Lords Sitting of 7 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely
The Lord Inverforth—Took the Oath.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for appeals to the House of Lords in criminal cases; to amend the law relating to contempt of court, habeas corpus and certiorari; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the 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.

PORTABLE OIL STOVES
2.36 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the investigations which have been recently going on into portable oil heaters. A report by the Joint Fire Research Organisation of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Fire Offices' Committee on the effect of draughts on the burning of portable drip-feed radiant oil heaters is being published this afternoon. Copies have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. The main conclusion is that these heaters are safe in a house with the outer doors and windows closed, but that all the heaters of this type tested are capable of starting a fire very quickly if exposed to a draught such as can be caused by an open outer door. Copies of the report have been sent to the Government Departments concerned and to the manufacturers, and
778
immediate consultations will be undertaken with a view to the adoption of a safe standard of performance for the future and of any other measures that may be found desirable and practicable. Meanwhile, it is important that portable oil heaters of the drip-feed radiant type should not be used unless it can be ensured that they are not exposed to a draught.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we are all much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the statement he has just made, and we shall agree that the Industrial Research Department has done a very good job on this matter. It seems a pity that their attention could not have been drawn earlier by other Departments to this very grave danger. May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether his reference to any other steps which may need to be taken apart from the one he specifies means that there is a fear that the present Government machinery is not sufficient, or perhaps is non-existent, to deal 'with the protection of the public in this matter, and that special measures may be required? If that is the case, I hope notice will be taken. I should like to know whether, in such a case, any measures taken will be a matter for the Home Office or the Board of Trade—which Department?
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I thank him for the statement and congratulate him on the apparent rapid action which is being taken as a result of this report? I think we may also congratulate him on the use he is making of his leisure by re-reading StrowwelPeter and the moral story of Harriet and the Matches.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for what they have said. In answer to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, The position, I think, is somewhat of this kind: there are about 10 million portable oil heaters in use at the moment, of which 3 million at least correspond to the description of the heater which has been the subject of these tests. To begin with, it must depend upon the public whether they heed the warning with regard to those.

779
Secondly, clearly the British Standard specification needs looking at in the light of what I have just said, and that is already in hand; but it does not, of course, rest with the Government to prescribe the terms of that specification. Thirdly, the manufacturers have to be consulted, both with regard to the introduction of an improved type for the future and with regard to the provision of facilities for the modification of the 3 million existing heaters, because I should imagine that a good many people who have these heaters will want them modified. Lastly, there is the question whether sales of heaters which are dangerous could be prohibited. As I understand the matter—the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will no doubt tell me if I am wrong—there is no power to prohibit them without legislation, and clearly one would have to consult with all those concerned both as to whether such legislation was necessary and on what form it should take. I think I am right in saying that as the law stands at, the moment there is no power to prohibit the sale of heaters which happen to be dangerous in this way. I think I have now covered the various aspects of the matter as they occur to me.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged. We must wait and see on the points still to be considered. But there has been a large number of fires of this kind, and it is clear from my information from the trade side that the public have been withholding purchases for the last three or four months to such an extent as to cause quite a shock to the hardware trade. If some clear guidance could be given to the public in general, it might be helpful. Therefore the suggestion that the noble and learned Viscount has kindly made—that the inquiries will include what steps should be taken to alter the existing stoves as well as looking at the other question—is very much to be welcomed. It would be a good thing for business in general if it were very clearly understood by the public which oil stoves can still be sold with safety.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I quite agree with that. It has. I think, been the case that since the inquest on a tragic fire at Ware some little time ago,
780
at which Mr. Lawson of the Fire Research Station gave evidence, there has been a very considerable reduction, and one would think a very prudent reduction, in the sale of apparatus of this kind. Parallel with this statement in your Lordships' House, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are making a somewhat fuller statement through the Press about the steps which a householder can prudently take if he happens to possess apparatus of this kind. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not want to extend what one might call this small debate, but I am rather frightened at the thought of 3 million people with this particular type of stove in their houses. We all know that not everyone reads debates in your Lordships' House, or even the newspapers which would give this information. I was wondering whether the noble Viscount could seek the co-operation of the local authorities, and even the oil companies, to see that a warning is brought into these homes about the dangers of these stoves, and what precautions can be taken to prevent some of these terrible fires.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the necessity of making it plain that these stoves are apt to be dangerous if exposed to a draught. It is rather for that reason that we have taken the somewhat unusual course that we have. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has a Press Office. I hope that they will do what they can with the Press and with the broadcasting authorities to see that this is generally known. I shall certainly hear in mind what the noble Lord said about the local authorities.
LORD REA: My Lords, may we take it that a similar statement has been made in another place?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. I think that this time we have got in first.

GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (COVENTRY AND MID-WARWICKSHIRE) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (GATESHEAD) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (GLOUCESTER AND STROUD) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (GRIMSBY AND LOUTH) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ILFORD AND WOODFORD) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (LEEDS, YORK AND BARKSTON ASH) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (LINCOLN AND GRANTHAM) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (NORTH SOMERSET AND WELLS) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (OXFORD AND HENLEY) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (PORTSMOUTH, LANGSTONE AND PETERSFIELD) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (PRESTON SOUTH AND SOUTH FYLDE) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (READING, NEWBURY AND WOKINGHAM) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (SOUTH-WEST LANCASHIRE) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (WANDSWORTH, KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES AND RICHMOND) ORDER, 1959
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (BARNSLEY AND WAKEFIELD) ORDER, 1960
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (MIDDLESBROUGH) ORDER, 1960
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (WALSALL) ORDER, 1960
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (SCOTLAND) (MIDLOTHIAN, EDINBURGH EAST, EDINBURGH SOUTH, EDINBURGH WEST, AND EDINBURGH, PENTLANDS) ORDER, 1960
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (SCOTLAND) (WEST FIFE AND DUNFERMLINE BURGHS) ORDER, 1960
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (SCOTLAND) (WEST RENFREWSHIRE AND GREENOCK) OR DER, 1960
2.45 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST rose to move. That the Draft Orders reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 24th day of February last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, at first sight this would seem to be a formidable array of Orders that I ask your Lordships to approve. As your Lordships will have noticed, I am moving some of these Orders on behalf of my noble friend from Scotland, who finds it inconvenient to be in his place to-day. With your Lordships' approval, I will speak about all these Orders including the Scottish ones, at the same time, and then ask your Lordships to approve them en bloc.
These draft Orders give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England and the Boundary Commission for Scotland in their Reports submitted to the Secretary of State on July 20, 1995, and January 1, 1960, under subsection (3) of Section 2 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. These Orders will not affect any Parliamentary Election after they come into force until the next General Election. The Orders all make minor adjustments to constituency boundaries to conform with the recent alterations of local government wards and boundaries. With the permission of the House, I beg to move these Orders en bloc. They received the assent of another place on February 17, and were considered by the Special Orders Commission on February 24. There are no Amendments to these orders as they stand, nor were there any counterproposals.
Moved, That the Draft Orders reported from the Special Orders Committee on

783
Wednesday the 24th of February last, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? I understood him to say that they will not come into operation until after the next Election. If they are improvements, is it not possible to bring them into force before the next Election? Would that not be a suitable thing to do, if it is possible?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, as I understand it, these are in no way meant to affect by-elections. They are purely for General Elections after they have come into effect.
LORD REA: Will they affect the next General Election?
EARL BATHURST: Yes, the next General Election. I beg your Lordships' pardon if I did not make the position clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Newsreels:]
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (2):
"and (c) that the playing time of the film is not more than fifteen minutes."
The noble Lord said: I do not think I need to speak at great length on this particular Amendment. The Committee will remember that this Bill seeks to extend the legislation of 1938 and 1948 which dealt with feature films and secondary short films. But it further brings into the quota and levy provisions the newsreels. A newsreel is defined in Clause 2 as
"A film consisting wholly or mainly of photographs which, at the time when they were taken, were means of communicating news."
784
The "news" could be a wide definition and, as I cited on Second Reading, it might cover a Royal Wedding; it could cover horse racing of such a character as the Derby or the Grand National, or any incident which catches the public eye. I felt, in view of the fact that newsreels will have no production cost to receive quota, that it might be possible for producers to produce films coming within the definition of a newsreel but having a duration extending for thirty to forty minutes, and thereby replace short films which support the main feature.
I believe that that is a possibility, though not a big one, bearing in mind that the cost of producing newsreels is relatively small. They require no script, no staff and no supporting cast, and it would be possible, I think, to produce a newsreel film very cheaply and extend it in length so that it would be attractive to the producer, and the renter to exhibit newsreels, in the place of short films. For that reason I propose in my Amendment to limit the running time of newsreels to fifteen minutes. That would bring them into line with the definitions set out in the Second Schedule to this Bill, which defines a long film as one of which the playing time is not less than 33⅓ minutes, and states that the duration of a serial film instalment shall not be more than 33⅓ minutes. There we have laid down clearly what shall be the minimum or maximum playing time of particular types of film, and I believe that it would tighten the definition of a newsreel if we set a limit of fifteen minutes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("and (c) that the playing time of the film is not more than fifteen minutes.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to disqualify from registration a newsreel with a longer playing time than fifteen minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has explained to your Lordships that he has moved this Amendment because of the possible danger that other films might be crowded out by excessively long newsreels. The noble Lord said he thought that the possibility was a rather unlikely one: I would suggest to your Lordships that it is extremely remote. I think it would be very difficult in practice for an exhibitor

785
to find room for the exceptional newsreel that might run for, say, 30 minutes, unless it dealt with some unusual event which had such mass appeal as to secure a place for itself in a cinema programme.
It would not be possible for a producer to make an occasional film of this kind because to qualify as a newsreel a film must be one of a sequence of which not less than one is made every week. If there were any question of the film not fulfilling the definition of a newsreel, so that it could be shown as a short film, obviously it would be to the interest of the producer to show it as a short film, and not as a newsreel, because he would get the 2½ times multiplier—which is not to be given to newsreels. I feel that the exceptional newsreel—and the noble Lord mentioned the Derby and a Royal Wedding—which lasts more than fifteen minutes would be the kind of newsreel which the public would want to see; and there is no reason why it should not last for more than fifteen minutes.
I feel, therefore, that the apprehensions upon which this Amendment is based are unreal and that there are certain cases in which it might in fact be desirable, in the interests of the cinema-going, public, to have a newsreel running for longer than fifteen minutes. If, however, there should be any evidence that excessively long newsreels were crowding out other features we would certainly consider, with the Films Council, amending the levy Regulations in order to disqualify such films from the levy. I believe that such a step would certainly be sufficient to stop the production of any kinds of newsreel which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade and on the advice of the Films Council, were considered to be having an undesirable effect.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I thank the noble Earl for his reply which in the latter part I found very satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved to add to the clause:
"(8) Nothing in this section entitling newsreels to be registered for Quota as British films shall entitle such newsreels to participate in the benefits of the film production fund administered by the British Film Fund Agency."
786
The noble Lord said: The point dealt with in this Amendment was fairly fully discussed during our Second Reading debate and I do not want to go over all the ground again at this time. I did feel, however, that the case from the Government side had not been really fully made on Second Reading. After all, this is a complete innovation. After 33 years of Cinematograph Films Acts we now, for the first time, have newsreels brought in for quota. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, nor I object to that. What we do object to is that at the same time they should be brought in to qualify for the benefits of the production levy.
As was pointed out on Second Reading, the production levy is not Government funds but the funds of the industry, and I feel that a much stronger case than has yet been made is required to justify taking £150,000 from a fund set up primarily to benefit feature film production, on which the whole industry rests, to subsidise newsreels produced by prosperous companies. The argument was advanced (not in your Lordships' House on Second Reading but in another place) during the progress of the Bill that the newsreels had a particular value because of their overseas propaganda effect. There is no logical reason why British producers or exhibitors should contribute in a special way towards the Government's overseas propaganda activities. If newsreels have a real value for that, then funds for that purpose ought to come from the ordinary funds which provide other means of overseas propaganda; and that, I believe, is a situation which Her Majesty's Government can justify.
The main point in putting down the Amendment, however, was to see whether Her Majesty's Government had given the matter further thought since the Second Reading of the Bill and whether wiser counsels might have prevailed, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD WESTWOOD: I would ask my noble friend to accept this Amendment, in the light of all the arguments raised on this clause both during the Second Reading in this House and in another place. The majority of cinema exhibitors

787
are not showing newsreels for a very simple reason—because they are not news. None of your Lordships would buy a three-days-old newspaper if you wanted to keep up to date, but that is usually the length of time it takes before a news item becomes available to the public in a cinema. In some cases it is six days, and in others even nine days.
The clause as it stands permits monies to be paid out of the Film Production Fund to help subsidise the newsreels, which are not shown in the great majority of cinemas in this country. We have been told that the amount involved is something between £150,000 and £200,000 per year. For that sum of money there are several British producers who could make two or three really good feature films, and these films would be shown on every screen in the country and not on just a few, as newsreels are at present. Within recent months there has been a very successful batch of British films which were comedy films: I'm All Right, Jack; Carry on, Teacher; Two Way Stretch; Please Turn Over; Carry on, Nurse, are just a few of them. They were all modest budget films and yet they were all big box-office attractions and made a lot of money throughout the country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has told the Committee, it is not Government money that we are spending; it is the industry's money which is at stake, and in my view it should be used solely for the purpose for which it was raised—namely, the financing of feature films. I do not object to the money being used for second-feature films and shorts, because they provide the training ground for stars and technicians, but that argument cannot be used so far as newsreels are concerned, as they do not employ any stars or actors whatsoever. The two companies which own and produce the newsreels are far from being poor companies. They are both prosperous companies, with healthy balance sheets, and both have substantial associations with large American production companies. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in this Amendment and I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The proposal to include newsreels in the quota
788
of levy arrangements is one of the few novel features in this Part of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has said, this question was fairly fully discussed on Second Reading by himself and others of your Lordships. He has explained to your Lordships that he could not add very much to what he had said then, but that he put forward his Amendment in the hope that "wiser counsels might have prevailed". I am sorry to have to tell the Committee that "wiser counsels" have not prevailed, and I have very little—indeed, really nothing—to add to what I myself said, I think at fairly considerable length, about this matter on Second Reading.
The sole reason why newsreels were not originally included in the levy arrangements was simply that at that time—in fact, until very lately; until television has become so universal—they were extremely prosperous and they were considered not to need any levy at all. Now, largely as a result, perhaps, of television, they are doing very badly. Only two companies, as my noble friend Lord Westwood said, are still continuing to produce newsreels, and they will not be able to continue to produce them if newsreels cannot get the aid of the levy. It seems a little unfair that, having originally refused to give any part of the levy to newsreels because they did not need it, we should now refuse to give it because they do need it. For that reason I think it would be both unfair and unreasonable to refrain from taking this step at this stage. I thought that everything which my noble friend Lord Westwood has just said about newsreels might equally well have been said not so very long ago about shorts and second-feature films, which at that time were doing very badly and which needed the levy very much and which at one time were the special object of concern by the trade. They were doing badly then and therefore they were given aid under the levy. Now newsreels are doing badly and it would be unfair to continue to discriminate against them.
The noble Lord said that the two companies which are producing newsreels are themselves prosperous. That may be so; but the newsreels are losing money and they will not go on if they continue to lose money. If the newsreels are to be judged as no longer having

