (a) Colonial Office

  …

  485,009

  555,497

  572,037

  (b) Colonial Development and Welfare

  …

  119,989

  97,087

  101,488

  (c) Commonwealth Relations Office

  …

  328,300

  375,459

  391,473

  2,608,298

  2,748,443

  3,252,648

  Arts Council

  …

  785,000

  820,000

  885,000

  *N.B.—The 1956–57 figures are taken from the British Council account, which has not yet been agreed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord. I will study the figures when I see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. May I ask the noble Lord this Question? As there is only a certain amount of money to go round, will Her Majesty's Government consider—and I am only asking them to consider—some pruning of the sum spent by the British Council abroad on drama, music and the visual arts, in order to provide a 25 per cent. increase in the money available to the Arts Council in this country, which would enable the Arts Council to support in adequate fashion the essential needs of the Arts in this country?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if my memory serves me right, only about 2 per cent. of the total expenditure of the British Council goes on the Arts, and I doubt whether the juxtaposition which the noble Viscount requires would serve his purpose as fully as he thinks.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government would consider that suggestion? And may I further ask him whether it is not of primary importance that the present level of the fine arts in this country should be maintained? Otherwise, in the long run there may be a general lowering of standards all round, both in this country and for export.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I most cordially agree with the noble Viscount, but that does not alter the fact that I think he is slightly confused about the objects of the British Council and the Arts Council.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I certainly am not.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I believe my right honourable friend the Postmaster General is going to make in another place a statement in which I believe your Lordships might be interested, and I will ask my noble friend, Lord Chesham, to make a statement at the same time in your Lordships' House. Although I do not know for certain, I believe I might have a statement to make on questions raised in another place yesterday concerning the bank rate. If so, I will take an opportunity of making that statement at about 3.30.

  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation land Maintenance) Acts, 1895 to 1949, and related enactments with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  PESTS ACT, 1954 (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Pests Act, 1954, in respect of the spreading of myxomatosis. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Dynevor.)
  On Question. Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  2.43 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment, moved yesterday by Viscount Hall, to the Motion for an humble Address moved on Tuesday, November 5 by Earl Waldegrave. The Motion was, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
  To which Viscount Hall had moved, as an Amendment, to add the words:
  "but humbly regret that the proposals in the gracious Speech are wholly incommensurate with the urgency of the problems facing the country at this time in the sphere of home affairs."
  2.44 p.m.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, to-day, on the last day on which we shall discuss the humble Address to Her Majesty, we are to deal with the question of agriculture. It is not possible within a short speech to make a complete survey of the agricultural position, but I want to deal with one or two points which arise from the reference in the gracious Speech to agriculture. This year there appears in the gracious Speech the statement of a definite intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to amend certain provisions of the Agriculture and the Agricultural Holdings Acts. This is somewhat of a departure from the general
  300
  reference to agriculture which has appeared in Speeches from the Throne over the last few years. It may prove a very important departure indeed.
  In moving the humble Address of thanks to Her Majesty, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, welcomed the pledges of the Government to support British agriculture. He said in the course of his very interesting speech many true things with regard to the agricultural industry. He expressed the view that those engaged in agriculture were casting nervous glances over their shoulders to see whether they were being overtaken once again by the disasters of thirty years ago, during the period between the Wars. I think he was right to remind us of those bad old days, not only for agriculture but for the country as a whole. He was right also to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that those engaged at the moment in the agricultural industry are nervous and apprehensive of the future. Indeed that is so, and perhaps our eyes and our thoughts are centred more on the present and the future than they are on the past. We in the industry, and possibly those outside, cannot see the way ahead clearly, and Her Majesty's Government in the gracious Speech have not helped us very much. In other words, they have not improved that vision but made it more obscure.
  No one can say at the moment where the agricultural industry is going or where we in the industry shall end. Uncertainty in many ways is coming once again to us, and the stringent nature of our time darkens our outlook and our prospects of maintaining prosperity in that greatest of all our national industries. The usual platitude of support to agriculture is included in the gracious Speech, as it customarily and always is, but at this moment assurances are insufficient and action will have to be taken if our high-level production and efficiency, and the well-being of those engaged in the task of growing food for home consumption, are to be maintained.
  Two other agricultural matters were touched upon by the noble Earl. He referred to the good record of the industry, unsurpassed by any other, with good labour relations, increasing productivity and non-partisan legislation. He hoped this proud record would long remain untarnished. I heartily agree. Again he

  301
  expressed his view (and I must apologise to the noble Earl for making these references to his speech; I am sorry I did not give him notice and I hope he will not mind) that the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1948 were the most far-reaching and fundamental of agricultural legislation. He never said a truer word. He was right to remind us of this fact, particularly at the present moment, and the reference in the gracious Speech to these is of very great importance.
  Her Majesty's Government tell us that
  "Legislation will be introduced to amend certain provisions of the Agriculture and Agricultural Holdings Acts …"
  In speaking in the debate on the Address, in another place, the Prime Minister said the Government had decided to repeal the disciplinary provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and would take an opportunity to amend the existing provisions dealing with the security of tenure to tenant farmers, and considered clarifying the statutory guidance to agricultural rent arbitrators. I am sure that all who are actively engaged in the industry are anxious to know exactly what the Government's intentions are, and I hope the noble Earl who is replying to this debate will be able to elaborate, if possible, the statement of the Prime Minister.
  It would seem to me that Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is in jeopardy. If this goes, one of the fundamentals—as referred to by the noble Earl—disappears, and the foundations on which the Act was brought into being crack and eventually decay. Parts I and II of the Act, noble Lords will remember, are tied together. The first provides for guaranteed prices and assured markets—both, unfortunately, more or less unknown under present conditions and under the present Government. The second deals with good estate management and good husbandry. We cannot hope to achieve this without the assistance which guaranteed prices and assured markets cart provide. Nor are we justified in spending State money by way of subsidies and support prices unless the nation can be assured that the rules of good estate management and good husbandry are recognised and practised.
  The Prime Minister also referred to the disciplinary provisions. When the Agriculture Act was being considered in another place in 1947 there was complete co-operation, consultation and agreement
  302
  between the Government of that day and the representatives of the main interests concerned—namely, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers; and a pledge was given at that time that if Part I of the Act was rightly implemented then, in the interests of the nation and of farming, Part II would be operated. And the same applied in reverse: the two Parts must stand together. And it has been so; both Parts have been operated, and the working of Part II has had a very beneficial influence upon the rate of our production and in increasing the efficiency achieved by the industry. The Minister shakes his head, but I am certain that that was the effect of Part II. I do not think I stand to be corrected in this. I am certain that the operation of Part II has made it possible for many farmers who would not have produced at a high level to achieve the result which we required them to do. I am not talking of dispossessed farmers: I am talking of those farmers who have been advised and helped in many ways by the county agricultural executive committees.
  Part II was never intended to be a vicious or penal operation. Bearing out what I have just said, it was enacted for the help, guidance and assistance of those in need of such. Comparatively few dispossessions of either landowners or occupiers have been necessary, or have taken place, and the county agricultural executive committees have carried out a difficult and sometimes unpleasant task in a tolerant and even generous spirit. I wish at this point to give a measure of praise to those members and officials of the county agricultural executive committees who have worked so well during the ten years or more they have been in operation. As a nation we must make the best possible use of our land, and as a farming community we are anxious that all engaged in farming should give of their best and should seek to maintain our present high standard of soil cultivation and stock rearing. As farmers we are as critical of, and as distressed over, bad farming as anyone else in the community. A system of supervisory assistance and advice has come in; and in my opinion it should stay.
  A few moments ago I made a point about consultation with representative

  303
  bodies. I understand that both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union have expressed their disapproval of the Government's intentions. The National Union of Agricultural Workers have not been consulted. I wonder who advised the Government to take a step which cannot be acceptable as being in the national interest. I hope that the Government will go very warily before they seek to amend the main provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The Prime Minister's reference to amending the provisions for security of tenure will frighten a great many tenant farmers.
  I think we should ask whether it is intended that we should go back to the days of wholesale notices to quit, with small disturbance compensation, so that farms can be sold with vacant possession at high prices. If this is so it is a very serious proposal, and I wonder who is responsible for it. The Agriculture Act safeguarded the rights of a tenant to remain in occupation, provided that his farming ability and his financial status were approved by those in authority. If security of tenure goes, as well as the proposed demolition of Part II of the Act, that greatest of all Agricultural Acts will become virtually a dead letter. Does any noble Lord on the Benches opposite want that to happen? I am pretty well certain that everyone who is engaged in agriculture would regret the day that the Agriculture Act of 1947 became a dead letter.
  In my view the industry should be warned about the position which confronts it, in view of this one small paragraph in the gracious Speech. The Government, unfortunately, in my opinion, are still thinking in terms of a "free-for-all" agricultural policy. Noble Lords will have seen articles which have appeared in the farming Press during the last few days, signifying, in my view, that there is a feeling of disquiet within the industry. One particular editorial, which deals with the question of wage and similar claims, may be referred to. The industry is facing additional wage costs. It will also have to bear, in the immediate future, heavy additional costs in connection with national insurance, and here is a matter to which I think I should call the attention of noble Lords.
  304
  These additional costs cannot be passed on in the prices which the farmer receives for his commodities. The additional cost to farmers in respect of the National Insurance contributions of themselves and their employees will probably be in the nature of £5 or £6 million a year. The farmer also has to meet additional bank charges and increasing costs all round as a result of the raising of the bank rate—higher costs which are passed on in prices by other industries. His disadvantage is very apparent. What are the Government prepared to do? Will they repudiate the workers' claim for higher wages? If they do that, I think that it would be a deplorable action and a great calamity to the industry. Will they say to the farmer at the next February Price Review, "We will not reimburse your additional costs," and impose upon him the price cut of 2½ per cent. which was considered in the last Review? That is the position in which we find the industry at the present time.
  I want to call your Lordships' attention to the serious cereal problem. The markets are flat, prices are low and difficulty is being experienced in moving and caching grain already threshed. Buildings and stores, cart sheds and the like, are full of barley and wheat which cannot be moved by the merchants or by the farmers. Money is tight and is required by both. Can the Government do anything to relieve this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is there some solution at which they can arrive and by which this heavy load of corn can be moved and sold?
  A few days ago the amount of the first deficiency payment on wheat was announced. It will amount to a total of £5¼ million, at a rate of approximately 7s. 8d. per cwt., which is equivalent to £7 14s.-odd per ton. Payment is to be made on approximately 6·8 million cwt. Last year the first payment was on a quantity of 8·8 million cwt. and amounted to £2 million, as against £5¼ million this year. That payment was at the rate of approximately 4s. 6d. per cwt., or £4 10s. a ton, as against the present rate of £7 14s. In my view this shows the trend of present home-grown wheat movements and prices, and it is significant in this way: that the lower the price, the greater

