Lords Sitting of 9 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD AILWYN on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

VALUATION (STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS) ORDER, 1962
2.36 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords. I beg to move that the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper be now approved. The reasons for this Order are set out on pages 2 and 3 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 1663) on Revaluation of Rates in 1963, but although I think the White Paper is pretty clear, perhaps I should say a word or two in further explanation for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not "brushed up" on their rating recently.
First, what are the statutory deductions? Your Lordships will recall that "gross value" is the rent which a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay for a property if the landlord were to bear the cost of repairs, maintenance, and insurance. "Net annual value" is the rent which the tenant would pay if he had to meet these outgoings himself. For some classes of rateable property—for example, factories, public utilities, and land—assessment is made direct to net annual value; but most other rateable properties, such as houses, shops, offices, and other non-industrial buildings, are required to have a gross value. For these classes, the valuation officer starts off by determining a gross value, and then reduces that gross value to a net annual value by making a deduction for the cost of maintenance, et cetera. That deduction is the statutory deduction. It is not calculated individually for each property, but it is taken from a table embodied in the rating Statutes. It has been argued that all property should be assessed to net annual value straight away, and that we
332
should do away with this whole business of gross values and statutory deductions. There are, I think, fairly weighty objections to this, but perhaps your Lordship. will not wish me to argue the pros and cons this afternoon, since the question whether or not a gross value must be found is determined by Statute, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no power to alter by Order. So much for the background.
The second question which arises is why my right honourable friend is now seeking powers to amend the present scales of statutory deductions. These scales have remained substantially unaltered since 1928. Since then, the cost of repairs to property has, of course, risen sharply. Your Lordships might well think that the scales should already have been amended to take account of these increased repair costs; but you will recall that the gross value of dwellings in the 1956 Lists, which are still in force, are assessed at 1939 rental values. Since the gross values are themselves at prewar levels, it may not be unfair that the repairs allowances should also be at prewar levels. But the scale would obviously be unfair to ratepayers in 1963, when everyone is to pay rates on the full current value of their property. In addition, the statutory scale is a sliding one. As the value of property rises, the percentage statutory deduction falls. This means that if we made no amendment to the statutory scales, in 1963 low-value properties would be receiving the lower Percentage of statutory deduction applicable, say, to medium-value dwellings in 1956. The basic reason for the new statutory scale is, therefore, a conjunction of higher gross values, brought about by the current revaluation, together with rising repair costs.
I hope your Lordships are with me thus far in agreeing that some change in the scale for statutory deduction is necessary. I hope now to justify the proposed new scale which is set out in Appendix I of the White Paper, to which I have already referred. Paragraph 5 of that White Paper makes clear that the purpose of the new scale is to ensure that houses whose gross values have increased fourfold since before the war should in 1963 have a statutory deduction four and a half times that of 1939. Sometimes the proposed deduction is a

333
little different from four and a half times: generally, a little more than four and a half times, to the benefit of the ratepayer. Of course, we have taken the opportunity to produce a scale which gives a steady rise in deductions, instead of a rise by fits and starts, as in the old one.
The explanation for these multiplications is, I think, quite simple. As the headnote to Appendix II to the White Paper shows, the Board of Inland Revenue calculate that the gross value of dwellings in the 1963 Lists should be approximately four times the value in force in the Lists before the war—that is to say, the 1934–35 Lists; four times the value in the Lists as they were in 1939, not four times the 1939 values in the present Lists, which are expected to treble in 1963.
The reason for multiplying four and a half times the pre-war statutory deduction is also, I think, quite straightforward. The year 1939 is the basic starting point. In a memorandum in May, 1951, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, after an exhaustive survey, declared themselves satisfied that, in 1939, the actual expenditure on repairs, and so on, was, on the average, about equal to, or slightly in excess of, the appropriate statutory deduction. In 1953, the Girdwood Committee estimated, again after a pretty thoroughgoing examination, that if the full cost of maintaining a house was 100 in 1939, the cost of doing the same amount of work to the same house in 1953 was 316. Latterly, this whole matter has again been looked at, using precisely the same methods and same scale as did the Girdwood Committee, and the result of that has been the extension of this index figure to 452. An independent projection by the journal which is entitled The Rating and Valuation Reporter has produced a figure of just about the same order—459. Hence the reason why we have opted for 4½ times.
As your Lordships will see from Appendix I of the White Paper, the new scale is a fairly simple one. It contains only three steps. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, if I may, particularly to the first one. For property up to a gross value of £55, the allowance is 45 per cent. of the gross value. This will give a very substantial deduction for the smallest class of property.
334
The only other point which I feel I should perhaps mention concerns London. In the past, the County of London has had a different and a rather higher scale of statutory deductions than the rest of the country has. We have not been able to ascertain the original reason for this difference. It may be due to no more than historical accident. In any event, as time has gone on, London has been absorbed more and more into the general law of rating and valuation and any positive step to perpetuate what seem to be anomalies needs strong justification. After careful thought, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that there is no good reason to continue with a separate scale for London. In this context I should perhaps add that the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee have been consulted and have agreed to the proposal for a single scale. This scale has been constructed to give an allowance rather more generous at critical points than 4½ times the old provincial deduction.
To summarise, the purpose of the Order is to modernise the repairs allowance so that the gross valuations which will become effective in 1963 can be properly reduced to take into account contemporary repair and maintenance costs. The object is simply to provide a convenient, practical and, we believe, fair instrument by which to determine rateable value in future. I beg to move that the Order be now approved.
Moved, That the Valuation (Statutory Deductions) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
2.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl for the very clear way in which he has explained this rather complicated Order. I suppose that it would be ungracious to look a gift horse in the mouth. This is a benefit which apparently comes into operation within fourteen days after the passing of the Order, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can explain what actually happens about those rates which are payable on April 1 and payable in advance, and where, if people are prompt payers, as I am afraid I am, they have already paid their rate