789
sufficient appeal to the public to justify their continuance, at least let that happen without any unfair discrimination against them. Whether they really are so bad and so feeble as some critics say is a matter of dramatic or artistic opinion. We might have said the same about any of the films which are now receiving the levy. But at least if they are to fail by the test of not being worth the exhibitors' while to show them (which is, in the long run, the only test by which they can be judged), do not let it be as a result of unfair discrimination. Let them have a fair chance, the same chance as is given to all other kinds of films. Of course we know it is the exhibitors' money and not Government money, but we are doing this on the advice of the Films Council, who have recommended that these newsreels should now receive equal treatment with every other kind of production in this regard.
LORD SHEPHERD: I listened to the noble Earl with some dismay. When he said wiser counsels were not prevailing in the Government decision, it occurred to me that many of us on this side of the House have thought that for some considerable time, but now we have the noble Earl admitting it. I have listened to the case made by the noble Earl, and I do not think he met the case that was put by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend Lord Archibald. Surely the original object of the quota and of the levy was to support the feature film and, later, the short film only because they were essential to the cinema exhibitors; because if we had not got these British films the exhibitors would have little to show. But here is a very clear case, and it is being proved throughout the country that newsreels are no longer required by the exhibitors; they are no longer appreciated by the public. The public are getting their news first-hand from the newspapers and also from television, and obviously the cinema could never put the news forward in the same way as television. Therefore I see absolutely no reason why the cinema exhibitors, who are the men who find the money, should pay a levy to maintain a service they no longer require.
I believe that the reason the Government want newsreels to continue is for their overseas value. If that is the case—and I believe there is a case—then it
790
is up to the Central Office of Information to find the money. I believe that if the C.O.I. were prepared to subsidise newsreels we might get better newsreels and newsreels that would play a far greater part in putting the British way of life across in overseas countries. I am very sorry that the Government persist in this view. It means using private money; asking that that should bear the burden which should be borne by the country if it is a question of newsreels for overseas markets. I do not know what the noble Lords are going to do on this Amendment, but I think they will join me in saying that the noble Earl has not met the case which they have put this afternoon.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I correct one point made by the noble Earl? He suggested that the newsreels were excluded from levy in the past because they were prosperous. But may I point out that, both at the time of the voluntary levy and at the time of the statutory levy in 1957, the benefits of the levy were channelled only to films which qualified for quota. Until the Bill which we are now considering, newsreels never qualified for quota and therefore did not qualify for levy: and neither at the time of the voluntary levy nor at the time of the statutory levy did anyone suggest that the newsreels should be brought into quota and therefore brought into levy. If, however, the Government have decided that this declining side of the industry is to be artificially supported, there is nothing we can do about it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inclusion of studio or maker in credit titles]:
3.11 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Lord said: This is a very small point on what I might call a very small clause. All that this clause provides is that the name and address of the studio, or that of the maker of the film, shall be shown at the beginning or end of a film. The background to this clause was, of course, something more ambitious. It was

791
originally intended that all British films should be compelled to carry a title saying, "This is a British film", and to have made that effective there would also have had to be a complicated provision compelling the British producer to introduce into all his overseas contracts clauses requiring overseas distributors to retain these credit titles and not in any circumstances to cut them out. Of course, such a clause would have meant saddling the producer with such an amount of litigation as to make his life hardly worth living. He might have heard, three or six months later, that his distributor in Venezuela, Colombo, or somewhere else, had cut this out. What would he then have had to do: apply for an injunction, or launch an action for damages? For if he did not, he would be breaking the new law.
As this Bill has progressed, the clause has become somewhat emasculated, and it now provides only that the name and address of the studio or maker should be in the film. But, as I think was recognised by the Government spokesman on Second Reading, or at least in another place, that is effective only in this country, where it is completely unnecessary. British audiences know when they are seeing a British film, and do not need the name and address of the studio or maker to tell them that it is a British film. When it goes overseas—and in some territories it might be important—if the overseas distributor does not want to have it on the screen that it is a British film, it is a very simple operation with a pair of scissors to take out that matter, and nothing can be done about it. So where it is effective it is unnecessary: where it is, necessary it is completely ineffective. Quite frankly, I do not like silly clauses in a Bill. I do not like ineffective and unnecessary legislation. For that reason, I move as an Amendment that this clause be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD WESTWOOD: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, that this clause is not necessary and should be deleted. I can fully understand why the clause was included. It was put in by the Government with good intention; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald,
792
has told your Lordships, it will be impossible to carry it out. He has told you that, so far as our British audiences are concerned, the provision is not necessary at all because all the audiences know when a British picture is being shown. When the film goes overseas, there have been many instances when it has been altered and, by some judicious editing, shown and enjoyed by patrons in other lands. This provision in Clause 8 will not be observed, and I suggest that it could come out.
Most of your Lordships will remember—it is only a few years ago—that we had an excellent British film made which was enjoyed by many thousands of people: I refer to Whisky Galore. The film was shown in America, and when they got it over there they made several alterations to it. They edited it; they cut it, and then they changed the title. They went beyond Clause 8. From Whisky Galore it became Tight Little Island. Your Lordships will therefore see that once a British film goes overseas there is not much that can be done to see that the conditions in Clause 8 are observed. The clause is unnecessary and fatuous, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, that this is a small point, but I hope I can persuade him that it is not entirely useless. As he has said, a great many of the best British films are shown abroad with the implication that they are American films and not British, so as to deprive the British film industry of the credit of producing them. But that can be done merely by failing to state that they are British, and by allowing the audience to infer that they are American. Now whatever legal provisions are made here, I do not think there is any way of imposing upon the distributors abroad a requirement that they must state, when they show a film, that it is British. I do not think that would be legally enforceable. It would be quite pointless and fatuous if we tried to provide ourselves with ground for successful legal action on these matters. But surely we could make it just a little more difficult by providing that, if they do wish to show it with the inference that it is not a British film, they must

793
then, as I think I said during the Second Reading, be guilty not merely of negative action by failing to state that it is British but of a positive act of dishonesty by leaving out an integral part of the title. That, of course, is a thing which could not give ground for legal action, but it could give ground for comment and that would make it a little more difficult to do. Distributors cannot make such omissions unless they positively commit an act of dishonesty. We cannot prevent them from being dishonest, but we can at least make it so that they have got to do a dishonest thing if they are going to misrepresent the origin. I do not think that this is an entirely useless or pointless thing to do. Whatever we did, I do not think we could make it legally enforceable to state that it is a British film: we are merely making it, we hope, a little more difficult for dishonest people to make it appear that it is not.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Having, perhaps, a wider knowledge of the international film business than the noble Earl, may I say that I am less persuaded of the efficacy of this clause. I am not persuaded. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendment of register, and registration of alternative particulars]:
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved to add to subsection (5):
"Provided that for the purposes of this subsection alterations in the Register as regards playing time made within three months of the date of original registration shall be ignored."
The noble Lord said: This is a small fairly technical point, which I explained during the Second Reading debate, and I need only take a minute or two on it now. I hope that it is one on which the Government are going to meet us, because it is entirely technical. May I say that if they feel that the period of three months specified in the Amendment is too long, I shall be quite happy to accept 30 or 45 days in substitution for it?
The Amendment applies mainly to British producers. After they have registered their films and have had an
794
opportunity of seeing how audiences react to them, they may want to do a little editing which might have the effect of changing the registered length, and that has to be done within a month or six weeks of a film having been registered. That produces an unnecessary amount of work for the renters, who need to re-register if they are to satisfy the whole requirements of this clause, which otherwise is a very good one. I think that there is no section of the industry which would be opposed to the Amendment which I have put down, and I hope that, either in the form in which I have put it, or limited to 30 or 45 days, the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Archibald).
LORD WESTWOOD: This is a simple and, in my view, sensible Amendment, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, that it would assist the British producers. The provisions contained in the clause as it stands are too restrictive. The noble Lord has told us the reasons for the Amendment. After a film has had its first run in the West End of London, it is sometimes—not often, but sometimes—the case that the producer can, by careful editing, improve the film and speed up the action. This applies to comedy films more than to any other type of film. When the film leaves the West End of London and goes out to the suburbs and provinces, the edited version, which is an improved version, is much more acceptable to audiences. If a period of three months or, as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has suggested, one month, were allowed to the producer, in which to make his alterations and improvements, it would be of benefit both to the producers and exhibitors generally and I am confident would make the picture much more attractive, especially at the box office. I support this Amendment.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment involves a delicate balance between renters' rights and exhibitors' rights, or perhaps I should say, between exhibitors' protection and renters' convenience. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, considers that the law as proposed in this Bill will bear too heavily on the renters, but I am

795
afraid that he has not persuaded me or the Government of that. He has made the need for occasional cutting, and even drastic cutting, during, the pre-release run quite plain and that is not contested. Something that may make even a film director laugh, may not make an audience laugh and therefore would have to be axed. But this operation is, and remains, a perfectly simple one, without any Amendment.
Under Section 8 of the 1938 Act, a distributor can deliver an altered film without any notice to the exhibitor, so long as the alteration is not more than one-tenth of the running time of the film. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable tolerance. An average film I suppose would be of 90 to 100 minutes' duration, which means that an undeclared alteration in running time of ten minutes can be made. If a film contains more than ten minutes of "dud" jokes, I should have thought that the director was "slipping" to a dangerous degree and might require "axing" himself.
In this deplorable event, the renter is still not tied to an unwieldy film. He can effect such cutting as he wishes, so long as he tells the exhibitor he has done so. That does not seem to me a very onerous obligation and seems a minimum protection to the exhibitor. It means notifying the exhibitor at the time the contract is made. The renter is always free to re-register the film at a maximum cost of 4 guineas—the new maximum cost of registration is 8 guineas—if he prefers this method. If he does neither, there is always the possibility that an exhibitor may be persuaded to take a film, in ignorance, which he might have refused in wisdom. We feel that it is only right to guard against that possibility, on the public's behalf as much as on anyone's.
The noble Lord spoke of the amount of work entailed. Naturally he has a greater knowledge of that than I have, but that occurred to me when I was studying the Amendment, and my advice is that it does not entail any great amount of work. It entails merely the renter's making a note of the fact that a film, which was a certain length when made and when registered, is now that much shorter, and making a simple announcement of this fact before the
796
contract is signed. In summary, we think it is wrong that a renter should be permitted to make severe alterations in playing time, and even in the content of a film, without bringing these changes to the exhibitors' attention, as this Amendment would permit. If he wishes to do so, which he might well do for perfectly worthy reasons, he should have to say so. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot meet the noble Lord's wishes on this matter.
LORD ARCHIBALD: If the Government are not prepared to accept a very small, eminently practicable and reasonable Amendment such as this, I think that we might refrain from moving the rest of our Amendments, because it is quite obvious that none of them is going to get any consideration. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Application of Acts to televised films
". In subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Act of 1938 there shall be added to the definition of exhibitor' the words 'and shall include the British Broadcasting Corporation and any television programme contractor'."
The noble Lord said: I must say that I sympathise with the attitude of my noble friend Lord Archibald, but I am going to move this Amendment because I wish to develop the argument that I started on Second Reading. First I should like to make it clear to the Committee that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, and my noble friend Lord Archibald, I have no connections with the film industry. In fact, I can claim that on no occasion have I received a free ticket for any film premiere. I may also say that in moving this Amendment I am in no way attacking the television authorities. I am endeavouring to show an inequality that now exists between cinema exhibitors, on the one hand, and television authorities, on the other.
The Committee will know that in recent years the television authorities have increasingly exhibited on their medium cinematograph films which were originally produced for showing in the cinema.

797
The 1938 and 1948 Acts were passed primarily to give assistance to the cinematograph film producers. Then television was in its infancy, transmitting only to a relatively few people and for limited hours per day. To do justice to the case I wish to put before the Committee, I feel that I should go over some of the ground that I covered on Second. Reading. I think it will be accepted that film producers in this country were experiencing extreme difficulties, and that the 1938 and 1948 Acts brought into being a quota system which meant that cinema exhibitors were bound by Statute to exhibit a certain percentage annually of British films. In the early days these provisions must have caused hardship, but I think the Committee will agree that over the years they have benefited all parties: in fact, we heard from the noble Earl on the Second Reading that the exhibitors had exceeded the quota that was laid down by Statute, which means that they were showing more British films than they were called upon to do. Then, in 1957, it was found that the film producers will still experiencing difficulties, and by Statute a levy was put on all the cinema exhibitors in this country.
I would again call attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said: that prior to the statutory levy the cinema industry had a voluntary levy. The producers have been receiving by Statute quite a considerable sum of money. I have no definite figures of what a distributor has received on a particular film, but I understand that if a distributor or producer earns £100,000 he receives approximately £30,000, raised from the exhibitors. Therefore your Lordships can see that, on one side, so far as the exhibitors are concerned, they have a statutory levy placed upon them, but in the case of the television authorities they have no statutory obligation as to the quantity of foreign or British films that must be shown through their medium. It is perfectly true that there are limitations on foreign productions but, as I am trying to show, the television authorities are today acting as cinematograph exhibitors and are continually and increasingly showing cinematograph films through their medium. They have no quota; they are not forced to show any fixed percentage of British films through their medium and they do not have to pay any
798
contribution to the producers who are producing films.
I believe that this inequality is something that we should put right. I put down Amendment No. 7, but I withdrew it because I believed that if it were accepted it would mean that no British films would appear on television, and that is something that none of us would wish. But I believe that the Amendment I am now putting before the Committee is possible. It would certainly aid the film producers, for they would then have a fixed percentage of their films to be shown on television, and, equally, they would be receiving from the television authorities quite a considerable sum of money which they could use for the development of their own productions, and in turn that contribution might well reduce the cost of our films and make them more competitive and obviously more saleable in the overseas countries.
I have not had any Parliamentary draftsman to help me in drafting the Amendment, but I ask the Government to accept the general principle that I put before the Committee: that the exhibitor and the television authorities, both exhibiting to the public through different media cinematograph films, should be treated equally in bearing the burden and giving aid to the cinema producing industry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insent the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD ARCHIBALD: Before the Government reply on this Amendment, I should like to say a few words. I am generally in sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment, but I must say, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, that as he has put it down I do not think, is entirely the correct way of doing it. He has not distinguished between the two kinds of films shown on television. The entire British industry is opposed to the showing of any cinematograph films on television. We think it is ludicrous that films which may have cost several hundred thousand pounds to produce for cinematograph exhibition should be shown on television at a cost of a few thousand pounds and have the effect of damaging the industry which has produced the films. It is not a quota or

799
levy provision that we want, but greater success in the attempts of the industry to keep these films off the television screens altogether.
But there is another side to it, and that is with regard to the films which are specifically made for television. These are mainly the half-hour series films—some of them are now nearer to an hour, but in the main they are half an hour—the bulk of which come from America, of the I Love Lucy type. It is in regard to these series films made for television that the Government might well look, not necessarily for the scope of this Bill, but for future action, at the possibility of imposing a quota, so that where they are showing on television series of American made television films there should be a quota of British made television films to be set against them.
The situation with regard to British television series is at the moment rather serious. They were being produced in fairly reasonable numbers, but, for lack of a quota, the B.B.C. and the television contractors have been offering such ridiculously low prices for the British television series that it is quite uneconomic to make them, and they have to depend on being able to sell these films in the American market if they are going to get back the cost, or anything like it, with the result that the making in the British studios of British television film series has dwindled almost to nothing. I do not imagine that it would be easy to include a quota for television films within the scope of this Bill, but I hope that the Government will look at it and consider whether some action can be taken at a later date.
3.40 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment was moved simply and lucidly by the noble Lord, and I wish I could put the argument to it simply and lucidly as well. I have not found any way of doing that. On first reading the terms of the Amendment, I tried to imagine myself moving it, in the course of which I worked up nearly as much enthusiasm as the noble Lord himself, though naturally not so much eloquence. It has an undeniable surface attraction, but I am now convinced, and before sitting down I shall try to convince the noble
800
Lord, that its beauty is only a little more than skin deep. To begin with, and going only a little more than skin deep myself, I should, say that this Amendment could not be effective, because the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Acts up to date—the whole family of Acts—bear on the exhibitor only when he exhibits a film in a theatre. As noble Lords are aware, the whole assessment for levy, as concerns collection and distribution, is affected by the number of full seats which can be counted, or at least the number of tickets sold at the box office. Exemption from quota can be claimed by an exhibitor on the basis of the potentially empty seats he can foresee, or the unsold tickets he can imagine and describe convincingly to the Board of Trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made it plain that this Amendment, like the last which he did not move, is inspired by the buying up two months ago of 55 films for television, and the possibility of further such deals which has been opened up. Although, as no doubt my noble friend would have pointed out, the purpose of the last Amendment required no alteration in the Bill, because it could be achieved by regulations, the object of this Amendment would in fact require a completely different sort of Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is set down in paragraph (a) of the Explanatory Memorandum. It reads:
"to amend the film quota legislation (which requires cinema exhibitors to show a certain proportion of British films) and to extend it until the end of 1967."
That is clearly stated, and it is hard for me to see how, under those terms of reference, we could introduce controls over a completely different medium of entertainment.
If the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Archibald, wished to argue on the strength of the situation they have described—that a new Television Act was called for—they could seek an opportunity, but not, I think, this afternoon. For my part, I am not seeking to argue against the noble Lord that television has become or has not become an exhibitor in the sense he used. I am only underlining the fact that it does not exhibit films in the medium which this Bill was designed to cover, but on the television screen.