  305
  the payment by the Exchequer and, bearing out what I say about the barns being full of grain, less wheat has been moved for sale after harvesting this year than last year. Again, as a result of the increased wheat deficiency payment the Exchequer may have to bear a heavier wheat payment this year than last. Who gains by these additional payments? Does the nation gain? Do the consumers gain? Do the farmers gain, or do the merchants gain?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Or the millers?
  LORD WISE: I forgot the millers; I will put them in for luck. I leave it to noble Lords to decide for themselves who are the gainers; I think that many of us realise who, in fact, do gain.
  I want now to say a few words about horticulture. A few days ago I received a letter of doubt about the future of horticulture in the arrangements to be made in connection with the European Free Trade Area. I have already made reference to agriculture and forestry, and we who live on the borders of the fen country know the problems which confront some of our horticulturists. From the letter I have received from the fen area, it appears that horticulturists are perturbed and suspicious about what is to happen, to their industry under the new arrangements, if they ever come into operation.
  Where are we going? Those of us engaged in agriculture have to contend, and can contend, with the natural difficulties of our industry. We have to suffer from pests and weather conditions—and in the last few days those farmers who have been working on sugar beet have suffered indeed from weather conditions; we suffer from crop failures, stock casualties and disease. All these are sufficient in themselves for one industry. We do not wart also to suffer without reply the high costs of the things we have to buy and of the money we have to borrow; low prices for our commodities; the extraordinarily bad marketing conditions; insecurity of tenure and unhealthy foreign competition. We hope that the time will come when all these will be things of the past. l hope that the Government will act very cautiously here, and, bearing in mind the possible curtailment of the Agriculture Act, that they will not tinker with it so as to undermine the structure of the
  306
  industry on which alone our prosperity can be safeguarded. We are all concerned—landowners, farmers and farmworkers—and I hope that nothing will be done to shake the confidence of the producers in the fair deal from the nation which they have a right to expect.
  3.9 p.m.
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are in the fifth day of the debate on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, and despite the many references which have been made to Her Majesty I feel that I must add my humble thanks that we should have so gracious and so charming a lady at the head of our nation. In this respect we are the envy of countless thousands of people, and it behoves us well to remember that. The charm and dignity with which Her Majesty and her husband conduct their affairs is the inspiration not only of us who are privileged to be her subjects, but of those of other free countries of the world.
  I wish to refer at the outset to one part of the gracious Speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has already referred. The gracious Speech states that:
  "Legislation will be introduced to amend certain provisions of the Agriculture and Agricultural Holdings Acts …
  We do not know exactly which provisions are to be amended, but I hope, as I indeed believe, that Sections 16 and 17—and particularly paragraph 1 (b) of Section 17—will be among those which will come under review. Those sections deal with dispossession of owners on account of bad estate management or bad husbandry. I believe that this principle is intrinsically wrong. Over the past eighteen months we have seen a clear example of the operation of these sections in the eviction of Lady Garbett from her farm in Sussex. In my opinion that was an act of wicked bureaucracy. I do not say that the Minister was wrong, but I do say that the law was wrong. I should like your Lordships to realise, however, that any observations I may make refer not to that one particular incident but to the whole basis on which those two sections operate; I use the example of Lady Garbett only as a typical result of the way that they operate. To my mind, it cuts right across the very basis of human freedom that an owner, an individual person, should be thrown out of his or her own property because somebody determines that he or she is not

  307
  looking after that property to a sufficiently high standard.
  There are many plausible reasons—the noble Lord opposite has just given us some of them—why Sections 16 and 17 should be retained. The noble Lord has said, as indeed is always said, that if the taxpayer is to provide support for the agricultural community, he must, in return, expect a reasonable standard of farming from the farmers. In principle I would agree with that; but in practice I disagree with it. Democracy is a very fine thing and something that we all treasure, and we might agree that it is through the principles of democracy that our agriculture has been supported. But the greatest danger that lies in democracy—and it is one against which we should for ever be on guard—is the possibility of its transition into bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the curse of the individual.
  I believe it to be fundamentally against the basic interests and basic principles of freedom that in peace time a person should be thrown out of his own property. That is a cry which the Party that noble Lords opposite support invariably produce on behalf of the tenant against the landlord. But if it is wicked for a landlord to throw out a tenant, surely it is criminal for a Government to throw out an owner. However, I do not believe that we need worry ourselves for fear that there will be many farmers farming badly, yet living riotous lives and "growing fat" on the superfluity of Government grants. I have yet to find it possible to "grow fat" farming to the best of one's ability. I know that the 1947 Act is the "baby" of the Labour Party, and they feel that it has given agriculture such confidence that it must never be touched. It is true that it has given agriculture great confidence; but it is not sacrosanct; and if it is possible to improve the Act, the Government should not hesitate to do so.
  I said that one must guard against the encroachment of bureaucracy, and I believe that to be true both in our everyday life and in agriculture. I should like to give your Lordships a few examples of the encroachment of bureaucracy into agriculture. I know of an individual, highly respected (I do not know whether he is highly paid, but he certainly should
  308
  be) and a highly qualified member of the Eastern Area of the National Agricultural Advisory Service who is required to sign the book at 8.30 each morning to show that he has reported for work; and there are many others in a similar position. Your Lordships may consider that a rather insignificant matter to bring forward, but if your Lordships will bear with me, I will endeavour to show how dangerous it is.
  A highly qualified, highly respected individual, holding the equivalent of an executive position, is paid to do a job of work. If he is going to be made to "clock in" at 8.30 in the morning, the natural and obvious corollary will be that he will "clock out" at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Surely, these people must be paid to do their job of work, and not be paid for an eight-hour day. It is this type of petty bureaucracy that destroys the initiative, the individuality and, indeed, the responsibility of people who have to work with it. If I may coin a rather vulgar word, one might call it an encroachment of "oculo-schizophrenia", which, being interpreted, means split eyes—one on your work and one on the clock. That, to my mind, is a particular aspect of our nation which we see only too often nowadays, and it is one which fundamentally destroys interest.
  I have even been sufficiently unfortunate to witness a most incredible piece of bureaucracy. I once saw a circular that had been sent to the Norfolk Agricultural Executive Committee, and, frankly, it was enough to make a strong man weep. It said that, in the interests of economy, pins and paper clips were to be cut by 50 per cent. It is incredible to think that any business, any institution, which is supposed to be run on reasonably sensible lines could ever tolerate such utter rubbish as that. One may laugh; but my point is this—and it is a serious one: it is this dreadful encroachment of bureaucracy that is undermining not only the work but also the morale of the people who work in the Agricultural Advisory Service and in other departments of the Civil Service connected with agriculture. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to take this matter seriously, and I should like him, if he would be so good, to give an assurance that he will look into the extent of the encroachment of this bureaucracy and