335
bill for the coming half-year. Are we entitled to a deduction, or proportionate deduction, as from the fourteenth day after the coming into operation of this Order? Perhaps he can tell us that and what we can do about it.
More seriously, this Order pinpoints something which I think is not generally recognised—namely, that in 1963 gross values are going to rise very steeply indeed, and that means that Schedule A tax will rise very steeply indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (it is appropriate to say this to-day) is, in my view, in for an un covenanted benefit of something like £100 million a year on Schedule A. We should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us what he is going to do with that £100 million, because this money is coming from the taxpayer and the taxpayer is surely entitled to some relief in respect of this £100 million or thereabouts which he is going to pay by way of Schedule A.
As regards the statutory deductions, I suppose that the figures which the noble Earl gave us are average figures. Hitherto, where repairs have exceeded the statutory allowance over a period of five years a person has been able to claim an additional allowance in respect of the excess. Can the noble Earl tell us whether that will continue to be the case? In spite of the researches which the noble Earl has made. I doubt very much whether this scale of deductions really is adequate. I think that it is rather on the mean side. I do not think that it takes fully into account the extra cost of repairs, as compared, not with 1939, but with 1925 when the original table was first enacted. I think the cost of repairs has gone up by more than 41 times since that date. I do not think the ratepayer is really getting generous treatment. But it is an advantage as compared with the present position, and if we can be quite certain that any excess of cost of expenditure over this figure will continue to be allowable, then at least it will not put the ratepayer in a worse position than he is to-day.
The only other thing I want to mention is the difference between London and the Provinces. I think that difference has been rather more than historic. There is, of course, a difference in wages; and the difference between the
336
cost of repairs in London and the Provinces has always been, and still continues. I should have thought there was some justification for there being two scales of deduction. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us whether in fact the deduction which is now provided in the Order is based upon the London costs or the costs in the country, or whether the advice he has been given applies to the country as a whole. If the latter, then I think the London ratepayer is getting a raw deal. His cost of repairs is normally going to be somewhat higher than the average for the country, as a whole, and he ought to continue to get different treatment. Of course, if the whole country is getting a deduction based on London costs, then I suppose there would be nothing to complain about; but I imagine that is not the case, from the figure given by the noble Earl—namely, some 452 per cent., which is a little more than the 450 per cent. he is giving us. If that is an average for the whole country, then I think for London there ought to be a somewhat higher figure still. However, we must be grateful for small mercies, and while as a matter of courtesy I say, "Thank you very much for doing this", I do not think the Government have been in the least generous and they might have gone a little further.
2.53 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not quarrel with the arithmetic of the noble Earl in making the calculations by which he has justified this Statutory Order, but I want to point out that this whole system of statutory deductions to arrive at rateable value is quite arbitrary and quite unfair. It assumes, to start with, that the cost of repairing houses of equal value is the same; but, in fact, there are great variations. In the case of an old house the cost of repairs may he very high, whereas in the case of a recently built one they may be quite low, although the gross value of the houses is identical. This must inevitably be the case, because houses by their nature are of long duration and many years have to go by before the time comes when they are pulled down and rebuilt. Therefore, although it may be perfectly true that the average figure is more or less correct, it is not true that the individual