801
In this connection the noble Lord is probably aware that the present Television Act already requires that programmes put out by commercial television companies should be British to a substantial extent. But if, as I understand him, he now says that the B.B.C. and Commercial Television contractors should register with the Board of Trade under the amended Cinematograph Films Act, I would tell him that the British Film Producers' Association themselves see very grave difficulties and complications arising from this.
I will give noble Lords some examples, first as regards the quota provisions. To start with, it would be necessary to define the sort of films to be included in the quota. This was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. There are many kinds. There are cinema films, long and short; there are films made of variety programmes shown the same day; there are documentary and advertising films and others, some of which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. Would the quota cover all these films, or would a different quota have to apply to a different category of film? It would be presumably necessary, furthermore, to determine all over again the precise definition of a British film for quota purposes. This is defined surely enough for the Cinematograph Films Acts, and to satisfy this definition an eight page form is required from a producer, supported by a statutory declaration, to enable the Board of Trade to pass a given film as being British. But this definition, which is for cinema films, would not be appropriate for many types of small television films. Entirely new requirements would have to be laid down for the implementing of this, even if the Government were entirely persuaded of the wisdom of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Six years ago, the quota problem was faced when the Television Act, 1954, was being considered. It was thought then by some that a full quota procedure should be written into the Act instead of the general provision that a proper proportion of recorded material must be of British origin. The idea was dropped because of the complicated nature of the legislation entailed, even in a specific Television Act. It is most unlikely that the existing quota, or any quota determined for cinemas, would apply fairly
802
to television. There was a time when only about 5 per cent. of screen time was secured by British films in British cinemas. The quota system was introduced to correct this state of affairs. But to-day something like 86 per cent. of all material shown on television screens in this country is British.
I observed, as I imagine the noble Lord did, the resolution by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians reported yesterday. It condemned the quantity of American material on British television and sought to regulate the showing of cinema films on the television screen. It may be that from within the two industries themselves we shall find some answer to this problem. But, speaking as a relatively small consumer of either type of entertainment, it strikes me that so long as everything, or almost everything, projected on to the cinema screen is assessed for the quota, then everything projected on to television screens should also be taken into account. At present, 86 per cent. of that material is British. If, by legislation, we were to separate all films from this and impose a quota only on that section of television programmes, then television contractors might find themselves showing 90 per cent. of British material, partly under obligation, with cinemas showing only their 30 per cent. quota as ordained. On the other hand, they might feel themselves entitled to show less than before, if this, as I believe, is at present above the 30 per cent. of British film material.
The problem of applying the levy to the television programmes could be even greater than that of the quota. Take, first, the collection. I quote, with the permission of your Lordships, but with no great gusto, from the Cinema Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, as amended by the Collection of Levy (Amendment) Regulations, 1958.
"The levy shall be computed by reference to the payments received by the person liable to pay the levy for admission to entertainments … at any theatre in respect of which that person is licensed, and in respect of each such payment, at the rate of 10 per cent. of the amount by which the total amount of that payment (not excluding the amount of the entertainments duty (if any) chargeable thereon) exceeds 11d."
Always supposing that noble Lords have followed me so far, they will realise

803
that this provision would be totally inapplicable to television films, because nothing is paid above or below 11d. for watching a given film on a television screen, be it from your own or somebody else's armchair. As concerns the distribution of the levy, all power of selectivity would be lost if applied to television showing. The object is to encourage the makers of good films, and not the makers of bad films. I think the noble Lord did not bring that point out when he was mentioning the £100,000 earned and the £30,000 received back. To this end, distribution is geared to box office success. But there is no measurable box office success for a film shown on the television screen. I think the noble Lord would agree that some other measure would have to be sought. Would it be on the basis of the sum paid by the television authorities, on the basis of length, cost or in other ways? Any method, I suggest, would require careful and complicated definition, and all ways would, I suggest, excite ferocious criticism from some angle.
There would be yet another difficulty. Noble Lords will know that for different types of cinema film there are different rates of payment from the levy fund. Second-feature films have their earnings multiplied by two, short films by two and a half. But these scales would be quite inappropriate for films shown on the television screen. I have tried to put a reasoned, even if somewhat lengthy, argument to the noble Lord, and for these reasons, without expressing, or I hope implying, any direct hostility to the principle embodied in his Amendment; and because I think, and I hope he now feels, it does not come within the compass of this Act, I ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would thank the noble Lord for his obviously extensive homework and congratulate him. He has raised points which I frankly did not think existed. I spent hours reading this legislation. I shall certainly read his speech with the greatest care and I hope with intelligence. The purpose, as I have made clear, in putting this Amendment down was to raise a principle, a principle of equality between the cinema exhibitor and the television authorities, who in my judgment are both exhibitors. I appreciate—I think
804
I do at least—the difficulties that would arise if I tried to persuade the Government to accept my Amendment, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Irish films
". Notwithstanding anything in the Cinematograph Films Acts, 1938 to 1957, a film made in the Republic of Ireland shall, for the purposes of those Acts and this Act be treated as a foreign film."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should again make it clear that I am not attacking any person who comes from the Republic of Ireland or raising it in protest about the export of live horses to the Continent. But in recent years there have been built in Southern Ireland the Ardmore Studios. Those are very extensive studios, and very modern. I raised the whole question why the Republic of Ireland was included in this Bill because I felt that with these modern studios in Southern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland there was possibility of abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in replying to the Second Reading debate stated the reason the Republic of Ireland was included. I will read his words, because they were very clear [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 220 (No. 35), Col. 1058]:
"This … is an example of legislation by reference, and by reference to Bills which in fact have nothing to do with any Films Bill. Under the Ireland Act of 1949 the Republic of Ireland ceased to be a Hart of Her Majesty's Dominions, but under Section 3 of that Act it is provided that, until some provision to the contrary is made, any Act of Parliament passed before the Ireland Act and containing a reference to Her Majesty's Dominions continues to relate to the Republic of Ireland as if it were one of those Dominions."
He then pointed out, quite rightly, that as this Bill seeks to amend and extend the provisions of Acts of 1938 and 1948 which had been passed prior to the Ireland Act, 1949, it was necessary specifically to include the Republic of Ireland in this Bill. I cannot believe that it is necessary, simply because it was done in the past and because it may apply quite rightly to certain Acts, that the Republic of Ireland should be included in this Bill.
As I said earlier, in Southern Ireland we have these new studios. It is possible

805
for a foreign film to be made in Southern Ireland, with American directors, American producers and American capital, and so long as the percentage of the total cost comes to a certain level (I believe 75 per cent.) that film can be imported and shown in this country and will come within the quota which has been laid down for British films. In other words I would submit that there is a possibility that a basically foreign film might be made in Southern Ireland, with relatively low costs as compared with ours, brought into this country and used against the quota which has been laid down for British films. I believe that is a very serious loophole. I think there is one further point to which I should draw the attention of the Committee: that there are no reciprocal arrangements in the Republic of Ireland and no quota system; our films must fight foreign films and have no special protection. For that reason I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment as it appeared on the Order Paper yesterday proposed that notwithstanding the Acts of 1938 to 1957 a film made in the Republic of Ireland
"shall not, for the purposes of those Acts and this Act, he treated as if it had been made outside the Republic of Ireland."
That sounded a little difficult to controvert. The Amendment to-day reads "shall be treated as a foreign film". As the noble Lord has explained to your Lordships, the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949, provided that previous Acts applying to any of Her Majesty's Dominions, which would at that time have included Ireland, should continue to apply to Ireland unless the contrary was stated. But it is also our policy to extend to citizens of the Republic of Ireland the privileges of British citizenship and also commercial preferences and rights pertaining to the Commonwealth, although Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth. Naturally everybody would probably prefer that Ireland should decide to enter into a fuller association of the Commonwealth not only with the United Kingdom but all the other members. That is the point of the Commonwealth. But it is our policy, which we
806
think is right, that although Ireland chooses to remain outside the Commonwealth nevertheless we shall afford to the people of Ireland the privileges which they would enjoy if they were in it. We are very anxious to do nothing which would depart from that policy unless there is a very clear case for it.
The noble Lord is no doubt aware that films made in studios in the Republic of Ireland are already barred from participating in the levy unless they are made by a United Kingdom company. That is a provision which applies to all the Dominions, and they agree it is fair, because there is no reciprocity on their side. So it could arise only if the film were made by a United Kingdom company. We recognise that there is apprehension in the industry that the studios at Ardmore in Ireland might be used by United Kingdom companies to produce films to an extent which would be prejudicial to labour and the studios in this country. At present we do not think that those apprehensions are likely to materialise. It is the same, I think, in regard to any Dominion. A company may want to take its staff abroad to a Dominion for a certain amount of outside work. It is extremely unlikely that they would want to do more than a little in studios in the Dominions when they have much better studios here, where everything can be done much more cheaply.
I think that, for commercial reasons and reasons of convenience, it is most unlikely that the United Kingdom companies would wish to use the studios at Ardmore to any appreciable extent in preference to studios in the United Kingdom. But we shall certainly watch the situation, and if it should appear that this was being done to a prejudicial extent, we should certainly ask the Cinematograph Films Council to advise us whether the regulations governing the levy should be amended in such a way as to prevent this from happening. It probably would not be a total exclusion; it might perhaps be a provision that a certain proportion of the time of producing a film must be in British studios—only allowing a few small shots which were reasonable in conjunction with outside work to be done in foreign studios.
We will certainly watch the position, but in the meantime it does not seem

807
that the danger which is apprehended by certain people is actually imminent. We do not want to take any action which would seem to discriminate against the Republic of Ireland, or indeed against any part of the Commonwealth. Therefore, we should prefer not to put this Amendment into the Bill, but to wait and see whether, on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council, any amendment of the regulations might be necessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl for his reply and I shall certainly withdraw my Amendment. I believe that this is the last Amendment on this Bill. May I say to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that, whilst on quite a number of occasions we have been thoroughly dissatisfied with the Government's attitude, we thank them for their courtesy in making their replies to us.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I, too, should like to thank him and his friends for the most reasonable way in which they have made their comments on this Bill, and for so greatly facilitating its progress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

HORTICULTURE BILL
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, horticulture is an important industry; it is also a large industry. The value of sales of home-grown and imported produce at wholesale prices, excluding potatoes, is of the order of £270 million. The industry gives employment to large numbers of people—not only growers, but wholesalers, retailers and their employees, as well as ancillary industries
808
such as transport, container manufacture and so on. The industry is intensely complex in structure. In some parts of the country there are numbers of general market gardeners growing a wide range of produce—Evesham and Bedfordshire are areas which come immediately to mind; and there are others. In some areas there are specialist growers concentrating on just a few crops; and there are also special sections of the industry, such as the glasshouse section and florists. The scale as well as the type of production varies. There are tiny holdings of, for instance, strawberries at Cheddar, in the county I come from, and there are large acreages of carrots or of celery in Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Again, it is a very widely dispersed industry. There are broccoli growers in Cornwall and damson growers in the Lake District; raspberry growers in Blairgowrie; bulb growers in Lincolnshire, and watercress growers in the Southern Counties.
Therefore the system of marketing that has grown up has had to be complex to meet the needs of this scattered industry, with its ultimate buyers, the consumers, so concentrated in the large towns. There are, therefore, a large number of methods of trading in existence. Perhaps the most general practice is for the grower to send to a commission salesman in one of the primary markets. The produce is then sold on the grower's behalf to local retailers or other wholesalers supplying local towns or country districts. But an appreciable amount of produce reaches the consumer in other ways. Sometimes the grower himself takes his produce to market and sells it direct to retailers, and in some districts and with some produce country merchants buy direct from the growers ex-farm and then re-sell to other retailers or wholesalers. Growers also use country markets, and also sell through co-operatives in any of these ways or direct to the large retailers. Then, to-day, through the development of self-service and pre-packaging, further changes are taking place.
It is altogether fitting, therefore, that Parliament should now have before it a major Bill dealing solely with this major industry. So far as I can ascertain, this is the first time that this has happened. Horticultural legislation has always previously been, as it were, tagged on to

809
the end of more general agricultural legislation. Your Lordships will remember the valuable Report which was published in January, 1957, of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford. That Committee investigated the marketing of horticultural produce and made recommendations. As is fully set out in the White Paper (Cmnd. 880) which was published in November of last year, the Government agreed with the broad conclusion of the Runciman Committee that the marketing structure generally was satisfactory, although of course it was not perfect in every detail, and they accepted in principle the recommendation that there should be established a Horticultural Marketing Council. Your Lordships will be aware that the Horticultural Marketing Advisory Council was set up in May, 1958, to examine the practical problems involved. This Advisory Committee reported in May, 1959.
As it is the foundation of the legislation that we see before us, perhaps I may recapitulate the sequence of events. Lord Runciman of Doxford's Committee was invited in 1955 to study the problem of marketing and presentation. Eighteen months later there came their Report. In the following year the Horticultural Marketing Advisory Council was set up to consider the far-reaching implications of some of the Committee's recommendations upon which Her Majesty's Government thought it proper to seek independent advice. Then there were the conclusions reached in the light of that advice, set out in the White Paper of 1959; and there is this Bill, which we are to-day reading for a second time in your Lordships' House, dealing with two of the main directions in which Her Majesty's Government intend to implement their policy on horticultural marketing. I look forward, at a later date, to bringing before your Lordships legislation dealing with the reorganisation of Covent Garden Market, which will cover the third of the three directions in which we wish to advance at this time.
This Bill, then, is designed to help the grower of British horticultural produce to improve the presentation of his produce for market; and it is designed, as well, to aid the industry as a whole in
810
improving the marketing and distribution of all horticultural produce. It does so by means of two main provisions—the introduction of improvement grants through a Horticulture Improvement Scheme and by the setting up of a Horticultural Marketing Council. It has always been recognised, I believe, that horticulture could not appropriately be assisted by the methods of guaranteed markets, deficiency payments and production grants that are applicable to agriculture generally. The main instrument of policy for supporting the horticulture industry is the tariff. This Bill, therefore, is not to be considered in any way as a substitute for the tariff but as a supplement to it.
We may now turn to the details of the Bill. Part I provides for grants for horticultural improvements. In a sense, this could be called the counterpart, for horticulture, of the Farm Improvement Scheme for agriculture which was introduced in 1957 and is proving so successful. It is not possible, however, merely to make an extension of that scheme to cover horticulture, for the objectives are different. The Farm Improvement Scheme is clearly anchored to the land. No operation can qualify under that scheme which does not carry long-term benefits to agricultural land. This is not applicable to a wide range of desirable improvements for horticulture. One has only to think of pot plants or glasshouse production to realise why this must be so.
Again, I must emphasise that these improvement grants for horticulture are not designed primarily to increase output but rather to improve the presentation and marketing of the produce. This is, of course, an enabling Bill, enabling a scheme to be laid, but I think you Lordships may find it convenient if I briefly refer to some of the provisions which will be included in the scheme which we hope to lay before Parliament very shortly, and which were mentioned in some detail in the White Paper to which I have referred. That showed that the kind of items which will qualify for grant are, for instance, the erection of buildings for washing and grading horticultural produce, packing sheds, loading bays, and improvements of that nature. The White Paper also envisaged that we intended to make an entirely new departure in that we propose to make grants