  309
  give us some idea whether it is, in fact, as bad as to me it appears to be.
  There is one other point that I should like to mention, and I do this, I confess, with a certain amount of trepidation, because I once remarked to a noble Lord that there was to be a debate on agriculture the following day. From his rather palsied reply I gathered that he was not very interested. When I asked him whether he was in fact interested, he said, "The trouble is that whenever there is a debate on agriculture noble Lords always seem to reach for the money, and they all say that their particular aspect of farming requires a greater subsidy than another." He capped it by suggesting that it was a little undignified. At the risk of being even a little more undignified than is my normal habit or, indeed, at the risk of resembling a character from a Fougasse cartoon, I should like to mention one particular aspect of subsidies which I feel has room for improvement.
  Contrary to what many people believe, farming is not such a prosperous industry as it used to be.
  A NOBLE LORD: Come over here!
  EARL FERRERS: No, not yet. However that may be, to a large degree the farming industry is reliant upon the subsidies which are given to it. My point is that there is a very poor correlation between the amount of subsidy that is given, when it is given, and the harvest to which it refers. To give an example, on October 28, 1957, the agricultural workers' wages were increased. We are told that that increase in cost is to be taken into account in the February Price Review of 1958. That refers to the harvest of 1958, and the barley harvested in August. 1958, will receive its subsidy, its deficiency payment, in September, 1959. 'Therefore farmers will not have the full recoupment of the cost of the increase in wages which has just taken place until two years have elapsed, by which time they will have had three more wage claims. So where are we?
  Although the Government and other interested bodies tell farmers that their costs are to be recouped in the next February Price Review, the farmer has come to take that as meaning very little.
  310
  In other words, he has to find the extra increase of money himself.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  EARL FERRERS: It is all very fine for noble Lords opposite to say "Hear, hear!"—I am glad they agree with me. But the point is that if the farming industry is to expand and increase, there must be some more immediate correlation between the increase of costs and the increase of subsidies. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would give that aspect a little thought and see whether it is possible to avoid these great lapses of time, particularly with reference to the cereals deficiency payments.
  3.25 p.m.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to follow the noble Earl who has just spoken in his strictures on the procedure in cutting pins and papers by 50 per cent. I should have thought that he would have enjoyed that experience, because if all bureaucracy could in fact be cut by 50 per cent., there might be one shilling off the income tax.
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will pardon, me for one moment, I think he will agree that to take one shilling of the income tax you would have to save a considerable quantity of pins and paper.
  LORD DYNEVOR: I think the noble Earl did not take my point, which was that it was a beginning and that if bureaucratic expenses could be cut all through by that amount, then we should be able to see that reduction in taxation.
  We have had a good many debates on agriculture just lately, and no doubt when measures are brought before the House to implement the undertakings that have been given we shall have a few more. But agriculture is timeless and farming is timeless, and it can never suffer from having the problems which beset it ventilated from time to time. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the present day is that the policy of noble Lords belonging to the Party opposite—and I believe it to be their official policy—is rather not to nationalise the land. Not long ago we had a by-election in the county in which I reside, and the official speakers of the Opposition—and I am bound to

  311
  say they won the seat—went about promising the farmers of Carmarthenshire that land nationalisation was not in the Labour programme. If that is the case, it would be right that it should be known to the full.
  I am encouraged by it, because in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, he referred in kindly and generous terms to good estate management and the good handling of husbandry by private enterprise. It would be a great thing for agriculture if it could feel that it is not to be torn between the Scylla and Charybdis of private enterprise, on the one hand, and nationalisation, on the other, but will be free to proceed with its plans—and they have to be long-term plans. It would be interesting if the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Opposition could give us some indication of the intentions of the Party opposite should they win the next General Election.
  A few minutes ago your Lordships generously gave me permission to introduce a Bill dealing with the return of the rabbit. I will not on this occasion spoil what I hope will be a good Second Reading speech, if I am fortunate enough to be given time in this House to make it, by saying any more about the return of the rabbit, except this: it is a very serious problem and a serious pest. My Bill, which perhaps will be in your Lordships' hands to-morrow morning, is a bigger and better Bill than the one I introduced last summer. Its most important provisions will be to allow the artificial spreading of myxomatosis, if required, and I am adding to the Bill a provision to make it illegal to sell wild rabbits' skins and carcases in the shops. I say no more now than that I am not at all sure that the second provision is not going to be more effective than the first, if it ever became law. I leave that matter now until the Second Reading debate, which I hope may take place before too long.
  All the speeches of noble Lords have drawn attention to the three main promises that have been given by the Prime Minister lately in connection with agriculture. If I might summarise them at the risk of repeating what was said by the two noble Lords who have already spoken, these are the three main points: the repeal of the disciplinary measures under the 1947 Act; the amendment of existing provisions for the
  312
  security of tenure of tenant farmers, and the clarifying of statutory guidance to arbitrators in fixing farm rents.
  May I discuss those three points very briefly, in order? The question of the repealing of the disciplinary measures in the 1947 Act is all very well so far as it goes, but, unlike the noble Earl who has just spoken. I take the view that if farmers receive large agricultural subsidies from the State, the least that the taxpayer can expect is a reasonably good standard of farming in return. Up to now so far as estate management is concerned it has always been possible in the case of bad farming to apply to the county agricultural committee, either for a supervisory order or, in an extreme case, for an eviction. I happen by good fortune to be the tenant for life of a reasonably large agricultural estate, and I am happy to say that so far as I am concerned the relations between the estate and the tenants are always excellent. because we try to row together; and if it so be, in certain very infrequent cases, that the standard of farming is allowed to decline, a friendly visit and friendly talk generally does the trick. So far as I am aware no question of appeal to the agricultural committee or eviction has ever arisen. That is a point that is very important.
  But that only touches the fringe of the problem, in my submission, because by far the greater number of farm holdings in this country are not owned by the tenant of a landlord; they are owned by the farmer himself; he is the landlord, and there is no supervision whatsoever except his own good will and, hitherto, of course, the discipline of the agricultural committee should the bad farming become too apparent. I forget the exact figure, but the State pays something like £250 million to £300 million a year in agricultural subsidies of one sort or another, and, as I say. I do not think it is the least unreasonable that some return should be made.
  The second point is about security of tenure. Security of tenure is now pretty well absolute, and I do not think anybody would wish ever to see a return to the days when a landlord could evict his tenant at will. Security of tenure has meant in practice that the farmer has carried out great improvements to his own house and farm at his own expense

  313
  in the certain knowledge that unless he really fails to carry out the terms of his lease or really goes in for very bad farming he can stay there. As noble Lords will know, the only way at present that an owner can regain possession of his farm is either by voluntary surrender of it by the tenant, or by giving three months' notice to resume possession in the event of the death of the tenant.
  That, I think, has brought great satisfaction and contentment to the countryside, and I do not know the answer to my next proposition—that is, that security of tenure has gone so far that ii is becoming more and more difficult for young farmers to get a farm. I had a farm to let only two or three months ago and there were twelve applications for it. Ten of the applicants were under thirty-five years old, so it shows that there is, in my part of the country at any rate, a very considerable land hunger among the younger people. If you ask what the solution is; I do not know whether you can make an age limit or some other provision I do not know. I can only throw out the suggestion that in satisfying one side of the question you are making it very difficult for the other side to come along. If the discipline of the agricultural committee is to be abandoned—and here I should be grateful if the noble Earl who is to reply could tell us what is in the mind of the Government on this matter, because I have the feeling that there is more to it than the bare announcement we have already had—it will make it very difficult in estate management for the owner to have rigidly to enforce the terms of his lease or take his tenants to court. I very much hope it will never come to that.
  As regards the fixing of farm rents I have not much to say, except to remind Her Majesty's Government that the 1957 costs of repairs are extremely high. If it ever comes to the question of increasing rents, as noble Lords will know, a year's notice has to be given by Michaelmas in any one year in order for that increase to take effect in the following year. But there is one small point—I do not know whether l can expect the noble Earl to reply to it; it is more a Treasury matter. Although in farming there are certain substantial rebates obtainable under the income tax laws, for which agriculture is extremely grateful, is there any way in which they could take effect a little more
  314
  quickly? It takes such a very long time for maintenance claims and other claims to be passed through the Inland Revenue. If there were any way in which, for example, on January I or within a month you could claim straight away the rebates you will get in due course for the previous year, I believe it would be quite an encouragement to people to spend money, because by the time the benefit comes through you have forgotten what you spent the money on. Perhaps it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but maybe the noble Earl would be kind enough to draw his attention to it.
  The rural worker has just received another increase in wages, and I for one do not dissent at all. Provided it is possible to pay the money, I think the agricultural worker is as much entitled to the amenities of modern life as anyone else. It is plain that the actual scale of wage cannot be as high as the industrial rate, but in point of fact what is so often overlooked is that this is the basic rate and that in practice the actual wage packet taken home is a great deal more. The agricultural cottage in many cases is still rented at about 3s. a week, and I have noticed, as many of your Lordships have, quite a number of modern amenities in the countryside in the form of television masts and so on, and I am delighted to see them. In my own case we have carried through, just finished, a big scheme of modernisation of workers' cottages. Some are being held up because the South Wales Electricity Board will not bring the electricity, but the cottages are ready to receive it as soon as it comes. The young married woman, quite properly, is not going to take the old-fashioned agricultural cottage that looks extremely nice, with roses round the door and a thatched roof, but is extremely dark and insanitary inside, although of course beautifully kept by the occupant it means much harder work than when one has running water, nice appliances and all modern amenities.
  With the hope of education, the younger people wish to receive these benefits, and that brings me to just one more point in connection with education. At last I think the teaching profession is beginning to come away from the point of view that to be an agricultural worker is not to be as good or as grand or as smart as the industrial worker, and the