337
figure is correct; and it is the individual figure which concerns the owner of a house.
Secondly, this system, which I agree has existed for a long time, contains another fallacy—namely, the assumption that the relative cost of repair is less if the property has a greater gross value. It does not at all follow that the percentage cost of repairing a house or a block of flats which has a gross value of £500 a year is less than that of repairing a house which has a gross value of £50 a year, but this Order provides that in the one case the percentage to be deducted will be only half as much as in the other. That also is inherently unfair.
Thirdly, the deduction is calculated upon the gross value, and the gross value is made up in part of the annual value of the structure itself and in part of the value of the site upon which it stands. But the site, of course, requires no repair, whereas the structure does. Consequently, if you compare the position of a house in the suburbs, where the site value makes up perhaps one-tenth of the gross value, with a house or flat in the centre of London, where the site value may make up perhaps nearly one half of the gross value, you find that the central property gets a higher allowance for repairs than the other, although the proportion of structure in it is less. On all those grounds this system deserves to be reconsidered. I admit that it is right, in view of the increase in the rateable value of houses which is about to take place, to make the alteration which is proposed in the Order, but it is far from making the thing satisfactory.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has said, and I would make only one comment about repairs. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that, on the whole, similar repairs cost more in London than outside London. I pay rates and I also pay for repairs both in London and in the country. Whatever the position was in the past, I do not think it is wise to-day to take the view that repairs are necessarily more expensive in London. I think it is much better, if you are going to have a rough and ready yardstick, to assume that they are much the same all over the country, for this reason. If you live
338
in a provincial town where there is plenty of labour, then it is probably true that repairs will cost less than in London; but if you live in a rural area—and I do not mean in the depths of the country, but near only a small town—where skilled labour of certain kinds is difficult to obtain, then it may well be that repairs in that area will be considerably more expensive than in London, because there are all the transport difficulties. Although possibly that was not the case in the past, it is now.
LORD SILKIN: Will the noble Lord agree that about 80 per cent. of the population to-day live in urban areas?
LORD DERWENT: We go back to the question of what is an urban area. In many urban areas, where there is a shortage of particular kinds of labour, repairs can be more expensive than they are in London. Therefore, in this modern age it becomes extremely difficult to say that London is more expensive: very often it is not.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I say a word on this question of rates? When the rates for London were fixed, there was no question of parking meters or anything like that. Since the introduction of parking meters, it has become absolutely impossible to get near one's own front door. I speak from personal experience. I have never been able to get near my front door owing to the presence of cars parked just outside by a parking meter. Could not some arrangement be made to give a slight preference to the people who have these parking meters outside their houses by a slight reduction in rates?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend's suggestion comes quite within the scope of the Order before your Lordships' House, admirable though it might be on its own merits. I wonder whether I might first of all turn to the criticisms of the present Order made generously and fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. First of all, he was worried about when this Order would come into force, and whether possibly he might have overpaid his rates for the coming half year. I can assure him that he is not in credit in that respect, if that is a reassurance,