811
for certain plant and equipment which will go inside buildings: that proposal is quite dissimilar to other grant-aid schemes. For instance, we can grant-aid the provision of washing and grading machines, conveyors, coolers and plant of that kind; and we do so because these things help growers to improve the presentation and marketing of their produce.
Perhaps one of the most important items which will be eligible for grant aid is storage facilities—cool chambers for short-term storage and cold stores or gas stores for long-term storage for such fruits as apples and pears. Further, we propose to assist growers who already have glasshouses equipped with heating to modernise their heating system, for everybody must surely realise how wasteful of fuel and labour out-of-date boilers and pipe layouts can be. Again, we propose to aid the provision of what is called "ancillary" glass for the smaller producer. The provision of a small glasshouse can add very appreciably to the economic soundness of such a small business. It enables a grower to spread the growing and marketing of his crop over a longer period. It can reduce his dependence on bought-in planting material and, not the least important, can provide him with useful work when the weather is too bad for him to work out of doors. Your Lordships will see from these details that our proposals are flexible and liberal; and though, as I have said, they are not designed to increase the volume of production and output, we thought it appropriate to include these special sections along with the main proposals for improving facilities for marketing.
I have spoken so far of some of the things which will be eligible for grant. Another important question is, of course: who will be eligible for grant? In any such scheme as this there have to be arbitrary limits. As in the Small Farmers' Scheme we have had to decide what, in general, is the minimum unit which can provide a living for an average horticulturist. To arrive at this figure we have, of course, taken the advice of our own horticultural and economic experts. Also, we have had most helpful consultations with producers' organisations and representatives, and we have considered the most valuable report of
812
a group that was set up by the National Farmers' Union to study problems of small horticultural businesses.
We finally came to the conclusion that four acres of open land, or its equivalent, should be the limit; and the equivalents are fully set out in paragraph 10 of the White Paper—one-twentieth of an acre of glass house, mushroom house or rhubarb shed or one-quarter of an acre under movable lights or cloches, or for growing watercress, is to be regarded as one acre of open land. Of course, we shall be attacked on this lower limit. No referee ever blew a whistle without some section of the crowd saying it should not have been blown. But we must have a limit and we are not prepared to go into the horrors of a means test—which is the only alternative to an arbitrary limit of this kind—a limit arrived at, however, after careful consideration and discussion.
A point that is important is, can we help those smaller growers who fall below the lower limit? I am delighted to be able to say that we can. They have not been forgotten. Everybody is out to pay lip service to co-operation, but in this Bill we are actively and positively encouraging it. We have decided that growers' marketing co-operatives (the words used in the Bill are horticultural producers' marketing businesses", they are the legal words in the Bill) shall be eligible for grants under this scheme. This means that if an individual grower is below the acreage limit he can join or help to form a co-operative and, along with fellow co-operators, can enjoy the benefits of the grants for improving marketing facilities. The benefits of co-operation among small producers—or large ones, for that matter—are very great in themselves, and therefore we feel that this stimulus to co-operation is very important. I do not for a moment mean—and I have not said—that the only co-operatives eligible for grant will be aggregations of very small businesses. Any co-operative that satisfies the requirements of this Bill will be eligible for grant-aid under this scheme.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 4 and to Clause 5 (2) of this Bill, which provides that the sum of £100,000 will be made available for

813
the general promotion of efficient co-operative horticultural marketing under this Bill. Grants will be made for recruiting and training managers, providing consultant services, and such like matters. This is again a new departure, and your Lordships will, I know, accept this as concrete proof that our policy is deeds, not words, in the promotion of co-operation.
Before I turn from Part I of the Bill, it only remains for me to mention one or two outstanding figures. The total money available will be £8 million, or in certain circumstances £8¼ million; that is in Clause 5. Under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, the period for submitting applications is to be five years; and grant will be at the rate of one-third of the cost of the work. Standard costs (Clause 3), as in the Farm Improvement Scheme, will be available. That has proved a tremendous help to small farmers, and we hope it will be a great help to small horticulturists; and our estimate is, after making all allowances for part-time holdings and so on, that we think there may be between 25,000 and 35,000 horticultural production businesses in the United Kingdom which may be able to satisfy the conditions of eligibility. Then, again under Clause 4, central co-operative organisations can apply for "management grants" during a six-year period; and the proportion of grant will vary according to the services provided with the programme approved.
Finally, on this Part of the Bill, I would merely say that the scheme will of course mean new work for the Government's advisory services. This matter has naturally been considered most thoroughly and carefully, and we believe that we shall not be placing upon these officers a burden which they will not be able to bear. The technical aspects of the proposals relating to buildings and other fixed equipment will, of course, be dealt with by officers of the Agricultural Land Service, so both the advisory services will be involved in this scheme.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill, it has, it might be said, the effect of carrying this advance in the industry right through to the housewife, which I think is a most important point. If the first Part of the Bill deals with the presentation and preparation for market of the produce by the grower, Part II of the
814
Bill deals with the produce on its way to the consumer through the later stages of marketing. All sections of the industry, producers and distributors, will be represented on the Horticultural Marketing Council. It will also have representatives of the workers, and there will be an independent element. The composition of the Council is set out in Clause 9. I think that perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Council will be concerned with all horticultural produce sold in Great Britain, whether home-produced or imported. This extremely wide scope of the Council is necessary, for at least from the wholesale stage onwards home producers use the same channels of trade as importers use. The consumer also has an interest in the efficiency of marketing and distribution of imported produce just as much as in home produce. And the British grower, for his part, is of course interested in information about imports and quantities available and about prices, and this information must be closely linked to market intelligence on home-grown produce. The functions of the Council must, therefore, deal with all horticultural produce.
Those functions are set out in the next clause of the Bill, Clause 10. I think there is not need for me to go through them in detail, but I would pick out, and stress, the fact that all these functions are advisory in character. The Council is not a trading body and does not have any regulatory powers, the only exception to this being that it may trade "by way of experiment or demonstration"—those are the words in the Bill. Power is given to extend the functions of the Council with the consent of Ministers. It is possible that some of your Lordships may have noticed, if they were following the progress of this Bill in another place, that some doubt has been expressed as to whether this would give Ministers power to override the prohibition on trading. I am able to tell your Lordships that this is not the intention, and I propose at a later stage to introduce an Amendment to make this abundantly clear.
I now turn again for a moment to the composition of the Council. Your Lordships will notice that we give equal representation to the three main interests involved: the producers, the wholesalers (who include the importers) and the

815
retailers. The wholesalers, as I say, include the importers. I think at this point I should stress that this is a consultative Council, and if it ever comes to counting heads on this Council instead of putting heads together, the Council will really have failed. Furthermore, one of the main tasks of this Council, at the outset, at any rate, will be to devise means of raising money from the industry. We believe that the three main sections which may have to find their share of the money should be given equal representation during this initial period. We think that this balance will probably prove right all the way through, but I would assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend would not hesitate to ask Parliament's approval, as he can do under Clause 9 (6), to vary the composition of the Council if, in the light of experience, any variation were found to be desirable.
Clause 11 empowers the Ministers to pay the expenses of the Council up to a total of £250,000 over a period of three years. It is quite definitely the intention that thereafter the industry itself must pay for the Council. The method of payment is not laid down in the Bill. This will be for the Council to propose. The Council will have to make a charges scheme that is acceptable to the industry generally, according to the provisions of this clause and of the Second Schedule to the Bill. However, the charges scheme can come into operation only after it has been approved by Parliament.
My Lords, I think that that is almost all I need say, other than to draw your Lordships' attention most particularly—and I must do that before I close—to Clause 15. This will enable the Ministers to set up such an organisation for publicity for home-grown produce as seems to them expedient, and as seems in the national interest. This organisation may cover all home-grown produce, or it may cover just one commodity, or a number of commodities. But it will be set up only if growers want it set up, and then only for those products that they want it to cover. Its members will be growers, and it will be financed by growers. It will finance itself, really, by money raised on its behalf by the Council: it indents on the Council. These provisions, I believe, will fulfil a
816
long-felt want amongst growers of certain products; and in a way these provisions can be held to round off the provisions in Part I.
So, my Lords, I have no hesitation in commending this important Bill to your Lordships. I am glad to say that it has received a wide measure of support in another place and, perhaps even more important, that it has been welcomed by the industry and by the public at large. There can be no doubt that the problems with which it attempts to deal are of great complexity. The proposed horticultural improvement grants, coming, as they will, as an addition to, and not as a substitute for, the tariff, will be of very great assistance to the home producers, and so will the stimulus to co-operation which the Bill gives. The proposed Horticultural Marketing Council will, I am confident, lead to an increase in the efficiency of the marketing of all horticultural produce in this country, whether it is produced at home or imported from overseas. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
4.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for his very careful, and in some cases detailed, and at all times lucid, explanation of this Bill. So far as I am concerned, I think the most attractive part of his speech was his sort of "Cook's tour", in which he conducted us all over the country, from carrots to cauliflowers and from rhubarb to raspberries—because that reminded me that this is a most fascinating industry. In fact almost the only good thing about it is its fascination: it does not bring, or has not yet brought, anything much in the way of cash to those who work extremely hard in it.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl for his account of the history of this measure, which is indeed the first that I remember relating strictly to horticulture, although I should not regard it as a major Bill. As he was talking of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, which, as he mentioned, was appointed in 1955, it occurred to me that we are now in 1960 before anything has been

817
done. I am reminded that on Thursday I was speaking from this Box on the subject of coal, which is also a form of horticulture in the past, Where the period that elapsed seems almost as long as that before we got this Bill on horticulture. But I am certainly very glad that we have got this Bill, because during my fifteen years at Westminster I have pressed continuously for Government aid to horticulturists. They are among the hardest-worked and least prosperous people in the whole country. I think that many today have "never had it so bad" since the early 'thirties. Naturally, therefore, we on these Benches welcome a measure designed to effect some improvement, but our welcome is clouded with disappointment at the Bill's several in adequacies.
My three immediate comments are, first, that it provides no direct help at all for more than half of our 70,000 growers—and they are the smallest and the poorest who are most in need of assistance. Secondly, the whole of this £8 million of public money will be entirely wasted unless there is a radical improvement in the system of distribution; and, despite what the noble Earl has said, I am far from being convinced that the provision of the Horticultural Advisory Council, and their powers, are in any way going to bring about an improvement in the distributing system. The third point is that to discuss this Bill without knowing the Government's intentions with regard to the application for increased tariffs is like having Hamlet without the Prince. I was very glad to have the welcome assurance from the noble Earl that the Government adhere to tariffs as the main instrument for providing growers with a reasonable measure of stability, and that we are to regard this Bill not as a substitute for but as an adjunct or addition to tariffs.
But how is this tariff policy being applied? Your Lordships may recall that last November I produced very sad and very convincing evidence with regard to the serious plight of the glasshouse tomato industry, and I urged the Government then, last November, to announce their tariff decision in January, because otherwise the propagation of tomato plants for this coming season would be seriously curtailed. But we are still waiting, on March 7. And last
818
Thursday, in another place, replying to urgent pressure from Government Back Benchers, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 618, No. 69, col. 1398]:
"I am very glad to give an assurance … that we are fully seized of this matter at both Ministerial and official levels."
My Lords, after waiting for four months the growers believe that the Government are not just seized but are seized up on this issue, because, while improvements in quality, grading and presentation are very important, it will be wasted effort if the market is allowed to become glutted, as it was last summer, with foreign produce selling at about one-third of the cost of home production. We do emphasise, therefore, that the benefits to be derived by horticulturists from this measure are contingent on the Government's raising tariffs so that our growers can have a fair share of the home market.
We have been told by the Government that they aim a three-pronged attack on the problems of horticulture—or, as the noble Earl put it, that they are moving forward in three directions. Of course, that may be a very good thing, providing the directions are all leading the same way. But I am not so sure that they are. Two of the prongs, or two of the directions, are in this Bill, of course—namely, the grants to facilitate the improvements in grading and presentation, and the steps to improve the efficiency and lower the cost of distribution. But the third direction, which the noble Earl mentioned and which will come up in another Bill later, is the improvement of the wholesale market, Covent Garden. If by that is meant that it is to be confined to improvements at Covent Garden, which the Minister has described as the national central market, then the prong is badly bent and moving in the wrong direction altogether. Anyone who knows anything about this problem at all knows that the last thing we want is to send produce to a national central market for reconsignment elsewhere. The noble Earl spoke about goods coming into the market being sold to retailers or neighbouring wholesalers. Very often the "neighbouring wholesalers" prove to be in Liverpool or in Glasgow, or in places all over the