  315
  schools can do a great deal in that direction. If agriculture itself is provided with more up-to-date amenities I see no reason whatever why the younger people should not come into it. There are, happily, even in this mechanical age, a number of persons who do not want to work in a factory, who do not like the noise and the banging and the clanging but are much happier in rural surroundings. Good housing and good education are fundamental matters in connection with the agricultural industry.
  May I just turn for one moment to another aspect of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and refer once again to the Report which was debated in your Lordships' House, although I think this part was never mentioned the Report on Forestry, Agriculture and Marginal Land, in so far as it affects Wales. I quote it really as an instance of the success of the policy of the Government, which I hope they will be able to continue and to expand, because in central Wales they are faced with a difficult problem in regard to rural depopulation. It is a trend that we should like to see reversed if it is at all possible.
  May I cite two or three small points to illustrate what I am saying? The rural development panel of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire carried out a survey of a selected 300,000 acres in Cardigan, Montgomery and Radnor. That area, in round figures, was broken up like this: under tillage, 17,000 acres permanent and temporary grass, 64,000 acres; rough grazings in sole occupation (that is, by the small farmer) 180,000 acres; common grazings, 15,000 acres; forests, woodlands, other non-agricultural areas and inland water, 22,000 acres. The population in 1951 was 10,646, which works out at a little more than one person to 30 acres, compared with 12,000 in 1931—a drop of about 13 per cent. That is quite a severe reduction in rural population. There were, on the other hand, 25,000 cattle and calves in 1953 compared with 22,700 in 1931, an increase of 10 per cent. or so, and there were other figures of that kind. An interesting point is that there were 358,000 sheep and lambs in 1953 compared with 305,000 in 1931.
  That is an area where there is still vast potential development. The increase in
  316
  knowledge of grasses and so on enables the stock of sheep and lambs to be almost trebled; the operation of the Hill Farming Act has been of considerable advantage, and in these directions, when we are losing land at the rate of 50,000 acres a year for building and other purposes, it is most important that these outlying parts of marginal land should be developed to the fullest possible extent. If I commend the attention of Her Majesty's Government—if they need it to be commended, which I do not think they do—to these areas, it is because I believe there is still a great field for development, with its bearing on the foreign exchange in the sense that the less we have to import in the way of foodstuffs the less foreign exchange we have to find.
  Perhaps the noble Earl can say something on this, my last point, upon which I am not clear myself. To what extent will European free trade really affect the agricultural industry—and in that definition I include the word "forestry"? We are told that agriculture is to be excluded from European free trade, but I do not think that that exclusion applies to the timber industry. We are being encouraged in every possible way to replant our woodlands—by grant, by example and by encouragement from the Forestry Commission, who are extremely helpful; but if European free trade is really going to hurt the price of timber in this country, I fear that some of those efforts may be brought to naught. I ask for information on this point only because I do not really know myself. My Lords, on those points to which I have endeavoured to draw the attention of your Lordships, I await the reply of the Government.
  3.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I would intervene for only a few moments on the Amendment moved yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and I do so after hearing yesterday's debate, the appeal made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall (a very old friend and colleague of many of us), which moved me, and also because of a suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. I think the noble Marquess was led to make that suggestion by a sort of feeling that we all want to get together; that we all realise we are facing a difficult situation, and yet it seems a little doubtful whether on either side we know just where we are going. Let me say about that particular

  317
  suggestion, which, if I understood the noble Marquess aright—and I have reread his speech—was that in deciding on wages in industry, whether by arbitration, or conciliation, no one takes into account the general interests of the country, or even the particular interest of the consumer, that there is a certain amount of truth in that suggestion, but at the same time I should have thought that it was the duty of the independent arbitrator to pay some attention to those matters.
  But I come to the particular remedy which the noble Marquess proposed, which was this: that because it is so important that the general interest, the general world situation, particularly the interests of this country as a whole, should be taken into account, all wage awards should be referred to a Minister, should have his imprimatur or his dissent, and should then be subject to debate in Parliament. I am bound to say that I could not possibly agree with that suggestion, and I am not sure that, on reflection, the noble Marquess would press it. Let us accept at the value he put upon it the failure of arbitration hoards to take the wider view. But is his proposal really the way out? As noble Lords opposite know, I have never taken an academic view on nationalisation. On the whole, I have thought that nationalisation was a bad policy for most industries because it eliminated competition; there was no yardstick of comparative efficiency to which one could work, and so on.
  But I always felt one objection to nationalisation more than anything else: that in all industrial relations in what is still, next to America—I leave out Russia—the greatest industrial country in the world, it is tremendously important that the State, the Government. Parliament, should stand aloof from the day-to-day management and affairs of industry and should therefore be able, when it became necessary, to represent the common interest and speak for the nation as a whole. For that reason, I felt that nationalisation, leaving aside its economic merits or demerits, presented one great danger—namely, that the moment the State, in effect the Government, became the owner of a great basic industry and the employer in a great basic industry, then the Government themselves, by becoming the employer, became involved in every industrial dispute, became both employer
  318
  and judge, and there was no sort of court of appeal outside it. In short, the Government abdicated their impartial and national function.
  It was exactly to meet that danger that we all agreed (I think it was common ground between all three Parties) that, if we were to have nationalisation, we must remove an industry which was nationalised as far as possible from the individual control of a Minister, and must place it under some board which would be independent and would work in its labour relations in the same way as employers in ordinary industry would work, and that the Minister would come in only in the last resort. If that is right—and I still think it is—surely it cannot be a solution of our present difficulties to make the Minister himself not only the employer in the nationalised industry but also the dictator and arbiter in wages disputes in every industry; and there are not only wages disputes, for many disputes concern not only wages but details of employment within an industry. I believe that it cannot be right to refer all this to the Minister, to the intense embarrassment of the Minister himself—and, if I may respectfully agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, this applies whichever Party is in office—and the almost equal embarrassment of the Opposition who, because they are an Opposition, have almost as a matter of course to take the opposite line.
  I do not think therefore that the solution lies along those lines. At the same time I was impressed, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was—and as I believe all of us are, in Parliament or in the country—with what I said at the beginning was the feeling: that somehow or other we have to get together over these things "which belong unto our peace" and our salvation, and on which, if we go wrong, we may go wrong for all time. Yet it would seem we have nothing to bring us together. I am not quarrelling about what has been said by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government. For my part I believe that a very great deal that has been said is absolutely right and that the economic situation is as serious as they say it is.
  At the same time I can well see the pressure upon trade unions and trade union leaders who, after all, must have the interests of their clients at heart. So

  319
  that, while we all have the feeling that we must get together, we seem somehow to be drifting further apart. Reasonable things are said by Her Majesty's Government on economic dangers, and on the other side there are wage claims, some of which merit careful consideration. But what is to bring us all together? It has been my experience that it is often difficult to get together about general principles, except perhaps at some international conference, where the only thing that ever comes out is some formula which means very little and is a kind of lowest common denominator on which everybody can agree. That will not be any good here. I believe that if we are really to come together we must have a concrete plan.
  That leads me to this comment. A very old friend of us all, a colleague of many of us in the National Government under Sir Winston Churchill, and of others of us in the Conservative Government which Sir Winston headed, Lord Chandos (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton as he then was), who, apart from the few—too few—years during which he was a Minister, has been all his life a very able industrialist, has made a concrete suggestion. That is that throughout industry there might be an annual offer of a 2½ per cent. increase in wages, with a condition with which I believe most people on both sides of the House would sympathise, and which many practise; that there should be a longer term of notice, or security of tenure, for those who have been longer in the business. I believe that that is very important, because although security of tenure may not mean much when there is over-employment and a man can get work anywhere, that position may not go on for ever. I believe that security of tenure is more important in industry than it is in farming, but that aspect was almost a sideline of the noble Lord's proposal. The main proposal asked, in
  320
  effect, could we not agree that, with this so-called "standstill," we could go forward together, in a combined effort, without further wage claims on either side, except for minor adjustments, for, say, five years, and this links up with the idea of Her Majesty's Government that increases in wages should be compensated by increased production.
  After all, as the Lord Privy Seal said in a debate in another place, we have lately shown a remarkable increase in output, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that, taking industry broad and large (though some industries will not do it), this 2½ per cent. increase ought to be on an average, year by year, a not unreasonable increase in productivity to assume. In return for that increase in productivity every workman in industry would know that he was guaranteed that, year by year, there would be a 2½ per cent. increase on his basic wage or earnings. I do not think that is unreasonable.
  I would not ask your Lordships to commit yourselves to that unconditionally without further consideration, but I do want to put this thought to the House to-day. Neither side has concrete proposals to put forward. It is much easier to meet over a concrete proposal. Could not that suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, be taken as a basis on which both sides—though I do not like that expression "both sides"; all who are interested in this: Her Majesty's Government, the Opposition, employers and trade unions—can come together for discussion as to whether out of that proposal, could not come some result so that, instead of drifting wider apart, we might get together and see whether we cannot find, starting with that idea as a basis for discussion, something on which we can go forward, to the mutual advantage of everybody in industry and to the great benefit of this country and the world?

