HL Deb 19 March 1963 vol 247 cc1008-23

2.51 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.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Increase of amounts available for improvement grants under Hill Farming Act 1946

1. In section 2 (4) of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (which, as amended by the Livestock Rearing Act 1951 and the Hill Farming Act 1956, limits the aggregate of the amounts of improvement grants that may be paid under the said Act of 1946 to a maximum of twenty-five million pounds, but provides for increasing that maximum by two million pounds)—

(b) for the words from "a maximum" to the end of the words preceding the proviso there shall be substituted the words "a maximum of thirty million pounds"

LORD CHAMPION moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert— (1) In subsection (1) of section one of the Hill Farming Act 1946, twenty years from the commencement of that Act shall be substituted for seventeen years from the commencement thereof as the period within which livestock rearing land improvement schemes may be submitted under that subsection for the approval of the appropriate Minister.

The noble Lord said: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, was not surprised to see this Amendment in the Marshalled List after the discussion we had about this matter on Second Reading. I was glad to see that my remarks about the possible extension of this period received support from the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and from the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. The noble Duke spoke out of his special knowledge as a landlord of upland areas. I should suspect, and I hope, that he is a good landlord. I must admit that in my earlier years I thought that no such animal existed, but I have been converted in the course of the years. Both noble Lords made powerful speeches, it seemed to me, in support of the idea that the time limit for applications under the Acts of 1946 to 1956 for improvement schemes should be extended. I sincerely hope that both noble Lords will find themselves able to-day to support the Amendment which I am now moving.

The purpose of this Amendment is fairly clear: it is to extend the period of the operation of the Acts for a further three years. My second Amendment, which, of course, goes with it, is to provide the necessary money for that period. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, told us, in replying to the Second Reading debate, that hill sheep farmers have had, or will have had by November of this year, seventeen years, and livestock breeders farther down the hill some twelve years, in which to make their applications for grants under the schemes. That may seem to be long enough for anybody to make up his mind about making applications. Nevertheless, one is bound to be worried about the fact that up to now there remains outside the list of applications one-third of the total of hill farms and upland farms from which the farmers might have made application. They have failed to apply.

I think we have to ask ourselves in this connection why they have failed to apply for grants under the very generous terms of the Hill Farm and Livestock Rearing Acts. I must admit that I do not know the answer to that question, and I wonder whether the noble Lord's Department has carried out any research into the reasons for the farmers' failure to so apply. Before ending such a worthwhile piece of legislation, the Minister ought to know why that third, who could hope to gain considerable advantage from such a scheme, had failed to make their applications. I should have thought that that would be a useful piece of research. If it has been done, I have not seen any report of it, and I have followed fairly carefully the reports that have been issued from time to time by his Department.

I venture to think that, if such a survey were made, the results would show that the farmers' attitudes towards borrowing money for these improvements in this country are very similar to those of the farmers in Southern Iowa, where an investigation showed that a group of farmers, who felt that they could profitably increase their capital investment by 70 per cent., gave as their reasons for not so investing: 61.5 per cent., uncertainty; 14.7 per cent., ill-health and/or age; 9.2 per cent., bad to be in debt; 7.3 per cent., no land available to buy or rent, and 7.3 per cent., various other reasons. I tend to think that a survey of the one-third of hill farmers who have so far failed to apply would give very similar reasons to those for not being prepared to borrow the money necessary if they are to embark on schemes of improvement.

If I am right about this, then three-quarters of those who have not applied fall into the "uncertainty" and health or age group. I rather think that the "uncertainty" people and the aged and sick should be lumped together. It is a simple fact in these things that the aged and the sick, more than the young, are afraid and uncertain of the future. Time is bound to remove those who have failed to apply for reasons of uncertainty, ill-health and old age, and the young men who will take their places will be deprived of the opportunities now available, if we do not extend the period of operation of these Acts. These reasons seem to me to be important.