819
country. We must not develop a so-called national central market. That adds inordinately to the cost. We must avoid it by having wholesale markets in the large towns so that growers can send to them direct.
I believe that the Minister of Agriculture and his advisers suffer from two fundamental misconceptions on the subject. First, they refer to grading and presentation as "marketing", and the noble Earl seemed to repeat this. Grading and presentation are only preparation for the market. Surely marketing is the whole process, from the farm gate to the housewife's basket; and in home horticulture production and presentation are not the main difficulty—it is selling. Their second fundamental error is the belief that selling costs are not unduly high. In this view doubtless they are relying on the statement in the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, that:
"The costs of distribution, having regard to the services performed, are not excessive."
But the Committee were referring to the profit margins made by individual retailers and wholesalers. The real cost of distribution is the difference between what the grower gets and what the housewife pays. That is the cost of distribution, and that figure is grossly inflated because of the duplication of wholesaling, and the consequent 'additional profit margins and, above all, additional freight costs and handling charges. In fact, the grower is still getting a very raw deal, which this Bill perpetuates in a considerable degree, because it runs away from the many practical steps which should be taken to put the matter right.
Coming, to the more favourable aspects of the Bill, we sincerely welcome the proposals to provide some £7½ or £8 million to meet one-third of the cost of the various types of improvement specified in the White Paper, some of which the noble Earl mentioned. But I hope that we can regard this as a mere beginning. After all, as a result of Conservative policy—or lack of it—over the last six years, the industry has suffered a £10 million capital loss in one item alone—the decline of 450 acres of glasshouses. Weighed against this, the £7½ million make; it still a bit lopsided.
820
The noble Earl said it is anticipated that between 25,000 and 30,000 horticulturists will be able to benefit from these grants. If we take the figure of 30,000 and divide £7½ million by that figure, that works out at £250 a head or, if we take it over the five years' period, just £1 a week for everyone for five years. That is not much of a lifeline for an industry which, according to one Government Back-Bencher in another place, is swimming in its own tears, and according to another, has suffered a 29 per cent. drop in income since 1951. That is a drop in its cash income—a vastly greater drop in its real income.
Then what about the other 40,000 producers who, as the noble Earl has suggested, will be excluded from the provisions of this Bill for various reasons, either because they do not qualify at all or because they do not possess or cannot borrow the other two-thirds of the money to meet the cost of an improvement? I hope that the answer for those 40,000 is that they will be able to join, or form themselves into, a producers' co-operative association and then enjoy collectively the benefits of the grants. This, which I regard as the one imaginative conception in the Bill, is something for which the Government deserve very warm praise. If it is used to the full, as I hope it will be—and I hope that everyone interested in the industry will try to see that it is used to the full—it can prove to be the salvation of the horticultural industry.
We are glad to see also that £100,000 has been set aside for the training and recruitment of managers and the provision of consultancy services, although I regret that the amount is not larger. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us that I am right in thinking that it will be able to be used fairly flexibly and, broadly speaking, to help in preaching the gospel of co-operation. I believe that that is one of the most important things that we have to do. It will not be easy, because so many of the smaller growers are such rugged individualists that they would rather starve alone than prosper together. I know of areas—and my noble friend Lord Wise knows of many others—where there are hundreds of small growers who are in the weakest possible position in selling their crops. A producers' co-operative would not only greatly improve their grading but,

821
by collective selling, based on sound market information, could also ensure a much higher average price for them. The one great danger, of course, is the tendency for these growers to do their own selling when prices are high and use the co-operative only when the market is right on the floor. I would congratulate the Minister on his decision to set up a departmental committee to consider this problem. I hope that they will find a means of overcoming it, perhaps by some form of enforceable contract. It is unfortunate that we should have to do this, but we must face the facts as they are.
We have to convince growers that they are best employed in producing their crops. Preparation for the market is best and cheapest when it can be mechanised collectively, and prices are likely to be better when produce can be offered continuously and in substantial quantities. Producers' associations can also engage in pre-packing. And I regret that this Bill suffers a major defect in that it contains no provision for financing research in this matter. There is an actual prohibition of grants in the White Paper. The provision of pre-packing machinery is definitely excluded from grant, for reasons which are quite beyond me to understand. In the last six years, there has been a fantastic development in the pre-packing of vegetables—from nothing in 1954 to 350 million packs last year. But we are still pre-packing only 8 per cent. of all the ware potatoes sold, and about 1 per cent. of all other vegetables. So there is enormous scope for further development.
In my view, pre-packing outweighs all the drawbacks of the present system of distribution. I know something about this matter, because for 22 years, until I severed my connection with the industry, I was governing director of a firm of wholesalers in the London market. I know what the difficulties of the system are, and I say most sincerely that pre-packing avoids the present defects. The housewife is able to buy branded goods, and she gets clean, fresh vegetables in which the only waste, if there is any, is the peel. They go straight from the packing station to the supermarket or self-service store. Even the smaller retailers can now buy from wholesalers, who can sell on sample. The produce does not incur expensive delay or loss of
822
condition in going to market at all. Now with the great development of producers' co-operatives which becomes possible under this Bill I should hope that there might be a big expansion of direct delivery of pre-packed vegetables. I think the Government should pause before embarking upon any major programme to enlarge existing wholesale markets and before going any further in the direction which the noble Earl mentioned. More markets, yes, but not larger ones, especially since the producers' co-operatives will certainly decide to pre-pack imported produce—and some are doing so already in their own off-season—so that they can keep their customers supplied.
So the fact is that there is going to be this increasing reduction—and quite rightly so—in the amount not only of home-grown produce but of imported produce going to the wholesale markets. It will go direct to the various firms of retailers. Wholesalers are aware of this. They know that pre-packing and the rapid development of supermarkets and self-service stores make the contraction of market trading inevitable. Some now are assisting the change. Last week I performed the opening ceremony at a new pre-packing plant of which the chairman is a leading London wholesaler. The end-year target of this firm is 6 million packs, which represents a vastly greater tonnage than this large firm sells in the two main London markets. I think this rapid growth is welcome, but it will add another problem to the many which will have to be solved by the Horticultural Advisory Council.
The noble Earl said—and I agree with him—that the representatives of the Council must not go there representing sectional interests; that they must work as a team in the interests of the whole community. But it is inevitable that if they are representing producers they will think as producers; if they are representing wholesalers they will think as wholesalers; and if they are retailers they will think as retailers. Superficially, this body will be composed of people with the common interest of producing and selling fruit and vegetables, but, in practice, they will be in conflict on many issues. Importers and producers will not agree easily about the level of the market for indigenous produce; wholesalers will naturally discourage policies designed to

823
put them out of business; and growers and retailers will never see eye to eye about their respective prices.
I have had some experience of the difficulty of persuading these people to adopt common policies. Eleven years ago, believing that their prosperity depended on working together, I drafted the broad outlines of a policy and invited the leading lights from the growers, wholesalers and retailers to dinner here. We had a very good dinner party and a good dinner; and I do not know whether it was the dinner, or something else, but the draft policy was approved by all. They all agreed to go to their respective organisations and ask for authority to proceed further, and we arranged a date for another meeting. The second meeting took place, but this time only two of the bodies were represented. So the effort failed. This does not mean that the Council cannot do useful work. In my view, the Minister was wise to approve the request of my honourable friends in another place to extend the period of the Government's financial responsibility to three years.
I see two interrelated dangers facing the Council. The first is that their powers may be insufficient to enable them to achieve enough to convince growers that the benefits to be gained justify the levy they will have to pay. Indeed, the Council has no regulatory powers, as the noble Earl made clear. They have the power to make good resolutions, to give good advice and to levy charges. And we have this afternoon been threatened, as it were, with an Amendment on the Committee stage to make it absolutely certain that this poor body will not be allowed to do anything which approaches trading. I should like the noble Earl to let us know, when he comes to reply, what it is that the Government are afraid of. Do they think that a body composed as this one is to be composed is going to engage in selling fruit and vegetables, or that anyone wants them to? What we are concerned about is that this prohibition on trade may prevent the Advisory Council from doing anything useful at all. Will it, for example, be allowed to provide collection and packing centres on a non-profit-making basis? Could they run a teleprinter market intelligence service? Could they, under that little enlargement that was made to Clause 9
824
in another place, apply to the Minister for the exercise of additional functions? Would it cover, for example, the provision of a common container service?
I wonder whether the noble Earl (if I may use the expression used in another place) is fully seized of the importance of a common container service? Imagine loads of greenstuff coming into the London markets, or fruit, or anything else, all in the containers of the different wholesalers, who each have their own; the commission buyers buy on the London markets and the produce is reconsigned—and some time ago it was admitted at Covent Garden that as much as 40 per cent. of the produce was so re-consigned—and goes up, as I have said, as far as Glasgow. It may be 12 months before the wholesaler gets his empties back. But if we had a common container service, which could be supplied by the Council or even manufactured by the Council, not only would it probably be cheaper, but the empties could always be returned to the nearest market and thence to the growers. It would mean an enormous saving. Just those two things, the common container service and a market intelligence service, might persuade growers that the Council was worth the levy.
If, through lack of powers, the Council fails to prove itself, and especially if there is no major development of producers' co-operatives, we shall be faced with the situation that tens of thousands of small growers, while getting no benefit at all, either by grants or otherwise, will be required to pay a levy. They, and I am sure we, would rightly regard that as paying money for nothing. Yet non-compliance might involve them in fines or even imprisonment; and they are very poor men. This would be an intolerable position, and a heavy responsibility rests upon both the Government and the Council to ensure that it does not arise. No matter how or from whom the levy is actually collected, the growers will in fact pay the whole amount that is raised out of home-grown produce. It does not matter whether the wholesaler or the retailer "chips in" with his share, the whole of it must come out of what the grower eventually receives. Those of us who have had dealings with them over the years know that in any case agreement is going to be difficult; and if the Government fail the industry

825
over tariffs, or the Advisory Council fails to demonstrate its value beyond all doubt to the growers, then agreement will be impossible and the Council and this Act will be a nullity.
In another place this Bill was described on one side of the House, the Government side, as a bad Bill, and as a tinkering little Bill on the other side, the Opposition side. Our criticisms here, though less drastic, are none the less well founded, and our welcome therefore appropriately restrained. For this reason we shall endeavour in Committee to improve the sections we have criticised. Horticulture, roughly one-fifth of agriculture, unsubsidised and virtually unsupported, is one of the last bastions of private enterprise. Nevertheless, it has been neglected by every Government since the war. I say quite frankly that, despite our criticisms, the Minister merits our thanks for at least trying to do something and, despite our doubts, we wish the Bill well.
5.1 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with a great deal that has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I welcome this Bill. As the noble Lord has said, it is two of the three prongs of the Government's policy. We have yet to see the third prong, but we welcome these two, the grants and the marketing council. We must also welcome the assurance the noble Earl gave that the mainstays of the industry are the tariffs, and that this is in no way a substitute. There is no doubt at all that on the question of tariffs there is a great deal of anxiety at the moment in the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the industry is facing fierce competition from abroad. In the old days it used to be said that there were three easy ways of losing money—racing, women and farming. Racing was the quickest, women was the pleasantest and farming was the most certain. But, of course, that does not apply to-day. There is still a certain amount of risk and gambling in horticulture, as I have found over a number of years, to my cost. I have a great admiration for those people—and there are many—who make a good and successful living out of horticulture. But there are a great many who have a diffi-
826
cult struggle to keep their heads above water, and I have great sympathy with I them.
We must all welcome the grants scheme, which I am sure will do much to help producers to present their produce for market in a better way, and to store it so that it can be brought forward more regularly. We must have a little patience for this scheme, because it comes forward—and I should be the last person to suggest it should be postponed—on April 1, at a time when the horticultural officers of the agricultural executive committees are at the busiest season, and the Agricultural Land Service, who are already dealing with the Farm Improvement Scheme, find that there is an increase in work under that scheme. Many of these schemes will be very complicated. They will involve not only the horticultural officers but also, unlike the Farm Improvement Scheme, machinery, which means that more expert advice will be required and more people needed to inspect it. All of that can be overcome, but I think it is a point people must remember, and they must not be too impatient and expect results too quickly, because I am sure that all the services will naturally do their best.
There is one fear which I am not the best person to express, and that is the fear of the small producer that in some cases he will not be able to find the two-thirds of the money necessary. Many of these men have been going through a very lean time, and when it comes to borrowing money horticulture is a fairly risky business. We must see what happens. Certainly under the Farm Improvement Scheme I think, on the whole, it has worked fairly satisfactorily. But there is one particular case, and that is where you have a small producer and there is the question of putting up, say, a glasshouse to enable him to produce his own plants and to extend his growing season. I wonder whether that is a case which might be looked at.
I welcome the fact that the co-operatives are to be eligible for the grants. I do not think that co-operation is the answer to every problem, by any means. In the past, many of the co-operatives have run into a considerable amount of difficulty, particularly where they have tried in, say, a scattered area to give too

827
large a service to their growers, and have tried to collect too small quantities of produce over too large a distance. There has also been the tendency, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned, that when markets are good the stuff goes straight to the market, and when times are difficult the stuff is handed to the cooperative and they are asked to sell it on a very difficult market.
I welcome the Departmental Committee which is being set up to look into the relationships between the grower and the co-operative, because it seems to me that much will depend on the successful outcome of this problem. After all, we have these big new markets, like the supermarkets, and all this direct selling, and also the big departmental stores. Unless the co-operatives can rely on the produce coming in, it is almost impossible for them to make contracts ahead with the customers. If at any time many of their growers fall down on their contracts, then it may mean that the co-operative loses very valuable markets indeed. I feel sure that there is a great future in the co-operatives, particularly for the small grower and especially in small areas where there are many growers.
I also welcome the Horticultural Marketing Council, because although I think, as the Runciman Committee said in their wise Report, that probably the system of marketing is reasonably efficient and that none of the people who perform services in fact charge too much for their services, in the end, under that scheme of distribution, it is the producer who bears all the risks; all the other people in that chain are buying with knowledge of the market, knowing where they can sell. Anything that the Horticultural Marketing Council can do to improve the marketing, to reduce the transport and to standardise packs so that produce can be sent to its destination without going through the markets, anything they can do to decrease the cost of marketing, will be of enormous value to the producer.
I feel that the three years that the Council has before it are very important ones. I am not so worried about the various numbers representing each of the various sides of the industry, because the fact of the matter is that if they serve a useful purpose—and unless they all work together as one body they
828
will not serve a useful purpose; they must get together; they cannot divide into separate watertight compartments—and produce something that is really worth while for the industry, then I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting the producers and the other bodies to pay for the Council in future. It all depends on their getting down to it and doing some useful work in the next three years. I think this is an important and useful Bill which should be a great help to the industry, but I hope that it is only the beginning of a new deal for horticulture.
5.13 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the diffidence with which I rise to address your Lordships is extremely genuine, because on the subjects of which I know little there are always so many of your Lordships who know a great deal more and have a great deal more skill and practice in exposition. I will start by declaring an interest. I have a small fruit farm, a mixed farm, in the Cotswolds overlooking the Evesham Vale. I have little experience of many of the diverse sides of horticulture which have already been explained to you this afternoon, and I can speak with no knowledge whatever of flowers, and with very little of vegetables. Most of my remarks will be on the subject of apples, and in that connection I should like to call the attention of any of your Lordships who are sufficiently interested in the details to the excellent publication in the British Farmer by the N.F.U. last October. It is full of interesting facts and a great many figures which are all very relevant to the present discussion. I will not, however, attempt to burden you with them to-day.
I certainly welcome the £8 million which is being given to the horticultural industry, and I hope to get a very small slice of it myself. We horticulturists feel that for a long time we have been the "poor relations" of agriculture. The difficulties which confronted any Government in producing a scheme of help for us have been enormous. The Minister has already detailed the complexities of the growing, the marketing and everything else in that connection. In this country we grow much the best fruit in the world, but we eat far less than other countries do. Only 83 per cent. of the population of this country