  THE BANK RATE INCREASE
  4.0 p m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I indicated at an earlier stage, the Prime Minister has just made a statement in another place which I should like to repeat to your Lordships:
  "Yesterday certain Questions were put to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning an allegation that there had been a leakage of information regarding the intention to increase bank rate. My right honourable friend was asked to say what individuals he saw on the day preceding the increase in bank rate. He took the view that it would be contrary to precedent and damaging to the conduct of public business to disclose the confidential discussions which are frequently held in advance of an announcement of Government policy; and he therefore declined to give the information sought. But in view of the interpretation which has been placed on his replies I have decided, with his full concurrence, that this information should be given on this occasion.
  "I wish to say at once that I have the categorical assurance of my right honourable friend that in the interviews to which I am about to refer nothing was disclosed about the intention to increase hank rate. But, apart altogether from bank rate, the Government were about to announce a number of important measures for dealing with the economic situation, including the limitation of bank advances, control of the money supply and the adjustment of public investment. These measures must inevitably have wide repercussions on wages, profits and many other sections of the economy. It was both necessary and normal that the presentation of these measures to the public should be discussed in advance with a number of interested persons, including certain representatives of the Press, Accordingly, in a series of separate interviews during the afternoon of the 18th of September, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Power explained these measures to representatives of certain of the nationalised industries, to representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation, to representatives of certain newspapers and to Mr. Oliver Poole, the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.
  "I wish once more to say that I have been assured that in none of these interviews was any disclosure made of the intention to increase bank rate. I accept those assurances. Moreover, full information about these interviews was placed before the Lord Chancellor in the course of the inquiry which he made at my request and, as the House will remember, he reached the conclusion that there were no grounds for further investigation. No new evidence of any leakage of information has been adduced.
  "But in the course of the supplementary questions yesterday imputations were made—or at any rate implied—on the honour of my
  322
  right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and against the character and probity of Mr. Oliver Poole. These are serious imputations, and my right honourable friend and Mr. Poole have both represented to me most strongly that they should be given an opportunity to rebut them. Mr Poole, who is no longer in a position to defend himself in this House, has sent me a letter, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, asking that an inquiry should be held for this purpose. In the circumstances which have now arisen I have decided that this is now the right course to take. Therefore I shall tomorrow move in this House and my noble friend will move in another place for the setting up of a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. 1921. Notice of motion will be given under the usual procedure."
  Following is the letter from Mr. Oliver Poole:
  "47, Parliament Street,
  Westminster, S.W.1.
  13th November, 1957.
  Dear Prime Minister,
  I am deeply disturbed by the use of my name in the House of Commons under cover of the absolute privilege accorded to Members of Parliament to which in the natural course of events I have no opportunity to reply, or to make my position known.
  I now wish to state categorically that while, as I disclosed to the Lord Chancellor, I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th September, I at no time received any prior information relating to the increase of the bank rate either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from anyone else. I neither made nor caused to be made any sales of Government or other securities between the time when I left the Chancellor's presence on the Wednesday afternoon, which was at approximately 4.45 p.m., and the public announcement of the change in the bank rate.
  Whilst I appreciate and respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reluctance on constitutional grounds to disclose, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, the names of the persons whom he had seen, I feel that in fairness to myself and to the persons and firms with whom I am associated I must ask you to institute a judicial enquiry in order to establish the facts as contained in this letter.
  Yours sincerely,
  (Sgd.) OLIVER POOLE.
  The Rt. Hon. Harold Macmillan. M.P.,
  10, Downing Street, London, S.W.1."
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for giving your Lordships the benefit of the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. The House will, I think, agree that there has been a good deal of anxiety since the first of the imputations mentioned in the noble Earl's statement became known. I think that, whilst there are enough lines in this

  323
  very careful statement of the Prime Minister upon which comment may well be made, in view of the nature of the last part of the noble Earl's statement, that the question is to go before a proper Tribunal of Inquiry, under the Act, this House, and any other House for that matter, ought to regard the matter as sub judice until the evidence has been given there and the result of the Inquiry is made known. On the other hand, I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack that I am quite sure that Members of the House here will not by reason of this step have any less confidence in him than we have hitherto had.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the House will be grateful and my noble friends will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that that is the right course: that we should let the tribunal take its course.
  LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Earl tell us when the terms of the Motion to be moved to-morrow will be available to the House and when we shall know those terms?
  THE EARL OF HOME: As soon as I know them myself I will let noble Lords opposite have them. I have not had the opportunity yet to see them.
  LORD SILKIN: Is it likely to be to-day?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I would hope it would be to-day. I have to go now to a meeting and I will look into this matter at once and let noble Lords know.

  TELEPHONE CHARGES
  4.6 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement on telephone charges similar to that being made by my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General in another place. As from January 1, 1958, charges for calls will be drastically altered. Most calls now costing 6d., 9d. or 1s. will be reduced to 3d. The majority of charges for trunk calls will also be reduced. These changes pave the way for full automation in the telephone service, including trunk dialling
  324
  by subscribers, which will begin at Bristol towards the end of 1958. Full details are given in a White Paper, which will be available in the Printed Paper Office later this afternoon. I should add that, for the convenience of your Lordships, I have arranged for a number of maps typical of the new arrangements to be displayed in the Royal Gallery, which may assist in the understanding of the White Paper.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is a matter of reaction. As one looks round the House at the faces of noble Lords one ought to describe this as a joyous announcement, and we are very much obliged to the noble Lord for having made the announcement. Having listened to him, I would say not only that I welcome the statement but that I should like to know exactly how it has been arrived at. This is a most extraordinary anti-climax to the debate in which we were engaged on the general condition of the country, national finance and Government reflexes thereto. Perhaps it has been possible because some telephone users have been, and apparently will still continue to be, subject to much higher annual rentals for telephones. That is a possible answer. There is the next point, and that is that all of us are now paying. I think, 3d. for every local call.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Fourpence.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, I had forgotten that. Thank you. We are all now paying 4d. for a local call.
  LORD CHESHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? It is 4d. from call boxes.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I thought I was right with regard to renters—3d. as distinct from the humble 1d. we used to pay not so very long ago. That is perhaps another reason. But we have been discussing finance, and what I am wondering is whether the noble Lord could tell us if there has been a kind of Post Office extra budget, with preparation for this to be fitted in as a new part of it. Will it result in a diminution or in the abandonment of any surplus in the Post Office which is paid to the Treasury? Are the

  325
  Post Office definitely going to help to finance this scheme out of the normal surplus paid over to the Treasury, or is that surplus actually to be wiped out?
  There is another point to which I would draw attention, and that is that this statement says that this action will pave the way to the development of automation. Apparently, automation is not yet completely universal. It is going to be tried out in Bristol and successively in other areas—that I deduce from the statement. One question that arises at once among noble Lords on this side is how much labour will be displaced. I am entirely in favour of the development of automation—please understand that. But will the Government tell us exactly what plans they have for making some provision for the people who will be displaced, either by absorbing them into the Post Office services or by taking them into alternative occupation?
  LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Viscount who has just spoken in welcoming this most attractive bombshell. I should also like to follow very much on the line taken by the noble Viscount in asking whether this is due to a sudden increase in surplus in the Post Office accounts or is based on the economic theory of "small profits and quick returns". Is it the case that the Minister hopes that there will be more thin four times the number of three-penny calls in the future than there are one shilling calls made at the present time? If that is the case, will any of us ever be able to get any telephone call through at all?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, whether it would be more convenient for him to answer the questions together, or would he like to reply now to the questions already asked before being asked any more?
  LORD CHESHAM: If I may reply to that, I should prefer, with noble Lords' permission, to answer now what has already been asked. I have been following noble Lords as closely as I can and I will do nay best to answer their queries, and will then deal with other questions that may afterwards arise. Straight away, let me say that I realise that I am in a better position than any of your Lordships, having seen the contents of the
  326
  White Paper. That White Paper, I must say, makes the whole matter much clearer, as your Lordships, I am sure will agree, when there has been time for you to refer to it.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who asked most of the questions, will probably not want me to go into vast detail on this matter but to deal broadly with the basic principles of the questions which he has asked. There is, nothing magic about this. The Post Office has had no extraordinary windfall anywhere, neither has it been supplied with a little extra capital, or anything of that sort, by the Treasury. As your Lordships will see from the White Paper, this is simply a question of re-arranging the charging arrangements in the first place on a much more rational basis than before. It involves very much greater use, and much more economic use, of existing equipment which is now, for technical reasons which I do not want to enlarge upon, not used to the fullest extent. It means much more economic use of existing equipment with very little extra cost. It will be possible, we believe, by virtue of the economies which will arise from that. I hope that that will be sufficient for me to say at the moment on that side of the question.
  The noble Viscount's second question referred to the Post Office surplus. I do not think that this scheme is going to have very much effect on that. The present surplus which is budgeted for, I think, is generally agreed to be quite a modest one in an organisation the size of the Post Office. As the whole of this programme, or a large part of it, is going to be realised by economies, I do not think there is anything to fear in the way of any difference in the Post Office budget as we already know it.
  The noble Viscount was right, of course, to have raised the question of personnel, and I will spend a moment on that. The people concerned fall into two sections. First there are those who will be displaced by the difference in the charging arrangements which will save a good deal of manpower—the number is estimated to be about 3,000. These will quite rapidly be taken up by the wastage which normally occurs during each year. When automation comes in, that will raise a somewhat greater problem, because as big centre after big centre has

  327
  its new exchanges installed local problems which will be more difficult to handle will be created. The number will probably work out at something like 2,500 a year. I cannot be more specific at the present moment on my right honourable friend's precise proposals for overcoming this, but this I can say: the Post Office is determined to deal with any problems (and we are fully alive to what these problems are) with every sympathy. My right honourable friend's proposals and plans so far as this aspect is concerned have been drawn up in full consultation with the unions affected.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those answers. There is just one further question I should like to put to him. Can he tell the House by what amount it is estimated that this concession will affect the revenue account of the Post Office?
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while the noble Lord is thinking of the answer to that one, may I ask him this? If I understood him rightly, this "attractive bombshell," as it has been called, has come about by reason of the ability of the Post Office to use equipment more efficiently. If I remember correctly, some six weeks or so ago there was a reorganisation in the scale of charges. Can the noble Lord give us any idea why it should be necessary to reorganise them now, or has something cropped up in the last six weeks which has enabled this to be brought about?
  LORD CHESHAM: No, nothing of the kind has occurred. The tariff changes which were made some time ago were made of necessity, because of the decision—a very proper one. I think—that telephone rentals should approach something like their actual cost and because of the coming into being of back-dated pay awards to Post Office personnel. That was the reason for that introduction. This scheme comes in now because, after a very long period of working on the matter, research and so on, this is the first moment that it could have been introduced in the form of a White Paper. The effect on the Post Office revenue is really this—I trust that I have understood the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, correctly. The
  328
  concessions will cost some £8 million a year, of which £6 million has already been paid for, so to speak, by the previous increase in the local call charges, whereas the rest will be realised by economies. I trust that that is the information which the noble Lord wanted.