339
because if he will glance at Article 3 of the Order he will see these words:
"Article 4 shall apply for the purposes of every valuation list made under Part III of the Local Government Act 1948 coming into force after the coming into operation hereof".
That means that the new scale will apply only to the 1963 and subsequent lists. It does not apply to the existing list.
Secondly, the noble Lord referred to Schedule A and the possible linkage between this Order and Schedule A. I feel a little inhibited in talking about Schedule A, or anything which might come within the scope of a Budget at this particular moment of time. But I have an easy way out, because I can assure the noble Lord that this Order does not affect Schedule A in any way at all. Schedule A has its own scale of statutory deductions, which is in fact different from the rating scale at present, and there is no direct link between the two scales, let alone between the two scales of statutory deductions.
The third point which the noble Lord made was whether this statutory scale of deductions made in respect of repairs was a fair one. I think he expressed the view that it was not a very generous one. I would not dissent from that view. This Order is made to introduce a fair, but not a generous, scale of deductions. I would submit to your Lordships that the scale is, in fact, fair. So far as the past is concerned, it has, as I hope to show, been gone into very thoroughly, not only by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but also by the Girdwood Committee. There was a very thorough re-examination of the scales in 1939, projected forward to the present cost of repairs. I am assured that the four-and-a-half times assessment is, broadly speaking, right.
So much for the past. As to the future, I am not certain that I quite grasped the noble Lord's question in that respect. I think what he was asking me was whether, if there are rises in the future in the cost of repairs, they will be reflected in the scale of statutory deductions.
LORD SILKIN: That is not quite right. At the present time, as I understand it, if over a period of five years the actual cost of repairs exceeds the statutory deduction, the owner may make a claim in respect of the excess and that will be
340
allowed. What I wanted to know was whether if he actually spends more than the statutory deduction, that will continue.
EARL JELLICOE: I must apologise to the noble Lord: I now have his question quite right. What he is saying applies to Schedule A, but does not apply to the statutory deduction for rating. It is a set level. There is not this floating element upwards which there is with Schedule A.
So far as London is concerned, the noble Lord asked me whether the figures which the Girdwood Committee and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors were working on were those which applied to London or to the country as a whole. I am speaking "without the book" on this point, but it is certainly my impression that they apply to the country as a whole, and not only to London. Nevertheless. I would submit that there are strong reasons why, as from the present Order, there should be one statutory scale of deductions for the whole country, without exceptions made for London. I agree that one could argue that in London, because of the higher cost of labour, repairs may cost more than, for example, in a country district in the North of England. But I think the same argument would apply to any other big city in this country, such as Birmingham or Manchester.
It seems to me anomalous to keep a differentiation which applies only to the administrative County of London and does not apply to Greater London as a whole. I do not see why somebody living in Westminster should have a special scale of deduction, and somebody living in Croydon, for example, should not. To have that differentiation can lead to sharp anomalies at the border of the administrative County of London. I would suggest that to base a differentiation mainly on locality is wrong. Repair costs in London may be high, but they may also be high in, say, Brighton, because of the effects of salt air.
The final reason why I would argue that differentiation, so far as London is concerned, is not valid for the future is that there is a great deal to be said for getting all classes of ratepayers everywhere on the same basis. That was the

341
purpose behind the Rating and Valuation Act. 1961, and I would submit that, other things being equal, there is a great deal to be said for it.
So far as the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, are concerned, a great deal of what he was saying was an attack upon the present rating system as a whole, rather than upon this Order. He may be quite right in attacking our present system of rating as a whole, but I would suggest that it is not perhaps relevant to this Order to base a general attack upon the general rating system.
His specific criticisms, I think, were mainly twofold. The first was that the present system gives only very rough justice. For example, old houses, to which he referred, may be much more expensive to keep in repair than modern houses. I would entirely agree. But I would submit that the age of a house, as I have just mentioned, is only one of the criteria which can be held to apply so far as statutory deduction is concerned. There are many other factors which might well be applicable: whether the house is in an exposed position, and thus more likely to have its tiles blown away by strong winds; whether it stands by the sea, and is thus more exposed to salt air. But I would agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that this rating scale gives only rough justice. In a general scale, that is all it can possibly seek to do.
The noble Lord also criticised the fact that, for the higher-value property, the rating deduction was inadequate. I am not certain that the noble Lord is right on that point, because the value of the site is one of the factors which the valuation officer, and quite naturally, takes into account, and with a high-value property the site value is a bigger element in the gross value.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? I made two separate points about this, one about site value, the other about graduation of the scale. It is quite possible that on sites of equal value there might be a very different gross value.
EARL JELLICOE: I take the noble Lord's point. But my understanding was that, generally speaking, he was criticising the fact that higher-rated houses
342
had a lower-percentage statutory deduction applicable to them, and with those I would submit that, because the site content is high, therefore it is quite natural that the statutory deduction, which is mainly in respect of repairs, should be proportionately lower. I would not attempt to bandy words with the noble Lord on a subject on which he is an acknowledged expert, but that is certainly my understanding of the narrower point which he made.
I hope that I have more or less, perhaps less, adequately covered at least some of the points which noble Lords have made on this Order. Despite their criticisms, I would submit that it does rough justice; and not only rough justice, but reasonable justice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A): Bill read a.
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.
COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCILS (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.
MARRIAGE (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.
RECORDED DELIVERY SERVICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.