829
eat apples at all, and in the aggregate we eat only about one-third of what most of the Continental countries eat. Not only that, but in the case of apples we eat none of the by-products. In Germany, Switzerland and other countries apple juice is drunk on a large scale, but so far attempts to make and market it satisfactorily in this country have been a relative failure.
I am not altogether sure that this grant of £7½ million to the growers is the best means of tackling this problem. The housewife needs a great deal more education. We growers cannot educate her because we do not meet her. The greengrocers in this country who market our produce are in many cases very badly informed about what they sell. I have often been into a greengrocer's shop and been given completely wrong information as to what they were trying to sell: and one cannot altogether blame them. They sell what is easiest, which in many cases is foreign produce because it is just that much better presented. The reason the foreign produce is so much better presented is largely that it all goes through a central channel where there is one pack and one grade, and only the best comes to this country. One can often see excellent examples of the less well-known variety of apple in the shops selling for far less than very inferior Italian stuff which is only specious and has a skin like leather.
The question of tariffs has already been touched on and it is most welcome to all horticulturists to hear that we are not to regard the present Bill as an alternative to tariffs. Much more, I feel, could be done by advertising. There is the old slogan, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", which to my mind is just as good a slogan as that a certain drink "is good for you". On the question of advertising there is a conspicuous case. Within the last two or three years, a comparatively small and not well-known firm of producers of a fruit drink increased their profits last year from a few hundred thousand pounds to over £2 million. That was all done by advertising. But it has got to be done on a big scale. Recently the N.F.U. appealed for £30,000 to advertise certain varieties of apple. Many of us failed to support that appeal because we considered £30,000 quite inadequate, as I think it is.
830
I feel convinced that the marketing should all be done centrally and should not be left to the individual. I will come presently to what I have discovered happens in France. I do not feel altogether happy with the present move to encourage the growers to buy more expensive plant, such as cold stores and more graders, because so many holdings may well be over-capitalised. There are many things which have attracted me, many of which I have rejected because I could see that the expensive equipment would be idle for so much of the year. In that connection there is the question of cold storage. Cold stores are very expensive. If the cold storage could be concentrated there would be a good prospect of the space being leased to butchers and the like for a large proportion of the year when it was not wanted for horticultural products.
Another point which I think is important, too, is the question of processing. It is conspicuous that the blackcurrant trade in this country is an easy one. That is entirely due to five weeks of total crop being taken by one firm for processing, so that there is never any surplus to knock the market to pieces. On this question of processing, I went on the principle that no problem confronts one for the first time which has not confronted other people, and I made it my business to find out what happens in France. I have not had the opportunity of having a trip over there, nor do I think it would serve any useful purpose at this time of the year. But the French Embassy have been extremely useful and, with your Lordships' leave, I will give your Lordships the result of some notes which I have obtained from them. They have an enormous over-production of wine which is not of sufficient quality to market; and they also have an enormous production of cider apples. Their dessert and cooking apples are no problem because they are slightly under-produced. In the Departments of the North-West and West it is estimated that the production of cider apples is about 12 million quintals—I have ascertained that a quintal is approximately 1 cwt. Of that 12 million, about 5 million are consumed locally, much of it by the growers themselves. Little cider is drunk in the rest of France. The only export from France of cider or cider fruit is

831
to this country, and that amounts to an average of about 25,000 hectolitres.
The size of the plantations in France is probably rather smaller than ours, and many of them are very small. The Government scheme allows every grower to keep an amount, based on the number of his trees, for his own consumption and for peddling locally. Everything in excess of the Government figure has to go to licensed wholesalers. A small fee is payable by the grower, but it is by no means onerous. The price of the apples, and of any cider they make which is sent to the licensed wholesalers, is fixed by the Government, and it is a worthwhile price—in fact, it has tended to increase production. Many of the licensed wholesalers are cider makers and also distillers. They distil a certain amount of Calvados, which we might possibly do in this country, and the rest of the surplus cider is distilled into industrial alcohol which is taken by the Government. This represents only a small proportion of the total industrial alcohol, which in France is a Government monopoly. Admittedly, the price which it costs the Government in France is not very cheap—it is about 70 francs per litre, which is perhaps twice the cost at which industrial alcohol can Abe distilled in this country.
It occurs to me that that is a most convenient way in which the Government can subsidise the horticulturists. If there is anything in this theory, then the present Horticulture Board is not going to go anything like far enough. I am in considerable sympathy with much that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, and I would make the following suggestions: that there should be an Apple Marketing Board; that all apples, except those sold locally, should, as in France, go to the Marketing Board; that the Board, as in the case of the Egg and the Milk Marketing Boards, should operate through existing firms and that all produce should be sold through the Board. Packing and grading, and, still more, pre-packaging, I should like to see done by the Board. Those I regard as factory jobs, which can be done much better, much more uniformly and more cheaply when done on a large scale, by somebody with a cold store, as I have already explained. Such an Apple Marketing Board would sell
832
virtually all the apples for the country, and that would enable a recent development in marketing in this country to be much more equally distributed. Multiple stores and big stores have recently been buying direct from the grower and, rather naturally, they go to the tycoons, while the small man, and even the medium man, does not get any advantage at all. If those stores had to go to the Apple Marketing Board that Board could sell to the stores the produce of the little man, the medium man and the big man. That would be much more equitable for all concerned.
I have already detained your Lordships too long, but there are just one or two other points that I should like to raise. If your Lordships will cast your minds back to last Christmas you may remember receiving some very special advertisements for Alsace plums, Carlsbad plums and glace fruit—and no doubt the luckier of us received a present of some. There is very little doubt that some of those things could be produced in this country, though probably the turnover is not sufficient to make a fuss about. When we come to the homely prune, however, we find that some attempt has been made to investigate prunes in this country, so far unsuccessfully.
On this subject also the French Embassy have been very helpful to me. I gather that the production of prunes is rather a local thing, carried out, for the most part, in the Gironde. It is largely a cottage industry, and for many years it was the practice to dry the plums in the sun. More recently, drying has been done in ovens or kilns, and there is now a considerable know-how about it. But to my mind there is no reason why we should not do something of the same here. The French have by no means a monopoly in prunes. The United States are the biggest producers, and prunes are also produced in Alsace and in Yugoslavia. Every country in South America produces prunes. As for the difficulty of producing them I can only tell your Lordships that a lady who, unfortunately, has since died habitually used to produce her own prunes by drying them in her linen cupboard.
On the question of marketing, I suggest that it is barely worth while having a central market. The opinion of the

833
noble Lord, Lord Stonham, from his deep experience, is obviously extremely valuable on this point. I should have thought that the London market could be supplied perfectly well from such places as Brentford and half a dozen similar markets round the outskirts of London. That should suffice. Though I have no experience, I believe I am right in saying that one of the chief functions of the central market at Covent Garden is to distribute imported foreign produce; and I see no reason whatever why foreign agents, who presumably would be at the ports, should not arrange their own distribution throughout the country. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long over so little.
5.35 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I am glad to have the task of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, who is a very old friend, on his maiden speech, which has been so well informed and quite outstanding in its scope and the amount of research undertaken for it. I am sure your Lordships' welcome will be all the warmer Owing to the fact that the noble Earl is taking an active part in this House where his brother was for so long such a respected figure; and I am certain you will agree with me in hoping that we shall often hear from the noble Earl again.
When my noble friend introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, he began by enumerating some of the places and districts where horticulture was carried on. I should like to increase the geographical scope of that list by reminding your Lordships that bulb growing is also carried on in the Island of Tiree, in the Hebrides, which is a very long way away. I welcome this Bill. It has been covered in a general way so thoroughly by noble Lords who have already spoken that I will confine myself to various points arising out of the Bill itself.
Dealing with Part I, like other noble Lords I should have preferred, if it were possible, to make a grant of 50 per cent. to small growers. I am not entirely certain that the reason given in another place—that it makes for such administrative complications as to be impracticable—is really absolutely sound; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take note of what was said by my
834
noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney that this point might well be reconsidered later, after more experience had been gained. I appreciate that the position in relation to both the small grower and the large grower (though probably the smaller man will be most affected) has been eased by an important Amendment which was introduced on the Report stage, the Minister's estimate being taken as the figure upon which a grant would depend, so that if, by economic working and careful planning, a man reduced his final cost below the estimated cost—and indeed below the £100 figure—he would still be eligible for one-third of what he had actually spent. I believe I am right there.
There was also the question raised by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney of standard costs, These are, of course, of the greatest help to the small grower, but there is another aspect beyond that mentioned by my noble friend, in that in agriculture, where they have been extremely valuable, they are based, as a rule, on simple, easily-costed buildings. In horticulture many applications for grant on standard costs may be based on much more complicated erections, including, as my noble friend has said, the installation of modern heating, soil-heating and other such things. I hope that the standard cost arrangement will be sufficiently flexible to cover what may be a great variety of detailed installations.
May I come to Clause 4? This could be a very important clause, for many of the practices which were so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Fortescue depend very largely on having a skilled man to manage and organise them. This grant may train managers really to know their job. I think that a great many difficulties have had to be faced in the past by horticulturists who, however professional they are at the actual growing, are almost amateurs in the field of grading and marketing. These difficulties have meant that they have not been as successful as they should be, and they could surely be successful if the business were in the charge of a trained manager.
So far as the administering of the grants and the working out of those eligible for grants are concerned, I was very glad to see in the Scotsman newspaper this morning an article about the

835
importance of the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association, and what an important part they will have to play. There is no doubt that unless this Association is a real, going concern it will not be able to get into Scotland the right proportion of the grants which would be Scotland's due.
To turn to Part II of the Bill, the usefulness of the Marketing Council, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with whom I entirely agree, will depend absolutely on whether its members take a really objective view of their task and work as a combined body for the good of the industry as a whole. The industry has always had difficulties with the very diverse component parts of it working at intervals by no means in unison; and this Council, if it has to work, as I hope it will, should have a very important impact on this. The functions of the Council, given in Clause 10, cover a very wide field indeed. There are two points on those functions about which I am not quite clear. I am wondering, although it is not actually part of the Bill, how this Council will send out its information and suggestions to the various sections of the industry. Will they be sent out as large exhortations on paper, which probably will not be read, or will there be any possibility of a breakdown of the personnel of the Council to facilitate the convening of conferences at which their suggestions can be considered and discussed? That might be a useful way of working if it were at all practicable; I am not sure.
The other point I was wondering about was whether the Council, which is largely an advisory Council, will be able to advise on the setting up of marketing co-operatives. It seems that that comes within the scope of its numerous functions, and I wonder whether that would be any particular part of its proposed work. My Lords, with those few words covering the points about which I am not certain—and especially the point, if I may reinforce it again, concerning Clause 4, to make quite sure that in Scotland we receive the full benefits of any help that is contemplated under the Bill—I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.45 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, may I at the outset associate myself with
836
the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, in extending to the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, the congratulations that his speech this afternoon merits. We were gratified indeed to see him, in the observations that he has made in this House this afternoon, drawing on the broad experience that he personally has in the practical field. I should like also to thank the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for his comprehensive introduction of this Bill. He has given the industry certain very much-needed reassurances, for which I am sure they, the growers, will be appreciative.
Broadly, I should say that the horticultural growers in the United Kingdom support the Bill in its broad concept. The provisions in Part I for payment of grants
"towards the cost of improvements for the purposes of horticultural production businesses and horticultural producers' marketing businesses in the United Kingdom,"
and towards the cost of promotional work in connection with producers' marketing businesses, are certainly most welcome. The contribution of one-third grant, however, presupposes a financial resilience in the horticultural industry, which is required to put up two-thirds of the requisite amount of the cost of any project in order to qualify for the one-third grant that is provided for in the Bill. This could well cause the industry to have to find something like £15 million or £16 million over the period from its own resources, either private resources or through such credit as may be available to it.
My Lords, the declining net income of the horticultural industry through increasing costs, such as labour and fuel costs, which they have had to sustain over the years, coupled with declining market returns, ill-equip it to find its two-thirds share of the whole in order to qualify for these grants. Growers in the industry are naturally anxious to meet the challenge to improve the productivity of the industry—and your Lordships will note that I said "productivity", and not necessarily production—presentation and marketing of their produce. It is imperative, however, in my view, that there should be a fair return from a stable horticultural industry to make this at all possible.
The objective of a stable and efficient horticultural industry is, of course,

837
inherent in the Agriculture Act, 1947—at least, the obligation to provide it is inherent in the Agriculture Act, 1947; and successive Governments (and the noble Earl again in speaking for the Government this afternoon has repeated it) have given the assurance to the horticultural industry that the chosen instrument to give effect to this undertaking of security and stability is support for it through the means of tariff protection. Tariffs on the major range of horticultural produce have remained unchanged since December, 1953. There have been minor variations, perhaps, but broadly they have remained unchanged. Since then, however, the combined effects of a rapid increase in labour and fuel costs, which I have referred to before, and other costs, and a fall in the value of money, have far outpaced the industry's steadily and progressively increasing efficiency.
My Lords, it is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government so to revise upwards the level of duties as to take account of these relative factors, and to create the requisite economic stability on which alone we can go forward in progressive policy. Whilst I warmly welcome the reassurance which the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has given us in your Lordships' House this afternoon, I am bound to say that merely to testify that the tariff is your chosen instrument is not enough unless you act upon it and in fact upwardly revise the tariff to keep pace with these changes in the costs to the agricultural producer.
Whilst welcoming the grants provisions, therefore, I cannot emphasise too strongly that they cannot in any way be regarded as a substitute for effective import regulations by the best means so far available, particularly for perishable commodities like horticultural commodities—namely, an adequate level of specific tariff. Now if we were fortunate in being able to have available to us the provisions that were announced recently in France, whereby no importation of horticultural products was permitted into France at less than the support prices prevailing, of course life would be much easier for the United Kingdom horticulturists. But against the background of a free market, and the progressive reduction of quotas, an adequate level of specific tariff is the only effective means of giving support to the
838
industry and of implementing the assurance implicit in Part I of the Agriculture Act.
The grants provisions, by and large, do for horticulture what the Farm Improvement Scheme does for agriculture. But, of course, the proposals implicit in the White Paper cover a much wider field, and I believe rightly so, because horticulture has a particularly and peculiarly difficult marketing problem. Competition from imports, for instance, becomes fiercer every day. I was interested to hear represented in your Lordships' House by more than one of the speakers that we have to market the produce that is grown here, whatever its quality, in one form or another, whereas the imported product, coming through the bottleneck of the port, is obviously more easy of control, and, of course, a country is not likely to export a quality of product that cannot command a better price. So, from the point of view of the use of grants to improve marketing, we obviously welcome every facility that can be afforded.
So far as the small producers are concerned, I recognise that there has been the necessity to draw the line somewhere. The noble Earl talked about the popularity or otherwise of the referee. I am tempted to remind him of an occasion when, out of the depths of a Rugby scrum, after the referee had told the players that there was too much talking and that there were too many referees, the voice of anonymity said, "Yes, and you are not the pick of them". It is therefore a question of whether, in drawing the line, we necessarily pick the right line—or, indeed, preclude cases deserving of assistance. Arbitrary standards are always vulnerable, of course, to the difficulty of complaint about hardship, and so forth. I believe it is right that Government money should be used for projects designed to help horticultural businesses capable of producing a sufficient livelihood for the occupier; but in horticulture, I would say even more than in agriculture, acreage size can be a misleading criterion of viability. After all, an intensively run holding of an acre and a half can sometimes produce more than a holding of three times that size if it is on a particular type of production. Growers are, therefore, I think, very anxious that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture