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  4.20 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it is time to resume our discussion on the Amendment to the loyal Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. I should first of all like to say how much I have appreciated the manner in which the debate was opened to-day by my noble friend Lord Wise. I think he put an excellent statement before the House. He has drawn very accurate attention—if I may put it that way—to the problems of the agricultural industry to-day. He referred to the feeling in the industry, which has been illustrated recently by articles in all the farming journals. I should like to be a little more detailed than Lord Wise, and to quote chapter and verse to the noble Earl who is about to reply. Perhaps his advisers may be able to produce the answers to the questions I am going to ask, though I feel pretty certain that he must have read the leading article in last Friday's Farmer's Weekly and no doubt will be almost ready to give an answer at once.
  In the course of this debate, we have said that the Government's decision to override the recommendation of the Whitley Council in one case may have wide repercussions upon other wage negotiations and settlements. The Farmer's Weekly quotes the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "Wage increases unrelated to, and going far beyond, the general growth of real wealth within the country, are by far the greatest danger we have to face, and we should be deceiving ourselves if we pretended otherwise. Those who ask for wage increases, those who grant wage increases and those who adjudicate about wages should have this fact in the forefront of their minds. Any large mistake at this stage by any of them could do grievous damage to the nation as a whole."

  329
  This important farming journal then goes on to point out:
  "What the Chancellor said amounts to a warning not only to firms and employers who decide pay claims direct with their men, but to those whose claims are referred to arbitration."
  We have had one or two announcements from the Government implying that they do not wish in any way to interfere with the ordinary methods of recognised arbitration, but the Farmer's Weekly has anticipated that reply, because it has gone a step further, and says this:
  "Unlike most industries there is often a considerable time lag"—
  to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has referred—
  "in agriculture between a tribunal award … and any possible adjustment of farm prices. For instance, four months will elapse between the minimum wage going up at the end of last month and the next Price Review."
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, correctly estimated that the total overall annual cost of that increase was £13½ million.
  EARL FERRERS: I did not mention that figure.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then I am afraid that I have made a mistake, because I have put that figure down: perhaps I was thinking aloud. At any rate, the estimated cost is £13½ million, of which £4 million has to be met by the farming industry before the normal time of the meeting for price review. The Farmer's Weekly continues:
  "After Mr. Thorneycroft's blunt warning, what will be the Government's attitude to farm costs? Is the Chancellor's statement to be regarded as retrospective? The Prime Minister … says the Government has no intention of interfering with the normal process of wage arbitration. But the farming industry is a case on its own."
  The paper asks that any doubt should be speedily cleared up by the Minister of Agriculture
  "… telling us quite clearly just how far the Chancellor's statement overrides an existing and explicit agreement with the farming industry"—
  that is, the explicit agreement between the Government and the farming industry that the price review procedure should go on—
  "or on the other hand, how far this agreement remains inviolate in the new economic order."
  I have good reason to press home this point, because the noble Earl who will be replying to this section of the debate
  330
  has heard me on various occasions on this matter, especially on the time lag. Two points arise. The first is that the agricultural industry has already been made to absorb, by what is termed "increased efficiency", something like £130 million to £140 million over the whole period of operation of the Price Review. Last year the amount left over to be absorbed by the industry by increased efficiency, with the increased sum of £4 million to be found in this agricultural year for wages, will amount to £31 million.
  I have had some pleasant correspondence with the noble Earl in the course of the Recess. He has been kind and patient in replying to letters of mine, but I want him to know that I am not at all reassured in this matter; nor is the industry. I should like to quote a few sentences from the noble Earl's letter to me of September 4. He was dissenting from my suggestion that in a period of increasing costs there should be a special Price Review—and that is the real implication of part of the case put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; that whenever costs go up specially in a particular year, there ought to be a special Price Review, so that the matter can be dealt with more rapidly and adjusted to the industry's needs. In his letter, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, says this:
  "In this connection perhaps I may remind you of the point I made in the debate on April 17, namely, that a good part of the total cost increase of £38 million taken into account in the 1957 Annual Review had already been absorbed by the industry last year."
  How? I am not going to turn to any farming journal or any Party literature to give my suggested answer to that. It has been absorbed by loss of income by the farmers.
  I turn to a magazine, The Esso Farmer, issued by one of the oil companies who supply farmers with their oil supplies. In the issue for Autumn, 1957, there is an article by Mr. J. E. Harrison, of the Bristol University Department of Economics, in which, after a very careful argument—not an argument which right the way through is in favour of my position, but a very fair examination of the whole question—he shows conclusively, by means of a graph, that all farm incomes are definitely down while all farm costs are up. Talk about increased costs being absorbed by increased efficiency has not put more money into the

  331
  farmer's pocket. The method of dealing with this matter during the last six years has left him in a poorer position to meet the actual increased costs. I hope that we can have the answer of the Government to this question.
  Let me turn now to some other questions in relation to agriculture about which we are concerned. I put it to the noble Earl that the extraordinary fall in the last nine months of the cattle prices at the auctions, and the net return, even allowing for the fact that the fall in prices has meant an increased payment by the Government of subsidies, if you take the actual benefit shown to the consumer of that fall in the market price, indicates that there is a very big gap somewhere between the two. There has been a fall in some meat prices: there has been a fall in pork prices, and there has been a recent fall in bacon prices. But when you consider that if a man to-day produces at very high cost to himself the modern, even grade A bacon pig—say 6 score 14 up to about 8 score—he is very fortunate if, all in, including the subsidy that is paid for the grade, he gets about £17 for a bacon pig which years ago, when his costs were much lower than they are to-day, was fetching him as much as £23, £24 or £25. What is the answer? Who is responsible for that? How far is the farmer now subsidising the consumer as much as the Government subsidise the development of agricultural production? I think the facts are such that we should have a clear and straight answer about it.
  The facts that I have just mentioned are perhaps an answer to that part of the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, yesterday, in which he raised most interesting points, and in respect of which I feel a great deal of agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in his comments upon the remedy put forward by the noble Marquess. Nevertheless, a large part of the Marquess's speech was illustrated by reference to the methods in the wages process in the agricultural industry, and then following on the prices. From what he said, he seemed to think, if I read him aright, that in the end it was the consumer who paid. I am bound to say that on the return to the farmers on the actual sale of their productions, whatever they may be, animal, vegetable
  332
  or cereal, with the possible exception of certain periods in the horticulture industry, they have not had the benefit, and the consumer has not had the benefit. Certainly the agricultural industry is different from all the others, because those engaged in it cannot put up their prices. They have no control over the matter of putting up their prices. All they can do ultimately is gradually to resist the Government's specific request year after year to increase agricultural production as being one of the most important and balancing factors in our national trade position in relation to improving the position of the balance of payments. As your Lordships know, it is always said that if we produced every year the proper quantity of home-produced food, and used it properly, while restricting some imports, we should have a real contribution to make to the balancing of our payments and the stabilising of our general economic position.
  There is one other matter that I should like to quote from the farming journal. It is a letter from a well-known agriculturist, Mr. J. L. Cherrington, who I am sure is known to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn; he is certainly popular with the farmers who listen in to the new television programme. It is a letter which interested me greatly—and in case the noble Earl wishes it to be looked up, it is on page 38 of the journal. At the end of some cogent arguments with regard to the possible effect the farmers fear of a development of the European Common Market scheme, he asks two questions. First, he asks:
  "Is British production of individual commodities likely to be influenced by European Common Market considerations?"
  Secondly, he asks:
  "Will the machinery of the Agriculture Act be used to bring about such an alteration?"
  Obviously Mr. Cherrington is not at all satisfied with the statements made by Mr. Maudling as the result of his conversations with regard to the European Common Market, and the fear in the minds of farmers is that, in order to accommodate the general development of the European Common Market, and to deal with possible opposition to our view on agriculture from Scandinavia and the Low Countries, and even from France, steps may be taken in dealing with the price levels at the Price Review to make it easier to accommodate the attitude

  333
  taken up by those who will be in the European Common Market and, like ourselves, interested in the agricultural as well as the industrial aspect of that market. I should like an answer to those two questions, which have not been formulated by me, and which have come not from a political source but from somebody respected in the agricultural industry itself as being competent.
  I have little time left to speak in regard to the Amendment. I do not propose to continue the debate on industrial relations which was so ably opened yesterday by my noble friend Lord Hall. I am greatly obliged to him for what he said, and particularly for the manner in which he presented his case to this House. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, almost took out of my mouth something of which I have notes here; that is, that I have been much more impressed by the approach made by Lord Chandos to the problem than I have by the policy announced in general by the Government. On the lines of his approach it would at least be possible for industry to make an approach to the General Council of the Trades Union Congress for consultation and discussion on this matter, although there are some "catches" in the scheme which Lord Chandos suggests: and certainly, as I heard him admit in a sound broadcast recently, in the event of a sharp rise in profits, or in the event of some disaster occurring in the industry from other directions, there would have to be some "escape" clauses in the stabilised period as to the method of increase.
  I hope that something more may be heard of that proposal, both from the side of the industrialists, whom Lord Chandos represents, and from our own trade union organisation. Certainly, now that there has been a letting off of steam here and there—and I do not blame my trade union colleagues for a moment for having defended their position—it would be much better to get together to see what real progress can be made. The Government must face the fact that the working people of the country will never again consent to face the kind of deflation and the evil consequences of 1920 to 1928; they will never allow it to happen. It will not be any use then to talk about the wickedness of disputes. It is up to the Government of the country, especially a Govern
  334
  ment who have been in office for six years, with power in their hands to direct policy, to avoid these things. To come along and say, "This is inevitable," will not be an answer. The Government must get together with the people themselves to avoid having these dreadful things happening. I believe that can be done if, instead of sticking to political dogma, whatever kind of control is required is instituted in order to put the situation right.
  I felt a great deal of sympathy with part of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; and when he was quoting some of the things said about farmers, and how they put out their hands for more subsidies, and so on, I could not help thinking that the general industry of the country has had a long period of far greater protection than the farmers ever had. It is true that, for some reason or other, the Government are to enter into a European Common Market, which will throw open many of the industries which have built their prosperity on the basis of protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the subsequent measures. They will now he subjected to a wintry blast of free competition from Europe. I have not so far met one industrialist who can forecast what the net effect of that will be upon his particular industry or upon the level of employment. I should say that the Government must first of all remember that the working people of this country will not again stand the conditions of 1920 to 1931, or even 1935. I say to the Government: After you have been in office for six years the great thing is to put your own policy right. You promised the moon, and now you are in this position. Get together with the workers themselves, and make the best arrangements you can to avoid all the trouble which otherwise will subsequently occur.
  4.42 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I am sorry that, because I have had to be attending to other duties in Rome at the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, I have not been able to be present during the earlier stages of your Lordships' debate upon the gracious