AMENDMENTS OF THE POTATO MARKETING SCHEME, 1955
3.15 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme, 1955, be approved. In spite of the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I am going to ask for your attention to be given to the more prosaic subject of potatoes before we get on to pipe-lines. The 1955 Scheme provided, among other things, that the Potato Marketing Board should be the means of implementing the guarantee given in respect of potatoes under the Agriculture Act, 1947. The Board was required to buy all ware potatoes offered to it by registered producers at the support price, 95 per cent. of which was met by the Government and 5 per cent. by the Board. The Scheme allows the Board to levy annual contributions from registered producers up to 20s. per acre of potatoes planted, and an excess acreage contribution of £10 per acre for every acre planted in excess of the producer's quota.
The individual guaranteed price arrangement was supplanted, as a result of the 1957 Annual Price Review, by the deficiency payments system, which came into effect in the 1959–60 season. The Board was no longer obliged to buy all potatoes offered by producers but it was expected to enter the market when prices fell below the guaranteed level and to buy potatoes with the object of supporting the market. In order to improve the successful operation of this system, the Potato Marketing Board submitted certain Amendments to registered producers in July, 1961 and to Ministers in the following month. Ministers gave the necessary opportunity for objections to be made and over 8,500 (there are some 75,000 registered producers) were received, mostly in a sterotyped form. A public inquiry was held and only 114 individuals and bodies indicated that they wished to appear and be heard. In the upshot, however, only 45 individuals and bodies appeared, either in person or by representation, before the Commissioner, whose report was carefully considered by Ministers before they came to a decision.
The Amendments now laid before the House for approval consist only of those
344
that were referred to the inquiry as having been the subject of objections. In accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Act the other Amendments may be approved by Ministers without Parliamentary proceedings. The Amendments before the House affect only three paragraphs of the Scheme. Those relating to paragraphs 69 and 83 appear to raise no substantial issue and were, indeed, mentioned by only one objector. The Amendments to paragraph 84 clearly are much more important and were criticised by all the objectors.
To deal first with paragraph 69, the proposed sub-paragraph (3) gives the Board explicit powers to attach such conditions as it thinks fit to any exemption that it may grant. As the Board is already entrusted with discretionary powers to grant exemptions to producers, it is reasonable to allow it discretion to attach conditions. The new power is likely to encourage the Board to grant exemption where at present it might not feel free to do so.
The Amendment to paragraph 83 is consequential on certain Amendments of paragraph 84, under which the Board may give relief from acreage contributions in special circumstances. The new sub-paragraph merely says that registered producers who make false statements to the Board in this connection shall be liable to the same penalties as already apply for false statements under paragraph 81. As subsections (4) and (6) of paragraph 84 are intended to help the Board to make concessions, it must be able to ensure that it gets accurate information.
I turn now to paragraph 84. This has been very extensively amended, but the main changes to which most of the objections refer are three: first, the raising of the maximum rate of ordinary contribution from £1 to £3 per acre of potato land; secondly, the raising of the maximum rate of excess acreage contribution from £10 to £25 per acre and, thirdly, the power given to the Board to raise the maximum rate of ordinary contribution beyond £3 if a poll of registered producers shows a two-thirds majority in favour of a higher maximum rate. The increase in the maximum rate of the ordinary contribution from £1 to £3 is required by the Board primarily in order to finance its contribution to