839
should at least have discretion, even though the holding may fall below the minimum qualifying size limit in the scheme, to make grants available where he and his advisers are satisfied that the business is, first, a full-time holding, capable of yielding a reasonable livelihood, and, second, can become economically viable, or is already so.
So far as the Horticultural Marketing Council is concerned, I have noted with interest many of the comments that noble Lords have made in this debate. I am of the opinion—as, indeed, are many growers—that the collective efforts of the various sections of the Horticultural Marketing Council, if properly directed, should be able to produce something positive and objective in the way of proposals to improve the marketing of horticultural produce. I am very gratified that Her Majesty's Ministers agreed to incorporate in the Bill the extension of the period of time under which the Government should fund the operation of this Council from two years to three years. However, I want to issue one word of warning.
In the experience that will be accumulated in the three years between now and then, always provided that every effort is made to make it a positive contribution to the improvement of the horticultural industry in its broadest sense, I want to feel sure that the ultimate concept of funding the Council's future work will be based on a decision of all the members of the Council and not on a decision of the majority, especially when the sections are divided, as they are, as to seven wholesalers and importers, seven retailers and seven producers, with four members nominated by the Minister. We could have a situation in which the minority could easily be exploited if, instead of all the members of the Council, the majority agreed on the form of the funding of its future work. I feel, my Lords, that, broadly, this Bill is a welcome sign of the active interest of Her Majesty's Government in the future of what I believe is already, and can be still more so, a progressive and efficient horticultural industry. It is in that spirit that I welcome the Bill to-day.
5.59 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, first of all it is my pleasure from this side of the
840
House to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, heartily on his maiden speech. It was most interesting, and he spoke from a wealth of experience. I was particularly struck by his reference to advertising, and in this connection I might say that he has already delivered part of what I wanted to say. I am convinced that advertising should play an important part, and a more important part still, in horticulture. It seems to me that foreign produce is acceptable in this country mainly because of the great advertising power behind it. That applies not only to horticultural produce but to other imports as well. I hope that the noble Earl will speak many times on farming and horticulture. We shall always welcome him for what he has to say, as we welcome him in remembrance of his fine and amiable brother, whom we all respected.
It seems to me that there is a welcome for this Bill, though perhaps with modifications, in your Lordships' House. I think we must all welcome something which will make for confidence in the industry and for a fair reward for those who work in it. Reorganisation and improvement in horticulture is long overdue, and for that reason I think that we must give readily a Second Reading to this Bill. It is acceptable to us as a palliative, but we must remember that the difficulties of the industry are too deep-rooted for effective solution by the operation of this Bill alone. Indeed, that has been admitted by the Minister in another place, who did not claim otherwise. In some respects, this Bill is unique. I do not think that within the memory of any of us has there been a Bill which has been so much amended in Standing Committee and on Report in another place. We on this side of the House are pleased with the Amendments, many of which originated with us. We shall have certain Amendments to put before your Lordships on the Committee stage of the Bill and I hope that the noble Earl will be as kind to us as his honourable friend was to the Opposition in another place.
The Bill did not receive unqualified support from members of the Party opposite, and I noticed particularly that certain disagreements were voiced by Members of another place who live their lives in the same part of the country as I do. In the Fen Country, there are many

841
smallholders engaged in horticulture, and there is certainly a feeling among them that this is a large horticulturists' Bill and that the small men will not be advanced very materially.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a long speech—there are three other Bills to be dealt with after this one—but there are one or two points which I wish to make which fall within the compass of this Bill. First, I want to speak about grants, a subject which has been dealt with by most of the speakers this afternoon. I wish to refer to the position of the part-timer. If the White Paper definition of qualifications is followed, it seems to me that sometimes a smallholder who has a part-time holding cannot come within the scope of this Bill. He may possibly have sufficient land, but not all horticultural land, and may wish to improve his holding by erecting greenhouses, or, if he has poor land, by drainage; but if he is a part-timer, it seems to me that he cannot participate in the benefits of this Bill, whereas, if he could obtain a grant, he could carry out an improvement and then conic within the scope of the Bill. It might be argued that he could join a co-operative society, but he may not be near enough to any co-operative organisation which may be set tip to get such benefit from it.
The question of the one-third grant and two-thirds payment has also been mentioned. Like many other noble Lords, I think that some further consideration should be given to the small man in regard to this matter. Two-thirds is an appreciable amount of money for a smallholder to find, even for a larger horticulturist to find. I wonder whether the Government have had any negotiations whatever with the banks or other financial institutions about providing loans—because in many cases the money will have to be found by loan—to cover the two-thirds which must be found by the person carrying out the improvement.
I would refer the noble Earl to Clause 2 (2) of the Bill, dealing with grant payable on work carried out on other land. According to that subsection, it is possible for the Minister to hold up for at least five years the payment of instalments for work carried out by a co-operative society. I am advised that this may prove to be a
842
hardship to many existing societies who have been registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act and that it might be considered to be unfair. I gather that the view of the Government is that if improvements are made or buildings are erected on land which is not at present used for horticulture, in the course of time the society might go out of business and the buildings which had been grant-aided might then be put to other use. If the grant is held up for five years, as is envisaged in the Bill, then the society itself will already have paid for the building and will be out of its reimbursement for a period of five years. This seems to me to be somewhat unfair, particularly in regard to an established society, and I hope that some amendment may be made to it.
Further in regard to the question of the co-operative societies, I realise that the matter of the £100,000 which is set aside for advance is a financial matter and possibly cannot be amended in your Lordships' House, but I would say that, in my view, this is insufficient for the purpose for which it is to be set aside. If I break down that figure a little, I think your Lordships will agree that it does not appear to be adequate. One hundred thousand pounds is one-eightieth part of the £8 million set aside for the grants; that is, only a fraction over 1 per cent. For that reason, I think it is a meagre allowance. Moreover, that £100,000 may be extended over six years, and six into £100,000 is a matter of £16,000 a year, which seems to me to be a very small amount if you wish to encourage, as according to the Bill you do, the promotion of a large number of horticultural co-operative societies.
Another matter I should like to refer to is the question of equipment, dealt with in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill. I should like an assurance from the Minister that certain equipment which is used in the packing houses will be included in the Bill for grant aid. If your Lordships refer to page 11 of the White Paper you will find that specified types of conveyors—which, I take it, are far transporting the products from one point to another—come within Part III of the improvements. I am advised that in certain operations fork-lift trucks and pallets are used, but according to what was said in another place these are not included in the Bill. Certain horticultural co-operative societies are using this

843
particular type of equipment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider what was said in another place and bring them within the scope of the Bill.
The question of sage and the drying of herbs was also raised in another place, and I am asked to stress that some reconsideration should be given in your Lordships' House to this operation. Clause 8 (5) makes reference to the preparation for market, and it does not include certain processes. The process I wish to refer to is the heat process. I am advised that certain functions in the preparation of sage (which is a well-known product) for market have reference to the use of heat. This is a well recognised operation, and it is hoped that the Minister will be able to reconsider what was said in another place.
I now come to a point which I think is most material and which has been referred to several times already. It is said that there are two prongs to this Bill and that a third one is likely to be produced; and the two are the grant aid and the setting up of the Horticultural Marketing Council. Irrespective of the change in operation which may come about in regard to Covent Garden, the third prong in which I wish to put my faith is the question of import control. I am sure that the full benefit of this Bill will not be felt by horticulturists unless the Government take immediate steps to control, by one means or another, the import of products from overseas which can be grown in equal quality in this country.
I have made reference to the Fen Country. Last year we had great difficulty in regard to strawberry pulp; and we had difficulty there and elsewhere in regard to tomatoes. That may happen again unless the action envisaged by my noble friend Lord Netherthorpe and others is brought into operation within a reasonable time. During only the, last few days, I have received a visit from a small strawberry grower in the Fen Country who last year could not market two acres of strawberries; there was no market for them. He was under not an obligation, but perhaps a gentleman's agreement, to sell them to a certain firm of horticultural product merchants. At the commencement of the season he bought his fertilisers from that particular firm. But they
844
could not take his strawberries, and nobody else would take them. They went into the open market, and at the end of time he was not in pocket, but on every chip of strawberries he sold he lost 1½d. That is not much per chip, but on two acres it is most material. That particular smallholder is now faced with a county court judgment for the fertilisers with which the firm supplied him, he is faced with the payment of £10 an acre rent for his land, and he is faced with bankruptcy at the end of it. That sort of thing should not happen in any properly regulated industry, and for that reason I hope the Government will not only implement this Bill but will also bring into operation other matters. Might I say to the noble Earl that it is our intention on this side of the House to put down certain Amendments to various clauses in the Bill. As I said at the commencement, I hope that the Minister will treat us as kindly as the Opposition was treated in another place.
6.21 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am glad that your Lordships have given this Bill a welcome from all sides of the House. It may interest your Lordships if I make a small announcement before I try to answer some of the points raised. My right honourable friend has stated in another place this afternoon that it is his intention, when the necessary powers have been conferred, to invite Mr. David Bowerman to become the Chairman of the Horticultural Marketing Council. Although Mr. Bowerman has been engaged in 'the horticultural industry, he has informed my right honourable friend that he is prepared to take the necessary steps to make himself eligible for the appointment by making himself independent of the industry. I believe that this appointment will be widely welcomed by the industry, and I thought your Lordships would like to hear this direct.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in a speech full of information raised several interesting points. He welcomed the Bill, and I greatly appreciate his generosity in what he said about our endeavours to assist co-operation. He asked whether Clause 4 and the finance provision under Clause 5 could be used—I think his words were—"to preach the gospel of co-operation". I think that that is precisely what Clause 4 is for. I am sure

845
that one of the most important things in this Bill—and the noble Lord paid tribute to it—is the real effort to get co-operation working. Several noble Lords have raised this question of Clause 4, and I will come back to it again.
Perhaps the point that most requires an answer from me is about prepackaging. I thought the noble Lord might raise that matter, knowing his interest in it, and also he was good enough to tell me that he was going to speak on this subject, and so I made a note. Of course the Government are interested in the development of prepackaging, and the Horticultural Marketing Council will be interested in it as a means of improving marketing generally. But we think that it would be premature if we gave grants in this scheme, which has only a short period to run, for pre-packaging by growers. It is not certain whether pre-packaging should be done by the growers, by the retailers or by the wholesalers, or where it should be done and who should do it. We think that it would not fit into the general scheme of the grants that we are giving—they are limited to £8 million—if we put what might come to be a considerable sum aside, with no top limit, for pre-packaging machinery for growers or growers' organisations. Therefore I am not able to be as helpful as the noble Lord would have liked on that matter.
The noble Lord asked me about another point. He asked whether the powers of the Horticultural Marketing Council would be sufficient for them to run a market intelligence service by teleprinter. If we look at Clause 10 (1) (a) of the Bill, I think there is no doubt that the Horticultural Marketing Council, if so minded, could run such a system. That reads:
"obtaining and disseminating, or assisting the obtaining and disseminating of, information about supply, demand and prices."
My own feeling is that such a service would be within those terms.
The noble Lord asked me another question, about which I cannot give him such a favourable reply. He asked me whether the Marketing Council could run a container service. I am bound to say that I do not think they could, under the bill as it stands at the moment. The Marketing Council is not a trading body; it is not even a regulatory body. Actually to run a container service, and
846
to manufacture the containers, would not, I think, be within its powers. I spoke of an Amendment which will be brought in at a later stage about a limitation of the powers of the Council, but I do not think it was intended, or can be brought into this Bill, that the Horticultural Marketing Council could actually set up, run, manufacture and distribute a container service. I am bound to say that now. Of course, if the noble Lord wants to put down an Amendment at a later stage, we could go into the matter in detail.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt at this point? May I draw his attention to subsection (1) of Clause 9 which says:
"…. and, with the consent of the Ministers, of any other functions which the Council may determine expedient to be exercised for that purpose."
I was wondering whether such a thing as a common container service can be regarded as trading and, therefore, not a proper activity for the Council. What kind of function would come under those words which does not in fact already come under all other words in the clause?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I can see no reason to move from the position I took up, which is that I do not believe that this container service could be allowed, because I believe it would be trading. As I say, I think that if the full implication of the last lines of the first subsection of Clause 9, lines 25, 26 and 27, is not clear, or is thought to be redundant by noble Lords opposite, then perhaps we could discuss this on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Before I leave the points made by the noble Lord—and they are very good points—I should say that the Horticultural Marketing Council would be perfectly in order in instituting research into pre-packaging. Clause 10 (1) (e) would cover that. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, told us, in a witty story, how speculative the industry was, and of course we must agree. This industry is bound to be to a certain extent speculative, and nothing that any Government can do, unless it carries on the whole trade itself at the taxpayer's expense, will ever completely take out the element of speculation that there is

847
bound to be in an industry with perishable products of this sort. But I put to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, this point. If you are going to speculate, if you have to speculate, the best thing to do is to get a very good book of form, and the Horticultural Marketing Council, with its teleprinter, perhaps, and its intelligence service, should help the speculator. That is what it is intended to do. And also we reduce the area over which speculation takes place by giving the production grants not only to the growers but to the growers' marketing organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, raised the point about the small man: would be have the two-thirds of the money? That point was raised by other noble Lords. Can the small man find the two-thirds? He can, I hope, raise this money elsewhere. There will be cases in which even an offer of one-third grant will not enable the improvement to be brought about because the producer will not perhaps have the facilities to raise the other one-third. We must face that. But this grant will narrow the field in which improvements will not be able to be done by producers, because now we are going to pay one-third in any case, and there are credit facilities available. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, welcomed steps towards increasing co-operation and the setting up of the Horticultural Marketing Council.
I now turn to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, and I am very desirous of adding my words of praise on a delightful and well-informed maiden speech. We were all extremely glad to see the name, "E. Fortescue" on the Paper again. His brother was very beloved of this House, and we hope that we shall hear his present Lordship speaking often. His brother in latter years, in the position which he held in this House, was not often able to speak, but we hope we shall frequently see the name "E. Fortescue" and be treated to a speech such as we heard this afternoon.
The noble Earl raised several important points. He pointed out how small the consumption of fruit was in this country compared with some other countries. That is why advertising, which is supposed to stimulate sales, is
848
so much part and parcel of this whole Bill. Clause 15, in particular, can be used if an organisation is set up by home producers to advertise their own produce, and they will be able to indent on the Horticultural Marketing Council for the funds wherewith to do that. The noble Earl gave an interesting review of conditions in France, and though I cannot follow him through all those details, or indeed into his opinions, which were really perhaps hardly appropriate to this Bill, on the desirability of a Marketing Board for apples, they were very interesting points and they will certainly be studied with the care that they deserve. It has often been said that your Lordships are experts on a variety of abstruse problems, and I am sure it will not pass notice that we now have an expert on prunes, which is a very important and health-giving item of food.
The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, in a very valuable contribution, confined most of his remarks again to Clause 4, and wanted to be quite certain that full benefits could be obtained in his country, Scotland. My Lords, of course they can. The point of this clause is to assist the organisation of co-operation, to promote co-operative horticultural marketing. It is thought that most of these grants will be paid to four bodies, of which I am glad to say there is one in Scotland. There is the A.C.C.A., the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association Ltd.; there is in Scotland the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, the S.A.O.S.; there is a similar organisation called The Welsh Agricultural Organisation Association in Wales, and there is in Ulster one called the Ulster Agricultural Organisation Association. So there can be no doubt that Scotland, through an organisation that already exists, will get its share, and no doubt the Scots will see that their organisation gets its full share in competition with the other three organisations that exist. I think that answers that point fairly completely.
The noble Lord also asked about standard costs and said how complicated they would have to be in this connection; and indeed they will be complicated. We shall give them every consideration, and of course the details will be included in the scheme that will be laid before your Lordships, and that