But there is also the reason that I gave on Second Reading—namely, that there has been a long period of very high interest rates, which in itself would cause many of these hill farmers not to make an application, because they felt that high interest rates would be involved. Now we find that interest rates have come down a little and I imagine that some of these hill farmers would be reconsidering their position as a result. The Minister, speaking in Committee in another place on the whole problem of assistance to hill and upland farmers, said: I told the House last May that the Government are giving wider consideration to further assistance to the hill and upland areas. We have been continuing with these schemes for a long time. Perhaps they are exactly the right ones to help the hill and upland areas; perhaps they are not. We are having a survey of this.

I hasten to add that the Minister was speaking on Clause 2 of this present Bill when he said that. I have no wish to misrepresent him. The survey he was talking about may have had relevance only to the subsidies in respect of hill sheep and cattle. But I feel that such a survey must cover the whole field and not a limited aspect of it. He is in the meantime continuing the hill, sheep and cattle subsidies for another four years. What I am asking the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is: might it not be advisable to continue the improvement schemes under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Act for a further period until the survey of which the Minister has spoken is completed? In my Amendment I have included words that would extend the operation for three years; but, of course, I am not wedded to that period, and if the Minister could decide to postpone the ending of this part of the scheme for assistance to these farmers, I should be happy to accept a longer period.

The second Amendment (and I take it that I may discuss them together) is merely a matter of ensuring that if we extend the period for three years there will be money available by way of subsidy to pay the improvement grants under this scheme. It would have been possible for me to quote at some length from the expert Reports extracts stressing the great value that the hill and upland farmers have derived from this important scheme. I mention only two that I have recently re-read—namely, the Report by the Natural Resources Technical Committee on Forestry Agriculture and Marginal Land, which was published in 1957, and the Mid-Wales investigation Report of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-commission. I will not weary the Committee with lengthy quotations from those Reports. It is sufficient to say that both highly praised these schemes and their effect on areas which were at one time heading towards becoming derelict.

It seems to be generally admitted that the nation's money has been well spent on these schemes of assistance to farmers in these upland areas, and I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House, and certainly a tremendous number in the farming community outside, agree that there is a justification for continuing their operation until that one-third which has not yet applied and has had no benefit under the scheme is considerably reduced. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a favourable reply on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I rise to support the noble Lord who has just sat down. I live in an area where this particular type of grant has been extensively used—namely, the hill farming area on the Border. But there are still, as the noble Lord said, some farmers who have not taken advantage of what I think is one of the best agricultural assistance schemes that has been given, certainly to the type of farming of which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has spoken, and which I know well. I have completed a hill-farming scheme, and the assistance given has undoubtedly made an enormous difference. The reason why some farmers have not taken advantage of the scheme is the fact, as the noble Lord said, that some farms are owned by very old people who feel that they cannot cope with all the problems of working a scheme like this—and it is a complicated affair. But when the farm changes hands on their death, the person who takes it on might well want to have a scheme. I can think of two farms at the moment where this has happened, and where I am sure the new people would like to take advantage of this scheme. If it comes to an end, they will not be able to do it in time. I am sure that it would be a great value to the hill-farming industry if a little more latitude were granted by the Minister. This inquiry to which reference has been made might reveal some interesting facts, and it would be of great value to the industry, as well as to the individual farmers, if the scheme could be continued so as to include some of those farmers who have not yet had the initiative to take advantage of the grant.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I rise to support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. It is interesting to reflect on the history of the Hill Farming Act. It was passed in 1946, and in Scotland alone, up to the end of the calendar year 1961, 2,528 schemes had been approved. But, according to the Minister in another place, 50 per cent. of the farms in Scotland that would be eligible have still not made application for grants under the Hill Farming Scheme. This proportion compares with only 10 per cent. in many parts of Wales, where they seem to have been much quicker off the mark, and an average of 33 per cent. over the whole country. Therefore, I think it is fair to deduce that there has been some particular reason inhibiting the farmers in Scotland from applying for grants under the scheme.