345
the Market Support Fund which the Government proposed at the Annual Review of 1961. There would be a five-year agreement with the Board, the Government undertaking to match each £1 contributed by the Board to the Fund with a contribution of £2, to be made available as required. The Board considers that its own annual contribution to the Fund should be at least £1 million, equivalent to roughly 30s. per acre. This would account for most of the increase of £2 in the maximum rate of ordinary contribution. The rest would be available for research, publicity and other developments that the Board may wish to undertake. These proposals the Government consider to be sound.
The increase from £10 to £25 in the maximum rate of excess acreage contribution is required by the Board as an additional deterrent to increased production in years declared by the Board to be quota years. Every registered producer has a basic acreage allotted to him. If the Board decides in the August preceding planting that a year is to be a quota year, it announces a percentage of basic acreage which registered producers may not exceed without becoming liable to excess acreage contribution on each acre in excess of their quota. The Board is satisfied that the present penalty of only £10 per acre is not enough to prevent substantial excess planting in certain years. Moreover, it points out the extra production from excess acreage adds considerably to the surplus in a quota year and involves the Board in additional expenditure in surplus disposal far exceeding the income obtained from the present levy of only £10 per acre. We are satisfied that the Board should have the power to raise excess acreage levies to a maximum rate of £25. It does not follow that it would necessarily do so at once, and no doubt it would be guided by circumstances and future experience.
The power to raise the ordinary contribution beyond the proposed maximum rate of £3 if a poll of registered producers votes in favour is required by the Board so that its income may, if necessary, be adjusted to changing conditions without the need for the expensive and slow process of a formal amendment. Other marketing boards are engaged in buying and selling the bulk of the marketed
346
supply of their product and they can, therefore, use part of their trading margin for administrative and other purposes as they think fit. We feel that the Potato Board, whose trading operations are generally confined to surplus disposal, should also have some latitude to raise its income should circumstances so require. We are satisfied that producers' interests are sufficiently safeguarded by the requirement that a two-thirds majority must be obtained at a poll of registered producers before any increase can be made in the maximum rate of ordinary contribution. This majority must be in terms of both productive capacity and numbers. The remaining provisions of paragraph 84 are designed to give the Board more latitude in dealing with various administrative matters. No substantial objection was raised to any of them.
My Lords, the Amendments to which I have referred were considered very fully by the Commissioner who held the public inquiry and whose report is available to your Lordships. He reached the conclusion in relation to the Amendments now before the House that the objectors had failed to substantiate their objections, and he went on to say:
"I consider that the proposals of the Board are a practical and efficient means of attaining the object of the 1947 Act in relation to the potato growing industry; that they are fair to both producers and consumers; and that the cost is reasonable and within the capacity of the industry".
The Government accept these views and I, therefore, invite your Lordships to approve the Amendments that are now before the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme, 1955, be approved.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has explained this problem of potatoes with great lucidity and I have little to add to it and very little criticism of what he has said. Potatoes are a thorny problem from the marketing point of view. They are unfortunate in that their yield is extremely elastic whereas the demand for potatoes is extremely inelastic. The figures given at the public inquiry bear this out. There have in fact been three years in the last six when there was a surplus of potatoes, not a very large

347
surplus but something of the order of half a million tons, and when there has been a surplus the price has varied between £10 and £12 a ton. There have also been three years when there has been a deficiency and then the price has been roughly £20 to £22 a ton, very nearly double, which is a good indication of the problems of potato marketing. It is therefore, in my opinion, perfectly correct that the Potato Marketing Board should have considerable powers over the acreage of potatoes that are to be grown and that is precisely what these Amendments set out to give them.
However. I think that in a matter of this sort, where a producers' monopoly has been set up, and quite rightly set up, it is very much the duty of the Government to make quite certain that this monopoly is in no way abused in the interests of producers and to the detriment of consumers. I am quite sure that when there is a deficiency of potatoes there is at the same time considerable pressure on the Government and the Marketing Board for some encouragement to be given to the growing of more potatoes, but I am glad to see that the pressure has been resisted by the Government because that would only result in subsequent years in far greater surpluses than there have been in the past, with disastrous effects on selling prices and costs to the taxpayer. All I would say in this case is that. where there is any doubt in the mind either of the Board or, more particularly, of the Government as to whether encouragement should be given to extra production, with the consequent cost to the taxpayer, or to too little production, with a consequent rise in prices to the consumer, Her Majesty's Government should pursue a policy of expansion rather than of restriction. I personally should be far more prepared to give my support to them if there were something of a surplus in the future. They have been a little too strict with a marketing hoard of any kind concerning restrictionist powers. But in this particular instance I think they have acted perfectly correctly. The public inquiry has supported the view of the Potato Marketing Board; in my view the Government are right to accept that, and I am glad to support this Order.
3.31 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I add only one or two words to what my noble friend has said, because I entirely agree with all the proposals in this Order. From 1931 it has always been understood, by me at all events, that unless the Marketing Boards have all the power requisite to prevent hopelessly unbalanced prices, fluctuating all over the place, from one year to another, they can never do their job effectively. There was, and I suppose always will be, an outlook from some section of consumers that "somebody is organising scarcity deliberately to increase the price"—though whether it is supposed to be to save the taxpayer or to deal harshly with the consumer or producer, one never quite knows. What we do know, however, is what my noble friend has just said: that it is rare that two seasons are quite alike.
There could be a surplus with only a small increase in plantings, which would be difficult with regard to the ultimate price to the producer; or, of course, it might be the opposite way. But because of the doubts in the minds of the large consumers, say the fish and chip fryers, and people of that kind, there was passed in 1948 another Bill, a Marketing Bill, which gave the Minister fairly wide powers. He was given power to appoint representatives to each Marketing Board, and he was also given the power, if he felt that a Marketing Board was doing what it ought not to do, or was not doing what it should do, whether or not an increase was contemplated in the price of the commodity or something on those lines, to say "Stop! You can't do that there here". Therefore there is a good deal of power in the hands of the Minister to-day which was not there as the result of the Marketing Act of 1931.
I think I can say to your Lordships that these Amendments are quite the proper thing to have if we are going to preserve a sense of stability in the growing and marketing of potatoes. It is easy enough for the critic who is without serious thought for either the producer or consumer, but is just a critic, to say that this is merely organising scarcity for the purpose of either the producer or the taxpayer. My view of it is that it is not Communism in that