849
will be the time to discuss them. He also asked, was it not a pity that we were giving only a one-third grant, and ought we not to be giving a 50 per cent. grant? Some other noble Lords mentioned that point, too. Determination of the amount of grants one gives in a scheme of this sort must be largely a matter of judgment, and it is impossible to produce factual arguments in support of any precise figure. Not only do we think that the rate of one-third for horticultural improvements will represent a very valuable contribution, but our experience is that these stimulated just the work we wanted in the Farm Improvement Scheme, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not be equally valuable in stimulating work in this scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, also raised another point, about which I was not quite clear as he raised it—and he said that he was not quite clear on what the Bill said on this. So we are to a certain extent equal. I gathered it was whether the Council would be able to advise on, or initiate, schemes envisaged under Clause 4. I rather think we are considering different powers here. The Council is given certain functions under Clause 10 to improve marketing and distribution of horticultural produce generally. But Clause 4 is the specific clause for giving grants to central bodies to preach the gospel of co-operation and to promote co-operative marketing. I think perhaps there is a confusion of thought here. How the Council will send out the information that it collects and collates will be for it to decide. The noble Lord asked whether it would be sent out in papers, or what method would be adopted. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested the teleprinter. That, I think, is a detail which the Council will be fully able to deal with when it is in being.
I turn now to the weighty and most helpful speech that we had from the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe. I am glad to hear from his lips that the growers support this Bill in its broad concept. I am not wholly surprised that the £16 million out of the industry itself should be approached a little cautiously by the noble Lord. It was not perhaps for him to say that it will be quite easy for the industry to produce this £16 mil-
850
lion; but he did not overstress his caution and did not show much pessimism. I hope, indeed, that we shall find that, as we are prepared to put up the whole of our £8 million, the industry will find itself readily able to put up the £16 million. Time will show. I cannot, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe did not wish me to, follow him into the question of the level of the tariff. As I said before, this Bill, this scheme, these horticultural improvement grants and the Council are not alternatives to the tariff support but a supplement to it. I cannot say, and it would be quite wrong for me to suggest, what the level of the tariff should be. The noble Lord will know as well as I that there are certain applications for tariff increases before Her Majesty's Government at the moment. He knows the machinery. The machinery is in motion, and I cannot at all anticipate what will be the outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, raised an interesting point in regard to an intensive and quite small holding—namely, would it not be most unfair that it should not be able to qualify? I think he suggested that something like one and a half acres under very intensive cultivation would make a good livelihood for a man. I hope it will. If the holding really was only one and a half acres of open land it would not qualify under our proposed scheme. But such a smallholding that was giving a full living to a man would almost certainly have a proportion of glass. Now the equivalents, which are contained in paragraph 10 of the White Paper, are that one-twentieth of an acre of glass, or mushrooms, or rhubarb pits or whatever they are called, are all equivalent to one acre. This smallholder might well nearly always be able to come in because of these equivalents, if he is a viable unit. If the 1½ acre man did not have such intensive production he would be unlikely to be viable. Then, of course, there is always the question of his joining or helping to form a co-operative.
The noble Lord raised almost a more important question than that when he spoke of the question of a majority on the Council. I said in my opening remarks that this Council was to be a body where people put their heads

851
together, and not a body where heads were counted. We really must not envisage this Council, drawn from all sections of the industry, having difficulties of voting and getting things through with a majority of one. This must be an advisory body where heads are put together. That is of fundamental importance. Certainly, when the Ministers receive a scheme from the Council they will wish to inquire whether it has been generally approved by the Council; but I think that a charges scheme is not likely to come forward on that narrow majority from a Council. It will have to come before Parliament in any case, and I certainly hope that any scheme that comes forward will be a scheme of which the Council generally approves. Then, when we lay it before Parliament, it will have to be approved by Parliament.
I now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, whom we were all pleased to see speaking, I think for the first time, from the Dispatch Box. He seems to know a great deal more about what happened in another place than I do. If they had a very happy time in that Committee, I hope that we, too, shall have a happy time in our Committee. But what Amendments I shall be able to agree to depends entirely on what Amendments are brought forward. However, I shall always try to be reasonable and helpful. In regard to the minimum qualifications for this grant—whether the limit is too high—this again is a point which has been made before. It will be clearer and given in more detail in the scheme when it is before us. The noble Lord asked me whether there had been specific negotiations with the banks. I do not think there have been specific negotiations as to how the horticulturists are to raise their two-thirds. I do not think one goes to the bank and specifically asks questions of this sort on each of these Bills. The machinery for raising money is fairly well known by horticulturists, as well as by others.
Then the noble Lord definitely objected to the question of instalments under Clause 2 (2). The instalments are there as a safeguard to the public. This is something quite new; it is an innovation in a scheme of this nature that we are going to give grants in regard to build-
852
ings that are not on the holding at all. By the very nature of things a building of this sort may be in the centre of the village, near the railway station, on a most valuable site, and we cannot give a grant in respect of buildings of this sort with no strings at all. The purpose %for which they are used after being grant-aided should be dealt with carefully. We must check that in some way, and after considerable care and thought, we have decided that the proper way to ensure that the money is used for the purpose for which it is intended is that on these buildings that will be erected by co-operative associations, and which may be off the land of any of the producers in that co-operative and on a valuable site, we will pay the grants over a period of five years. In that way we can keep check on the public money which is being spent.
There was some ingenious arithmetic brought forward by the noble Lord as to how much £100,000 was—whether it was one-eightieth of £8 million, and therefore 1 per cent. I have no doubt that his arithmetic is correct, but, as I said before, under Clause 4 this money will probably go to four main societies, and therefore the division will be between four. Thus the sum comes out rather larger. But, joking apart, no sum is ever big enough for the asker, and it is always too much for the Treasury, and I think that probably we have about the right sum in this portion of the Bill.
There were some technical points about fork-lift trucks and conveyors. With the noble Lord's permission, I should prefer to deal with that on Committee. He also raised the question of the heat treatment of sage. Off the cuff, I do not know the answer to those points and I would prefer to speak to the noble Lord afterwards. I will ascertain the answer. He might alternatively care to raise them in Committee. Again, we heard raised the question of import control. The noble Lord and I do not see eye to eye on the method of controlling imports. Our policy is to use the tariff within the obligations that we have, and it will continue. But it is a question of degree, and I think that, with the best will in the world, I must leave it at that.
The noble Lord wrung our hearts with a sad story of a strawberry grower. I am sure that his story was true, otherwise the noble Lord would not tell us

853
it. But hard cases do not necessarily make good law, and I cannot use that as a peg on which to hang the suggestion that we should immediately put up the tariff on strawberries because of the heartrending story that was narrated to us.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I understand that we cannot raise the question of forklift trucks on Committee. That is mentioned in the White Paper but not in the Bill. Possibly the noble Earl could give me, by letter or in some other way, an assurance that that will be included with other equipment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that it will be or will not be included; but before the scheme is laid I will tell the noble Lord what we intend to do and we can then discuss it. It is conceivable—and perhaps I should not say more—that what we may intend to do might be varied by what the noble Lord represents to me; but that will not be in the Bill but in the scheme which will be laid before Parliament shortly. With that, I hope that I have answered, perhaps too fully, the points that have been raised, and I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
6.52 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order). An Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
6.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I was sorry that owing to another engagement I was unable to be here when this Bill was discussed on Thursday last, but my noble friend Lord Stonham made the necessary excuses for myself and my two other ex-mining friends, and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, spoke in like appreciative terms. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this Bill. I believe the attitude towards it in another place was expressed in words which unfortunately I cannot quote. But as to their general spirit I would refer to what was said there by the honourable gentleman, Colonel Lancaster, a man who has been eminent in mining circles and has spoken with great authority over many years. He referred to some of my friends in the other place pointing out that, as a result of great infusions of money in the last ten or fifteen years, conditions generally were improving in the mines in respect of lifesaving, output and general working conditions. He said he agreed with what had been said and that it was for that reason that he was going to support the voting of the sum that was asked for by this Bill.
May I say that since the mines were nationalised there have been very great changes. If we take a comparison of the lives lost at present as against the old, pre-nationalisation days, we shall find that for man-days worked the figures have gone down very much. Output is now increasing, and there is a general spirit and sense of satisfaction, so far as the work is concerned, throughout the industry. Apart from the question of the coming of oil I have never, in my time, seen the average miner in a better mood. I have never known a time when there was less disgruntlement and trouble in the coalfields. These last ten or fifteen years have brought a revolution in changed conditions that have prevailed as a result of nationalisation. There is,

855
too, the fact that the mines themselves have been improved, and those who know anything at all about mining will know that, very often as a result of shortage of capital, the mines were either ill-worked or over-worked and that the working conditions prevailing were very bad. I have been very pleased to see that a whole range of diseases have been brought under compensation law. It used to be a sad thing to see men panting with what was called pneumoconiosis, not knowing what was the matter with them. We knew, of course, that it was caused by a form of heavy gas—we called it the "stype"—that had infected the men's system and heart and would shorten their life. Conditions have improved considerably and I am glad that my noble friend referred to those.
But one of the striking things that has taken place, of course, is that, as a result of national ownership, the effect of the coming of oil has been almost broken. We have to face the fact that oil comes into the country and is wanted for various forms of power. When the rush of oil came I myself thought that we were going back to the old days of what were called the depressed areas. I said so in this House, and noble Lords here may remember that I raised the note of alarm and spoke with considerable passion about it. I am glad to find that I was wrong; that the mines authorities, with the Government, have been wise enough to face this problem, so that the full effect of the coming of oil, a large spate of oil, has not been what I was afraid it would be.
But mines are being closed and men are losing their work. It is being done by pensioning off the older men and in some cases retiring men under 65. I was present quite recently at the presentation of some long-service certificates; and how different it was to what it used to be! We had a function, a very bright and happy "tea fight." The old people were gathered there, and it was something that delighted the heart of all to see, knowing what things had been like in those older days when mines were just closed without any reference to the men at all. I am not saying that the people who owned the mines were happy about it, because they were not; they just simply could not carry on. The
856
result of national ownership, of course, has meant that we can have the kind of function that I speak of at which I was present. I noticed one think about that function, however. I think that there were about 60 certificates given. I should say that about six of the recipients were younger men, not of retiring age, who had gone out of the industry as quickly as they could to get work somewhere else, though they got their certificates for their service. I inquired about them and I found that that is what was happening.
My Lords, that is a serious matter. If the younger men, men somewhere about 40 years of age, with a family to think of, are going to seize the first job they can, and if that spirit develops in the mining industry, it will not be good for the mines. This particular coalfield, which I believe has existed for nearly two centuries, produces, according to the National Coal Board, perhaps the best coking coal in the world; that is in North-West Durham. If we are going to lose the miners in an area like that, and the mines find it difficult to carry on, it is going to be a serious situation for the local community indirectly, as well as for the men concerned. I say this because this area has not been made one of the areas that is to receive factories under the Local Employment Bill, on the ground, I think, that there is no particularly large amount of unemployment there. But in that area, and in all mining areas, there is a good deal of female labour that will not be in the employment market until factories come into the area. It seems to me that the result of all this is going to be that mines must stop before an area is made what is called a development area.
In the mining areas we have, in the main, heavy industries: coal, steel, heavy engineering. Apart from that, there has been development in recent years as the result of unemployment and depression, which have given rise to the Local Employment Bill. But these heavy industries underpin the rest of the industries in the country. Steel is needed for motor cars and various other commodities; heavy engineering is required for other industries. But an industry has to be closed down, apparently, before a locality is going to be declared a development area. I admit that the situation

857
is a difficult one, and I know that in the South-West of Durham there has been development. The North-West covers a very wide area supplying the great Consett iron and steel works and other steelworks in the county and has the necessary coke for steel making.
So I say there is a danger that the younger men will leave the coal industry to go to the shade of the Tee Valley, the factory area, or even leave the county or perhaps the country; and there is going to be a shortage caused in this way. They have to think of their families. I just wanted to place these matters on record—because a very serious position has to be faced—while the Minister was here, and for the English leader, Mr. Sadler Forster, to note that men are moving in this way because they are afraid of what is going to happen to their families. They are men who would be satisfied in the mines—and, indeed, who like the mines, for a miner gets a communal sense; he gets moving in among his own kind, and he likes the work. I had people give me sympathy when I was a miner, but I did not mind about that. It was not that which I minded about: it was the money. It was not the work; it was the ill-pay for what was done. But I liked the company; and, in a way, it was a man-testing job, and I did not mind it. But now, of course, if areas like that are to be excluded from the Local Employment Bill, and from being made development areas, the effect is going to be, I think, that young men with families will get out as soon as possible, and there will probably be a shortage of the younger men.
I am pleased that this Coal Industry Bill has been accepted in this spirit; and I was very pleased indeed to read the understanding spirit which prevailed in the other place. There was no criticism. I was also very pleased to read how it was accepted in this House by your Lordships, and I think that to-night the same spirit will prevail. But I would ask the noble Lord who is about to answer if he would draw the attention of the Government's representatives to the point that I have made about such a great area as North West Durham (and there must be other areas in the country also) being left out of the reckoning as a development area. My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
7.13 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, who was unable to be here this evening, will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for speaking on this Third Reading. Rather more personally, perhaps, I can say myself, as one who lives among coal miners in another area, that it is very encouraging for me to hear the noble Lord set his seal of approval on this Bill. He was not here on the last occasion on which we discussed this Bill, for the reason that he was among his miner friends in his own area; but, if it is of any comfort to him, his fame, and the affection for him, spreads far beyond that area, and at least into the area of South Yorkshire where I myself live.
The noble Lord spoke of the improvements which have taken place in the pits in recent years, particularly in working conditions and in safety conditions, and there is no doubt that these improvements have been taking place very steadily and will continue to take place in the future. The Board's future plan for control, to which this Bill is closely related, promises the investment of £511 million between 1960 and 1965; and, as a result of this new investment, as well as that which has been taking place in recent years, 80 per cent. of the coal output in 1965 will come from new and reconstructed collieries. In point of fact, it is fair to say, therefore, that the coal industry, so far from being a dying industry, has been given a new look, which is what the noble Lord would himself wish.
However, he spoke with less pleasure about recruitment. In fact, I think that the recruiting facts are slightly rosier than he suggests. The National Coal Board has been restricting recruitment, but a general preference is laid down for juveniles and craftsmen; and the noble Lord's worry that young people will not be coming into the pits is, I think, being taken care of and need not necessarily be as dangerous as he thinks: and certainly it would be regretted by everyone in this Government if it were to happen. In some areas—the East Midlands and in parts of South Wales—actual shortages have occurred, and there more general recruiting has been resumed. The noble Lord, rather naturally, spoke of the Durham Division, and I can tell

859
him that between 1960 and 1965 there will be an investment of £34 million in the Durham collieries, and this, I think, should hearten him to some extent.
The noble Lord also mentioned a fear that an industry must close down and go practically into bankruptcy before an area is recognised as being liable to become a development area: but that is by no means true. This new Bill, the Local Employment Bill, which he mentioned, is designed not only to deal with possible unemployment but to anticipate it, and there is absolutely no reason to think that the coal industry will be ignored in that way. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power will see to it that, should redundancy be threatened in the industry, it will be remembered and looked after.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I was emphasising the position as far as the heavy industrial areas are concerned. They must have practically finished work and closed down operating before they are declared a development area. At any rate, that is the case in North West Durham.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I was making that particular point about the Local Employment Bill, which is not yet in action, but which gives the Board of Trade a power to focus, if I
860
can call it that, and a power of anticipation, which has not existed before; and that, I hope, may take care of the noble Lord's anxieties.
I will close with a very few words—simpler, briefer and, I hope, more coherent than some that I uttered earlier this afternoon. I remember that on one occasion, when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was not present, another noble Lord on his side of the House got up (I forget the subject of the debate) and said that it was beyond him how anybody could take pride in working in a mine. On that occasion I rose to my feet on this side of the House in order to say that he had evidently not read a book, a great human document, called "A Man's Life", written by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, a copy of which I am glad to say I have, signed by him and presented to me by my own former Member of Parliament and our mutual friend, Mr. Horace Holmes. The reason did not burst ii to speech was because I found that I was standing in front of the Bishops' Bench, and an outburst of lay indignation from that place would have been not only inappropriate but out of order. With those few words I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for intervening.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.