  335
  Speech. I am glad, however, to have the opportunity of replying to this afternoon's debate on its agricultural aspects.
  Before I deal with the proposals in the gracious Speech I will try to reply to some of the points which have been raised on other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, were concerned about the position of the Agricultural Wages Board. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of interfering in any way at all with that completely independent body. As the noble Lord opposite knows, it is composed of farmers and workers, with a number of independent members as well. They are completely independent and they will remain so. As regards the Price Review, and any effect that the present situation might have on that, I would remind noble Lords that the system of dealing with the Price Review which was worked out at considerable length in conjunction with the farmers, and which I had the honour of announcing in this House some time ago as part of the long-term assurances, will not be interfered with in any way at all. Therefore, the position, so far as the Review is concerned, is exactly the same as it has been ever since the last Review which was held on the new basis.
  A question was also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, on Special Reviews, and why there was not one on this occasion. If the noble Viscount will cast his mind back he will remember—I cannot quote the date when I told him—I announced that it was agreed with the farmers' unions that there should be specific circumstances, and only when those specific circumstances were arrived at would there be a Special Review. When they were arrived at, the Government would not be able to refuse a Special Review, and, equally, unless they were arrived at, the farmers would not ask. So the question of Special Reviews is, I think, adequately covered under the new arrangement. The arrangement was that only if the effect of the cost changes in Review commodities for the remainder of the year is more than three-quarters of one per cent. of the total value of the guarantees would a Review be held. That is with the full agreement of the farmers.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The National Farmers' Union.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes, representing the farmers.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: A most docile body.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am afraid I cannot agree with that last statement. They are very active defenders of their members, as I believe most unions are. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, raised the question of horticulture and the Free Trade Area. Their position is exactly the same as that of agriculture, and the assurances which have been given both by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and many others, are absolutely unaltered. The position of agriculture and horticulture is exactly the same as it was when it was first stated. The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, asked about forestry and the Free Trade Area. I made that position quite clear when we were discussing the Watson Report. Forest products, like other basic raw material for industry, will not come under the protective heading of "agriculture."
  I think I should now turn to the proposals in the gracious Speech. As has been said, the Prime Minister announced in another place our intention to amend certain provisions of the Agriculture and Agricultural Holdings Acts. I should like to-day to explain very briefly what we have in mind and why we have decided on this course. The Franks Committee has recommended major changes in the procedure for action under the Agriculture and Agricultural Holdings Acts. That Committee considered it wholly undesirable in principle that agricultural executive committees should have adjudicating functions. They recommended that the hearing of notices to quit cases and the making of supervision and dispossession orders should be transferred to independent tribunals. The Committee also recommended that there should be an appeal against supervision which they regarded as in effect a penal measure.
  The Franks Committee, of course, was not concerned with policies but with procedures. Her Majesty's Government believe that the broad conclusions of the Committee are in accord with public

  337
  opinion at large. They can find no sufficient reason for making an exception for agriculture, and have decided to accept, in principle, the recommendations as they apply to the functions of agricultural executive committees. Having said that, I want to record my own view and the view of my Minister, which is also, I know, the view of his colleagues, that the county committees have throughout performed their difficult and responsible functions with scrupulous care and fairness. My Lords, I cannot overemphasise that too much; they have done a really magnificent job. Our decision to accept the Franks Committee's recommendations is, therefore, very far from implying any criticism whatever on our part of the way in which the committees have carried out their responsibilities. The criticism we do accept as valid, however, is that the principle that agricultural executive committees should combine executive with judicial functions is wrong.
  But the application of the Franks' recommendations raises real practical difficulties. If the judicial functions in relation to supervision and dispossession are transferred to tribunals, while the general responsibilities of the county committees under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, are left as they are, it would mean that committees would find themselves having to act in these cases as prosecutors before tribunals. This would be a very distasteful form of voluntary public service to ask committees to undertake, and it is one which I doubt very much whether many of them would be willing to perform.
  The operation of Part II of the 1947 Act raises other problems. Public opinion and agricultural circumstances have changed a good deal since 1947. The Government have been for some time conscious of the increasing difficulties, in the light of these changes, of administering fairly the penal sanctions provided in Part II of the 1947 Act. In 1947 the Government was buying all the food a farmer could produce at fixed prices. The whole emphasis was on expanding gross output on every farm—cost and quality were almost secondary factors in those days of strict rationing and world food shortage.
  To-day the situation is quite different. Cost and quality are now of primary importance and our deficiency payment
  338
  schemes are not designed to protect the farmer who is inefficient or whose produce is of poor quality. Detailed control of individual farm operations is no longer necessary or practical. Now that the emphasis is on a high level of net output produced at the lowest possible cost, it is far more difficult to pick out individual farmers for penal action. And even though supervision was meant to be helpful and has been sympathetically administered, it has in practice come to be regarded as having a penal element in it.
  In these circumstances the number of cases which we could act on has turned out, in recent years, to be small; the effects of no real significance; and the individual cases sometimes involving serious personal hardship. All this means that any effective balance there may have been between guaranteed prices and the penal sanctions has in practice proved to be theoretical rather than actual.
  Surely, my Lords, no one, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, believes that supervision or dispossession of a comparative handful of our farmers has had anything to do with the tremendous vitality and progressiveness evident throughout the farming industry. It is due, surely, to the readiness of our farmers to accept advice and guidance from all sides, particularly, perhaps, from the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the Agricultural Land Service; and also to the general guidance and direction which the Government can properly exert through the Annual Price Reviews and the development of our production grants. It is by these means that we can best ensure that the fullest and most productive use is made of our agricultural land. We have concluded, therefore, after weighing up all the practical considerations, that the only logical and sensible course is to repeal the penal provisions.
  I think it has been recognised from the first that it is a difficult matter to find the right balance between the policeman and the adviser. However, although we now feel that the balance should be somewhat changed, I should like to emphasise that there is no question that the repeal of the penal provisions will in any way affect the price guarantees to farmers under Part I of the 1947 Act. These have, in fact, been strengthened and extended by

  339
  the 1957 Act, which passed through your Lordships' House as recently as last July. The long-term assurance this Act provided much strengthened the provisions of Part I of the 1947 Act. And I think we can be assured that those who in the past have held back from seeking advice for fear of the penal provisions—many of them those most in need of advice—will in future come forward without hesitation.
  I turn now to the Agriculture Holdings Act. There has for some years been a growing recognition that in practice these provisions have proved a bit too rigid in relation to security of tenure. No sensible person with any knowledge of agriculture will question that the efficient tenant needs a fully adequate degree of security of tenure. Efficient production depends on reasonable security of tenure and would be impossible without it.
  We must not on any account, therefore, interfere with full and proper security for the satisfactory tenant, and we have no intention of doing this. What does seem to be required, however, is a slight change of emphasis. in particular concerning the exercise of the Minister's overriding discretion.
  This is desirable not least in the interests of the younger men, whose hopes of getting a farm are sometimes being frustrated to-day because unsatisfactory tenants remain in possession. That is a point which several noble Lords have touched on this afternoon. I am glad to say that for England and Wales, as a result of discussions held over the past twelve months, the National Farmers' Union and Country Landowners' Association have reached a measure of agreement on the change of emphasis that is needed. An amending Bill will, of course, be required to give effect to the changes in functions which I mentioned earlier, and we propose to take the opportunity of this to amend the existing security of tenure provisions to give effect to the changes agreed with the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. In Scotland the statutory provisions are somewhat different, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering the question of what amendments would be appropriate there.
  As I said earlier, the Franks Committee also recommended that agricultural
  340
  executive committees should no longer exercise judicial functions in relation to notices to quit. We accept that conclusion. The Committee recommended that we should set up new independent tribunals to hear these applications. We believe, however, that the existing Agricultural Land Tribunals are the right bodies to undertake this work, and that there should be appeal from them on points of law to the ordinary courts.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I just get a little more light shed on this? What many farmers suspect—perhaps they are not right in their suspicions, but we should like to know—is that in these proposed amendments the main alteration will be that the members of the county agricultural committees will no longer perform any of the functions under Part II of the Act, with the result that their knowledge, based on their farming experience, as to the state of efficiency of the farm, will be missing. Then the Government propose to alter the powers in the Agricultural Holdings Act in such a way that landlords can go direct, without any check upon their efficiency, and ask for possession. How do the Government propose to fulfil the first tenet, which I frankly admit was laid down by the noble Earl: that the efficient farmer has a right to a reasonable security of tenure? How are they going to deal with the evidence in regard to this alteration? That has not yet been explained by the noble Earl.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: On the question of notices to quit, as the noble Earl knows the procedure at present is that the case is first dealt with by the county committee, and if either party is dissatisfied it goes to the Tribunal. The alteration we are making is that the county committee are cut out and the case goes straight to the Tribunal. I feel that in many ways that has advantages because, as the noble Viscount also knows, inevitably there has been a considerable time-lag between the giving of notice and the final hearing of the case by the Tribunal. Under the new system the notice will be given, any appeal will go straight to the Tribunal, and the case will be dealt with much more quickly. But the alteration of cutting out the county committee has really no effect on security, because the Tribunal, which is