I think there are probably two reasons: first, the fact that many of the farms in Scotland are very small; and secondly, that until 1958 (and I speak now as a landlord) it was impossible to get a tenanted farm back, even on the death of the sitting tenant, because he had the right to leave the farm in his will to anyone he wanted. This meant that many of these very small farms remained very small, and, quite rightly, the Department would not consider putting in a hill-farming scheme for a farm which would not be viable at the end of it. This situation has been partly rectified by the 1958 Act, and in many cases two, or even three, farms have been drawn together and now make one farm, to which the Department are prepared to give grants. This has also happened. in the case of owner-occupiers. Many of them have made a bit of money and can now afford to buy or rent some land next door to, or near, the farm which they already own.

There is, therefore, a continuing demand for this type of assistance, and it is interesting to note that in the year 1960, in Scotland alone, 125 schemes were approved, out of 176 applications, while in the year 1961, out of 141 applications 109 schemes were approved. This would seem to show that people in Scotland are still finding this Act of immense benefit. I am afraid that I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but it seems that farmers there have been much more go-ahead in taking advantage of the grants. I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated in Scotland if the Government would agree to an extension, for at any rate three years, of this particular scheme.

3.9 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I hope, and understand, that noble Lords will agree to my speaking to the Amendment to increase the financial provision for livestock rearing land improvement schemes and the Amendment to extend the time for the submission of schemes together, since the considerations that apply are similar in both cases. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who is associated with him in the first Amendment, seek to extend the operation of the Act, so far as the improvement grants are concerned, for a further three years after November, 1963, and to make some additional financial provision for this purpose.

First, let me say that I fully share their concern, and the concern of all noble Lords who have spoken, for the well-being of our hill fanners. We have them in Yorkshire, as well as in other parts of the country. There is no doubt that these improvement grants have been instrumental in rescuing many hill farms from neglect, and even from dereliction, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said. They have done an enormous amount of good already, and by the time that all the work approved or under consideration is completed the majority of our hill farms will have been rehabilitated. I also share noble Lords' sympathy for those farmers who will not, for one reason or another, be able to submit applications by November of this year. I will in a moment or two go into the possible reasons for their having been left out, or stayed out. Nevertheless, I think noble Lords will concede that, however long we extended this legislation, there would still be some few farmers in this position; and we feel that seventeen years in the case of the hill sheep farmers, and twelve years for those in other areas, is a very reasonable time to allow for applications. Indeed, the response to the scheme testifies to this.

By the end of last year, over 12,000 schemes had been approved throughout the United Kingdom, benefiting nearly 14,000 separate holdings and nearly 8 million acres of livestock-rearing land, apart from common grazings. The work approved under those schemes is estimated to cost over £53 million—that is, it is approaching the limit of grant set by the Acts at £27 million. In many parts of the country the great majority of hill farms—probably virtually all those that can meet the economic test of the Acts or be dealt with under joint schemes—are already covered.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked whether we could suggest reasons why the others have not been brought into the benefit of these schemes, and he asked me whether any sort of research had been carried out into this question. I can tell him that in 1954 a survey was carried out by Professor Ellison of farms which were thought to be potentially eligible. Only 20 per cent. of the farmers alleged lack of capital, and about 4 per cent. said that the occupier was too old or too ill. I did not, I am afraid, register in my mind the proportion the noble Lord, Lord Champion, thought was formed by those who were too old or too ill. I think he gave a higher proportion than 4 per cent. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood did not give any proportion, but mentioned two farmers personally known to her. The remainder of those who came under this survey gave a variety of reasons, such as the fact that grants were available under other schemes, or that they were against further investment or putting more of their own money into their farm.

As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I wondered whether he was going to give his own interpretation of this uncertainty. I was seeking in my own mind possible reasons, and it occurred to me that the farmer who gave uncertainty as his reason for not going into one of these schemes, might have felt uncertain of being able to get back his own proportion of the money, even with the assistance of such a scheme. But I think the noble Lord will agree that these schemes were not designed to support the sort of farmer, or farming set-up, which could not regain even the one-half share put into the improvement by the farmer himself.