349
sense, but is real common sense, organising for plenty without violent fluctuations in prices which, in the long run, are good neither for the producer nor for the consumer. Therefore, in view of what happened at the inquiry, in particular, when there was so little strength in the cases submitted, I, with my noble friend, gladly support the Order and all it contains.
3.36 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, my task this afternoon has been made exceedingly pleasant. It is part of the charm of your Lordships' House that one never knows whether one is going to be helped by the Opposition or opposed by them. Certainly this afternoon I have received a great deal of assistance from both noble Lords who have spoken. I am most grateful to them, too, for their general, and indeed their detailed, support of these amendments. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who referred to the fact that there had been three surpluses on the potato crop within the last five years, that of course these surpluses were produced on almost the same acreage as that which was employed in the two years which showed losses. This only illustrates the point that he was making about the extreme difficulty of controlling yields even though one controls acreage. He suggested that, possibly in the future, the Marketing Board might tend towards allowing a slightly increased acreage rather than restrict production. No doubt they will take note of what he has said. I think it is worth reminding noble Lords that the quotas are amended quite frequently. I believe I am right in saying that this year's plantings are based on a new quota worked out on the best three of the previous four years' plantings. It has been worked like that, and over the last six or seven years there have been three changes from the original basic quota. The Potato Marketing Board try to keep themselves up to date in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, with his great knowledge on this subject, agreed wholeheartedly with the proposal and suggested that perhaps sometimes certain consumer interests might make complaints—he referred in particular to the suppliers of fish and
350
chips. But it is of interest to remember that the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain submitted a report on this subject in April, 1961, just a year ago, on the operation of the Potato Marketing Scheme in the three years 1957–58 to 1959–60 inclusive. They reported that no complaints from consumers had been made direct to the Committee, which is, I think, most satisfactory. My Lords, again I thank the two noble Lords for their support, which is of great help in putting forward these amendments, and I hope that your Lordships will now give them your approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before we agree to receive this Report I want to enter the strongest possible protest against the speed at which this Bill is being taken. We had a very heavy Committee stage which we finished only last Tuesday. The Government have agreed to consider a number of the representations that were made, particularly those from their own side of the House. They have not agreed to consider many from this side; but they agreed to consider some from the other side, many of which we on this side agreed with. The Government themselves have not had time to consider them, because some of them will be represented, if accepted, by Amendments to the Bill and there has been no time to prepare such Amendments.
So far as those of us on this side of the House are concerned, we have sat

351
here for four whole days working on this Bill, with quite scanty results. Nevertheless, we want to do our best to improve the Bill before it goes to another place. But the time available to us, with the Committee stage and the Report stage so close together, means that we have not had the opportunity of doing very much on the Bill in the way of putting down Amendments on the Report stage or of considering the Amendments that we have put down, still less of considering the Amendments the Government have put down.
To-morrow this House is going to be asked to approve a Motion which may have far-reaching effects on this House. I think it is very important, if this House is to be continued, preserved, that it should have the opportunity of doing, its job properly. If this House is not in a position to do its job, then let it he abolished. If we are to do a job then we ought to have the means by which to do it, the time in which to do it and the facilities for giving thought to the measures that come before us. I know very well that the noble Lord is not going to give us anything on the Report stage; nevertheless we ought to have the satisfaction of putting our case so that our friends in another place may have on record what we think and, if they so desire, may press our case in that place. But as things stand, this Report stage is going to be more or less of a farce. We are not being given the opportunity of presenting our Amendments properly and fully or of considering those which the Government have put down.
I know very well that the answer, or one of the answers, is that you want to give the other place ample time in which to consider the Bill. I think that is only right. But they will have had far more time than we shall have had, and I have no doubt at all that if we are able to consider this Bill in this House satisfactorily the amount of time taken in another place should be correspondingly reduced. It is because we are not being given sufficient time here that the other place will require more time. But, in any case, even if the Government's contention were true, and to the extent that it is true, is that not a reason why this difficult, contentious Bill should have been introduced in this place somewhat
352
earlier than it was introduced? That is the only conclusion to which we could come. To submit a Bill of this complexity, and then to give us inadequate time to consider it on the ground that it must be considered in another place, is really not doing justice to this House. I hope that I shall be forgiven for having made this protest. I make it because I am a great admirer of this House and am very keen that we should do our job in the most effective way; and, if we are not being given that opportunity, it saddens me very much.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has had to say on this matter. The Government do recognise that this Bill has been somewhat rushed, for the very reason which the noble Lord advanced—namely, that the other place should be given adequate time to consider it. I am none the less convinced that, because of our discussions, we have been able to put forward a number of Amendments of great value, which I hope will commend themselves to your Lordships if this Motion be accepted. It may assist your Lordships in considering this Motion if I refer to some of the further paints which the Government are still considering and on which, because time has been short and complicated issues have been involved, they have not reached final conclusions. Among these I would mention particularly, first, the assurance which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that the Government would bring forward at a later stage an Amendment which would have the effect of amending the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, in its application to Clauses 9 and 10. This needs careful consideration, and time will be required. The Government propose, therefore, to introduce the Amendment in another place.
Secondly, a number of improvements were suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord Amherst of Hackney and Lord Lindgren, to the clauses aimed at avoiding damage or obstruction of access to a pipe-line in the interests of safety—that involved Clauses 22 and 27.