  341
  quite independent (the chairman is appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and there is a representative of the landlord and of the farmer) will be exactly the same; there is no alteration. I think the noble Viscount can be absolutely assured that that position is quite clear.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think there is a little confusion, though I do not want to pass judgment on that: I was a member of the Franks Committee which reported in a different sense. But what my noble friend is concerned about is, who is going to supply the information to the Land Tribunal? At the moment the county agricultural committees themselves make the inspection and they have the information. Will their function of inspection still continue? Will they be in a position, say, of giving evidence to the Land Tribunal? Is that what the noble Earl has in mind?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: As I understand it, the present position is that the two parties give their evidence before the county committee, the committee inspect the land and come to a decision. On appeal, the matter goes to the Tribunal, where again the two parties give evidence, calling whom they will to give evidence for them; and more often than not, but not necessarily, the Tribunal inspects the land as well, having considered all the facts that have been put before them. Frankly, I do not see that either party will be any worse off under this procedure than they were before. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount.
  LORD SILKIN: Often the county committee take the initiative where a farm is badly farmed. The real point is that they are deemed to have knowledge of the conditions in the county and have a wide experience. Is that going to be lost? Will it be used in some way?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: To a certain extent, if the noble Lord feels it is a loss, it will be lost because they will not have considered the case. But, bearing in mind the composition of the Tribunal, it is not a significant loss. All the evidence on either side will be put before the Tribunal, just as it is now. It is a perfectly sound and capable body to make the necessary decisions. I do not think there is any real loss to either side.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am sure the noble Earl is trying hard to satisfy me, and I thank him for his efforts. But I want to know a little more about the procedure, as it is likely to come about. Who takes the initiatory action—the landlord?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Certainly.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Who produces the evidence—just the landlord and the tenant? That is what I want to know. The proposal is to cancel the present powers and the administrative function of the county agricultural committees in relation to Part II of the Act. Where is the evidence coming from, and on what basis? And is the same kind of Tribunal to deal with cases of unsatisfactory owner-farmers?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: With due respect to the noble Viscount, I think we are getting a little muddled. I thought we were talking about notices to quit. From what the noble Viscount has just been saying, he is still harking back to Part II, which is quite a different thing. I thought I had made the position on notices to quit quite clear, as to procedure and so forth. I also said that we are proposing to remove the disciplinary powers under Part II of the Act, so that there will not be any initiation by the county committees.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That leaves farmer "wide open."
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I must take up the noble Viscount on that. He says that that leaves the tenant farmer "wide open." He is not "wide open" at all. The tenant farmer is perfectly capable of bringing before the Tribunal such evidence as he desires, and the Tribunal is perfectly capable of assessing it.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is principally pro-landlord.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is a grossly unfair remark.
  Now, my Lords, I think we might pass on to the question of rents. Farm rents are, of course, generally fixed by agreement between landlord and tenant, but where they cannot agree they can ask the Minister to appoint an arbitrator, and his award has to be made on the basis laid

  343
  down in the 1948 Act. A good deal of evidence has been received by us that the existing statutory guidance to agricultural rent arbitrators is insufficient and that further definition of the rent properly payable is required. What we propose to do, therefore, after consultation with the interests concerned, is to consider whether the terms of the Act giving guidance to arbitrators can with advantage be improved and clarified.
  I have tried to deal with the main proposals as put forward in the gracious Speech. We shall, of course, have ample opportunity of considering these matters further, when eventually a Bill comes before your Lordships' House, but I felt it only right that the House should have an indication now of where the Government stand in this matter.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill first in this House or in another place?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I cannot guarantee it, but I think that the Bill will probably be introduced in another place.
  5.10 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was good enough to tell me that he had left his Amendment in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I do not know whether the noble Viscount wants the Amendment put to the House.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we now return to the general Motion for the humble Address. I do not know whether any of your Lordships wishes to address the House on the general debate. If not, I want to take up only a few moments of your Lordships' time. We have had a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Swinton this afternoon. I believe that the noble Earl would agree that in the last thirty years there have been few occasions when either of us has disagreed with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and even fewer occasions when we have agreed in disagreeing with him. That is the position with regard to his ultimate sug
  344
  gestion, that wage disputes should come to a Minister and should be discussed in the House.
  I believe that we all appreciated the concern which the noble Marquess had, and which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Swinton to-day, over the problem before us. The noble Earl put forward two interesting suggestions. One was a general "get-together" (if I may put it colloquially) following the example, say, of the Dutch Foundation of Labour in similar attempts that have been made abroad. I shall, of course, consider that suggestion very carefully, and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. It is a subject that has been very much in our minds and it is interesting to have to-day the imprimatur of the noble Earl. The second point he raised was the plan of my noble friend Lord Chandos; and, here again he will not expect a definite answer from me. I assure him, however, that as he has expressed his sympathy with the plan and has had the support of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, it is indeed a matter which we ought to, and will, consider.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it might be considered, even if it is not correct in all respects. Here is a concrete proposal which might form a basis of discussion and bring us together.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that, and I am sure the whole House is grateful for his sympathetic inquiry and the tentative method in which he has put forward this suggestion, not dictating to anyone but making suggestions which are obviously well worthy of pursuit.
  I want to say one other general word on what the noble Viscount said in relation to the industrial aspect of the Common Market in Europe. There were three matters that occurred to me. As I have not yet had time to check, I hope the House will forgive me if my recollection is wrong; but if it is right, it is most interesting, in regard to the Common Market, that not only the General Council of the Trades Union Congress but, I believe, all except one of the areas of the Federation of British Industries have given it their general support—subject, of course, to safeguards which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said exist.

  345
  The second point I wish to stress, after what the noble Viscount has said, is that with European integration proceeding apace, and with the six Messina Powers having formed their Customs Union, the problem which we must always have in our minds is that unless we can succeed in the Common Market industry in this country will be faced with an integrated economy from the Baltic to the Mediterranean—one cannot get away from the existence of that problem. On the other hand, the prize of the Common Market is a more prosperous market of 250 million people in Europe who have a great industrial and commercial tradition behind them. I have said that because I wish to put the matter in the balance in which it must be looked at.
  I want to say very little, apart from dealing with these two subjects, because my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn has dealt with the agriculture aspect, and I dealt fully, or tried to do so (I am afraid at inordinate length), with all points raised in yesterday's debate. I hope so dealt with them that those who raised those points will feel that they have bear, considered, whether or not they agree with my answer. With regard to the debate as a whole, I am sure your Lordships' House feels that it can congratulate itself on the interesting aspects of all the topics that have been raised, and also on the marked sense of responsibility which has been a feature of the speeches in all parts of the House. It would be invidious and take too long for me to mention any particular names, but perhaps the highest compliment I can pay this debate is to say that it came up to the high standard which had bean set by the openers, my noble friends Lord Waldegrave and Lord Colville of Culross.
  I believe that everyone, those who support and those who criticise the policy of Her Majesty's Government, was anxious to emphasise the importance of the general points which are now before the country as well as this House; the stability of our economy, social justice among our people and the continual growth of the ideals of Western civilisation at the present time. In your Lordships' House we have dealt mainly with domestic problems, but there cannot be
  346
  absent from our minds the problems outside these shores: the greater interdependence of this country and the United States of America, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has mentioned; the general aspects of international affairs in the United Nations Organisation, which were referred to briefly but none the less pointedly by the noble Lord, Lord Rea; and the continuous development of our Commonwealth and Empire as the answer to "colonialism", used, as a term of criticism. And as the gracious Speech indicates, we have still to deal with the problems of Singapore. Malta and Cyprus. In addition, there is the continuing and ever-present problem of the results of our very success in trusteeship and in training throughout our Colonies. These certainly give us plenty to think about in the Session which we have just begun.
  I come back, however, to the point which has been mainly in your Lordships' minds and I think agreed to by all noble Lords in every Party—namely, that our whole future depends on the success of our fight against inflation. I hope that after this debate nobody doubts the importance of the problem or the determination of Her Majesty's Ministers to deal with it. On that, all depends. But, my Lords, as I ventured to say last night, at the same time we intend to secure a real advance towards social justice by safeguarding the liberty of the subject, strengthening our institutions and protecting those least able to look after themselves.
  I am sorry, although I am not unused to the suggestion over my political years, that some noble Lords have described this programme as inadequate. I confidently assert that the advances which we are determined to make will, even if they are not all headline news, contribute some real measure of happiness to individual citizens; and that, after all, my Lords, is the first and most real reason, for the existence of government.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past five o'clock.