My noble friend the Duke of Atholl spoke of similar problems in Scotland. In addition to the facts I have given, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland investigated a sample of farms which were potentially eligible but for which no applications had been received. A few—less than 10 per cent.—seemed likely to be the subject of schemes. Many of the rest did not require comprehensive rehabilitation: sufficient assistance was available by other means, such as the Farm Improvement Scheme. In other cases, it would have been uneconomic to try to rehabilitate the land, while some of it was used to a material extent for ineligible activities, such as dairying. There are hard cases. There are people unable to find their one-half of the cost, and tenants whose landlords cannot, or will not, for some reason, co-operate. These form a comparatively small minority, however, and we think that to extend the closing date could not solve their problem.

For those in general Who, for one reason or another, have not taken advantage of these grants, there are now, as I indicated on Second Reading, a number of other grants and subsidies available which provide assistance towards most of the cost of the operations included in these comprehensive schemes. There are the Farm Improvement Scheme; the Small Fanner Scheme; bracken eradication grants; ditching and drainage grants; water supply grants; ploughing grants; silo, fertiliser and lime subsidies; scrub clearance grants; grants from local authorities towards the improvement of dwelling houses, and grants from the Forestry Commission for tree planting. Moreover, in Clauses 10 to 12 of this Bill we are making provision for grassland renovation and winter keep grants, which should help the uplands particularly.

This long and encouraging catalogue of available grants, all available to hill farmers as well as to others, makes one thing plain: that the existence of a deadline for applications in November of this year does not mean that these farmers are returned to the less solicitous era before these grants were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, seventeen years ago. In the meantime, a whole system of new grants, two of them added in this very Bill, has been introduced and placed at their disposal when they meet the tests.

In all the circumstances, I should like to put it to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that, while there is every good reason for us to take this extra financial provision to enable applications to be received for the already extended period announced in 1956, there is no real justification for still further extending the period beyond the dates then announced.

On October 30, 1956, my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn moved in your Lordships' House the Second Reading of the Hill Farming Bill. That was the Bill which extended the schemes we are now discussing up to the present year, adding another seven years of life, and another £5 million, with provision for a further £2 million to the funds available. In his speech on that occasion, my noble friend referred to the fact that up to that time nearly 10,000 schemes had been approved, and that over 1,000 more were under consideration. In the years since then, as was foreseen at the time, the picture has changed, and the need has inevitably diminished in proportion to the increasing number who have already benefited from what was intended as a once-and-for-all scheme.

I do not want to weary your Lordships with very involved figures, but in order to illustrate what I mean, I should like to point out that in 1957–58, the total of schemes approved was 529, and that during the ensuing years the figure for applications approved was steadily reduced: to 446, 472, 258 and, in the last year, 1961–62, to 101. What that shows to me as the prospect ahead is that, if the scheme were further extended, there might be 50, 30 or 20 farms a year making application, some of which would qualify, some of which would not, and it seems to me that that does not constitute a national need. Where a need is constituted it is covered by the other grants which are available. I concede and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Champion—and I am not trying to put words into his mouth, or purposes into his mind, which he did not state—that he is not suggesting that the scheme should be extended indefinitely; he is mentioning a period of three years. But, in fact, we do feel, after considerable thought, that this was a scheme which had to come to an end at some point and we think that point should not be further put off beyond the date of November, 1963, the present year, which was agreed upon by Parliament in 1956. I sympathise, as I say, with the noble Lord's purposes, but I think they will be met by other means.