353
The Government wish to give further consideration to the points which have been made and it has not yet been possible to place Amendments before your Lordships' House. Thirdly, there are the special problems foreseen in applying the provisions of the Bill to the china clay industry, to which the noble Lords, Lord Merrivale, and Lord Colville of Culross drew attention. The Government agree that these difficulties will have to be met, but it will take some time to find the best solution.
Lastly, I mention the interesting points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in discussion on the First Schedule, and which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to consider. I am afraid that consideration of these points, too, is not complete. I would just repeat that I quite understand and appreciate the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am glad that he has raised the matter and that I have been able to say what I have said in reply. I would add that it is not our intention this afternoon to proceed any further than Amendment No. 31. Amendments beyond that will not be taken until Thursday.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister explain one matter to me? I understand that this Bill admittedly has to have an inadequate Report stage because we must give another place adequate time for consideration. But, my Lords, all noble Lords who have been in this House for some time, and those who have been in another place, know that towards the end of July there is always a heavy rush of legislation before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess; therefore it seems unlikely that we shall be relieving, the other place of a task which they have to fulfil if we allow this Bill to go without proper consideration. It seems to me
the most extraordinary procedure that one of the Houses of Parliament should be asked by Her Majesty's Government to pass, not to put a fine point on it, a half-baked Bill, without Amendments which the Government admit they consider necessary but which they have not had time to prepare, in order to allow it to go to another place which will already be congested when it gets there. Would it not be better for the Government to reconsider the matter now and move the adjournment at this stage, so that they can come forward, in two, three or four weeks' time, whatever the period may be, with the proper Amendments they admit they are now considering, and so let this Chamber, the Upper House, do its job properly and thoroughly before the Bill goes to another place?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can only assume that those responsible for proceedings in another place have taken this into consideration. I believe it is the intention to pass this Bill before the Recess. However, I will tell my right honourable friend what noble Lords have had to say.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister consider moving the adjournment of the debate now, in order that this House can fulfil its functions properly? Otherwise, I really feel that we shall have to ask the House whether it is right that this procedure should be taken, which is virtually—if I may say so, without offence to the Government—an insult to the intelligence and freedom of noble Lords in this House.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, without consultation I regret that I am not prepared to take that step.
On Question, Whether the Report shall be now received?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dynevor, L.

Mills, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton. L. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Hastings, L.

Perth, E.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Margesson, V.

Swinton, E.

Waldegrave, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Monsell, V.

Airedale, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Goschen, V.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst, E.

Gosford, E.

Rea, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Grantchester, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Silkin, L.

Arran, E.

Hall, V.

Soulbury, V.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hampton, L.

Stonham, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Henderson, L.

Strang, L.

Boston, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Som̃ers, L.

Burden, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Summerskill, B.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Swaythling, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kenswood, L.

Twining, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Waleran, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Crathorne, L

Lucan, E.

Williams, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L

Douglas of Barloch, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wimborne, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wise, L.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Lord Mills.)
House adjourned at one minute past four o'clock.