3.22 p.m.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

While the noble Lord has made the best possible case he could for bringing the hill farming schemes to an end after November of this year, I do not think he made a very good case. My noble friend Lord Champion mentioned the question of the rates of interest over the last five, six or seven years. They obviously must have been a deterrent to some might-have-been applicants for these grants. The noble Lord has just said in his almost final words that there is no further need for extending these schemes because there are so many other grants, and he enumerated six, seven, eight or nine of them. If I remember the Hill Farming Act correctly, under the terms of that measure any one or all of 23 different items could be dealt with in a hill farming scheme—23 items all told. Quite obviously, very few single farms would require 23 forms of improvement, but they were all there. I suggest to the noble Lord that if the opportunity were still available—whether or not it should be is, of course, the question at issue—the general individual would think in terms of one scheme applying to one Act of Parliament, and not half-a-dozen different schemes applying item by item in a sort of bits-and-pieces way.

I think my noble friend Lord Champion made out his case when he suggested—he was not tied down to three more years beyond November, 1963; if one would do so much the better—that at least the noble Lord and his right honourable friend should have a survey conducted to see why it is that 50 per cent. of hill farmers in Scotland have not taken the opportunity provided for them. There must be some reason if in Wales 70 per cent. of potential candidates for grants applied and in Scotland only 50 per cent. Taking the country as a whole there is an average of 66 per cent. It is quite obvious, therefore, that there must be some fairly strong reasons why so many in Scotland and, for that matter, in some parts of England and Wales, have failed to take advantage of the facilities afforded. I should have thought, therefore, that a survey which could have been conducted fairly quickly would be the guide that any Minister would require before he finally and definitely closed down the scheme.

It has been said that hill farmers who have taken advantage of the facilities afforded to them of the 50 per cent. grants have benefited very materially as a result of the scheme. It is not only the hill farmers who have benefited from these schemes. The lowland farmers also have benefited because of the breeding of livestock on the hillside which have been finally fed and sold by the lowland farmers who have a plentiful supply of feeding-stuffs. Therefore, to think in terms of 8 million acres having been improved is to associate the present agricultural position in this country with what it was, say, in 1945 before the Hill Farming Act came into existence. The increase in the value of livestock production to-day compared to what it was in 1945 is enormous and the hill farmers have contributed quite sizeably to that result.

Therefore, I think the noble Lord and his right honourable friend would do well to consider what seems to be the tone of this debate in your Lordships' House. The spokesmen and spokeswoman so far in the Committee are unanimous that the scheme should be extended; all four of us have said so. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord to invite his right honourable friend to have another look at this question between now and another stage to see whether or not they cannot set in motion a survey of England, Scotland and Wales and get the best advice and guidance one can from that source to find out to what extent, for instance, high rates of interest have prevented so many hill farmers from taking advantage of the grants that have been made.

The noble Lord has mentioned other schemes and the livestock rearing scheme, but there is a difference. After all, the grant under the 1946 Act is 50 per cent.; under the 1951 Act only 33 per cent.; and the grants available for this and that all vary. But the hill farming scheme is the best—as one would expect, since I was responsible for it! Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not hesitate to invite his right honourable friend to look at the matter from the point of view of the three speeches made, apart from mine, and let us get real information, and if there is any possibility of extending the activities that have gone on so far I think it would be well worth while.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Before the noble Lord replies to that, may I just ask him whether he would consider this? I am sure he will agree that there are certain snags to providing grants under the various other schemes he has mentioned; for instance, local authority housing grants are limited to £400. If he could get a farmhouse completely renovated, as required by the Hill Farming Act, for £800, I myself should be delighted to employ his contractors. I only wish he could give me their name. Could he consider allowing people to put in a sort of promissory note before November 5 saying that they will be undertaking schemes on their farms when certain things happen, such as when they are able to get an increased grant because the farmer next door on whose land they have first refusal either dies or gives up farming, or when they acquire additional land which has been promised by their landlord when an old tenant retires? This, I think, would save a lot of trouble to both his Department and the people concerned in making the applications, otherwise I think there will be a flood of applications just before November 5, not one of which is intended to be taken seriously and which will have to be altered in three or four years' time when people are able to see the way things are going.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I require the leave of the House to speak again, but whatever I say will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, referred to the fact that there were reasons why some farmers have not yet applied and that these reasons would still exist after the ending of this scheme in November of this year. We agree that there will always be reasons, however long the schemes are kept in being, whether for the three years visualised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, or indefinitely. But, after study, we cannot feel that the reasons they represent build up into a national need, and we are positive that the individual needs which they do represent will be met by other schemes.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said in reply to that point, which I made earlier, that one scheme is better than a number of schemes. In fact, the only important item of the 23 listed in the Act to which he referred, which is not covered by any other, is the restoration of fences. Moreover, some of the people who are reluctant to undertake schemes give as their reason that their comprehensive requirement is too onerous and they prefer to make single improvements. I think this partly answers one of the questions raised by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I said also that we foresaw that there might be in an extension of the scheme 50 or 30 or 20 applications continuing as far ahead as we could see, some of them approved and some of them qualifying arid some not.

I did not to back up my point read out further figures, but perhaps in view of the fact that this point has been made again I will do so. I give the figures of the diminishing number of approvals of schemes, diminishing, that is, from 529 in 1957–58 to 101 during last year. There is another factor involved and that is that the proportion represented by approvals as against applications is growing smaller and smaller; out of 716 schemes submitted in 1957–58, 529 were accepted. The more recent figure is 1961–62, 448 submitted, 101 qualified. That, I think, makes the point that I made, that in fact the need for the scheme is dying out.

My noble friend the Duke of Atholl mentioned the possibility of promissory notes. That is rather too complicated and esoteric a matter for me to take up now, but I promise to study it and to write to him. There are obvious difficulties, which he will appreciate. I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, to carry his suggestion to my right honourable friend that a further survey might be timely and appropriate. I can assure him that every word he speaks in your Lordships' House, just as every word he spoke in another place, is read by my right honourable friend with great interest.

LORD CHAMPION

While the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has given us a very good answer we cannot regard it as a wholly satisfactory one. I am bound to say that I thought the point his noble friend the Duke of Atholl made was one to which he had not really applied his mind; that was, that the effects of the change of the laws of inheritance of farm tenancies in Scotland have not yet been fully felt. That seems to me to be a very powerful argument he might take into consideration, and one that I should have thought might have persuaded him that there was considerable merit in this Amendment. I notice that the noble Lord shares our concern about the hill and upland farmers, but sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. I should have thought it wise to give the few that he talked about who would be left out (and they are not really a few; they are some one-third of the total number of hill farmers) this further period. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say there had been a careful examination of the progress of this scheme by Professor Ellison. But I think I am right in saying that this was done within the Department, and the report was never issued outside.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am afraid that I am not certain. But so far as I know, it was not published.

LORD CHAMPION

I had never seen it, and I think at that time I was interested in all the reports coming from the Department. From 1959 to 1962, I certainly got out of touch, as a result of circumstances quite beyond my own control. But all the grants, it seems to me, that will still be available to hill farmers (and they were catalogued by the noble Lord) however valuable, do not match up to the value of the schemes possible under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. I feel that the arguments that have been adduced by my noble friend, and by others who have spoken, ought to have persuaded the noble Lord to take this back and consult the Minister of Agriculture, and to give us some undertaking that this matter would be looked at again, with a view to giving us on Report stage, an Amendment to the provisions contained in the Bill.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I will naturally pass all the views of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend but it would be misleading if I held out any hope that he would consider that they overbore the points that I raised myself. I dealt with all the logic of the noble Lord's argument, but he did not in turn, refer to a point I made: that there exists a certain preference among a number of hill farmers, and an increasing proportion of those left are inevitably prejudiced against the hill farming schemes, simply because they are comprehensive schemes and they prefer to carry out piecemeal improvements or selected improvements. A statement is due to be made now, and I would ask the noble Lord, without, I am afraid, giving him any promise that my right honourable friend will act on his advice, to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

Having regard to the noble Lord's last remarks, which I cannot regard as wholly satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

A statement is due to be made by my noble friend Lord Chesham, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.