Lords Sitting of 13 April 1964

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

PREVENTIVE DETENTION AND HABITUAL CRIMINALS' SENTENCES
2.36 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state their intentions regarding the future of the system of Preventive Detention; and whether, pending the introduction of any legislation that may be necessary, they will issue instructions regarding the sentencing of habitual criminals.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I regret that I cannot at present add to the reply that I gave to the noble Lord on January 21. It is not for the Government to give instructions to the courts about sentencing.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last Sunday week the Sunday Telegraph published on its front page an account which had to be read twice before it was realised that it was not an official statement by the Home Secretary, alleging that the Home Secretary had come to a decision to abolish preventive detention? Can the noble Lord say whether that was pure imagination? Also, is he aware of the extent to which this causes distress among men in prison who have written to me and have already been waiting fifteen months for a decision by the Government on the recommendation of the Committee?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am aware of the article in the Sunday Telegraph. It was not issued by my right honourable friend; he had nothing to do with that particular article. I would per-
276
haps add here that, as I explained to the noble Lord in January, we recognise the force of the criticisms which the Advisory Council made on preventive detention, but before we decide to abolish it we must be satisfied that we have something better to put in its place.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that it is now more than two years since the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction asking his fellow Judges not to pass sentences of preventive detention but sentences appropriate to the crime committed? Is he further aware that, despite that practice direction of more than two years ago, Judges are still passing long sentences of preventive detention for trivial offences? Can the noble Lord not hold out some hope either of an early decision by the
Government on this point, or of some further action to prevent the passing of sentences which are obviously against the views of the Lord Chief Justice?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I must again say that sentences are nothing to do with Her Majesty's Government; they are a matter entirely for the court. I would add that this matter is under continuous examination. We want to get it right, and I hope that an announcement will not be very far off. It will certainly be made as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I take up the last words of my noble relative opposite? He agrees, I know, with my noble friend Lord Stonham that his expert advisers have expressed the view that preventive detention should be abolished, and that this view has been under consideration by the Government for a very long time. Those are two points which I think are acknowledged on both sides of the House. The situation has changed since my noble friend asked his first Question, because now the Government are assured of at least another six months of office—I say, "at least" as I think on both sides of the House we can go as far as that. Can the noble Lord say that within that period of time at least a decision will be taken on the advice of the Home Office's expert advisers, and that a sympathetic view will be taken of the attitude of all

277
penal reformers, which I think is in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Council?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am afraid that I can only repeat that an announcement will be made as soon as a decision is arrived at; and that will be as soon as possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord hold out the prospect that that will be during the life of this Parliament, or does it mean that the Government cannot possibly take a decision, even when they have this very strong recommendation by their own Advisory Committee, headed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will again repeat that no announcement will be made until we are quite certain that we have this matter right. As soon as we are certain that we have it right, an announcement will be made, and that will be as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
2.40 p.m.
Report received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Price stability of imported products]:
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving to leave out Clause 1, I do not by any means oppose Clause 1 on principle; in fact, I am strongly in favour of it. On the Committee stage we found it rather difficult to understand exactly what Her Majesty's Government had in mind in the machinery of operation, and it appeared to be a little disquieting that grain trade merchants, and so on, should not be given some clear idea of how this is to operate. For that reason, I have put down this Amendment to leave out the clause, and I will ask a few questions of my noble friend, hoping that he will in due course answer them.
So far as one can make out, the system is going to be that certain countries will agree to limit their sendings of grain to this country, and they have been called the "co-operating countries"; the rest of the world will be called "non-
278
co-operating countries"; and one would like to know which of the principal grain suppliers in the past are "non-cooperatives".
There is apparently going to be a levy to bring the local prices up to minimum import prices prescribed in this country. It appears that there may be two sorts of levy. One does not know what grains are going to be concerned. Will it be all grains or just the grains we grow in this country? I presume, at any rate, it will be all the grains we grow in this country, plus the flour made from them. Will the levy be worked out on a price level ascertained from individual countries, or will there be some collective average, or will there be a different system for the non-co-operators and for the co-operators? Will the levies be altered daily, in conformity with the fluctuations of the market, or weekly or monthly or yearly? On the answer to that question, of course, depends whether trade is going to be feasible or not feasible in parcels of grain from the non-co-operating countries. At what stage will the levy be payable? Will it be at the conclusion of the bargain, the date of the entry of the steamer into port, or of the landing of the cargo? Will it be the first part of the cargo or the last part of the cargo, because if the levy varies day by day there will probably be a difference.
I have told my noble friend in advance about these questions, and the answers will be of great interest to many British and foreign merchants who are in the habit of selling parcels of grain to this country. In this country there are, practically speaking, only three big consumers: Ranks, Spillers and the "Coops". But there are numerous merchants throughout the world who can and do keep them supplied with parcels of grain and flour. I am looking forward to my noble friend's reply, which I hope will be clear and concise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Hawke.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should, first of all, like to apologise for the fact that I am standing here and not my noble friend Lord St. Oswald who has up to now been in charge of this Bill. Unfortunately, he is suffering from an indisposition and is not here. I am glad to hear from my noble friend

279
Lord Hawke that he does not really want to omit Clause 1 at all, because were that not the case I am quite sure my noble friend Lord St. Oswald would take quite a long time to recover. What my noble friend Lord Hawke wants is an explanation, and I will endeavour to give to your Lordships an explanation as to how Clause 1 will work. It is, if I might say so, a necessarily complicated procedure; it is complicated to understand and extremely complicated to explain. So, in view of that proviso, I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I do my best to explain this clause.
The object of it is to put into practice the Government's intention of providing minimum import price arrangements for cereals and cereal products, which, together with the standard quantity arrangements which were announced in the Annual Price Review, will, it is hoped, introduce a greater measure of market stability and help to close the open end of the Exchequer liability.
The Government have been in consultation with the main suppliers of cereals, and reached agreement in principle with them some time ago. Four countries, Australia, Canada, the United States of America and Argentina, in fact supply 80 to 85 per cent. of the cereals and cereal products which we import, and we hope that a number of our smaller suppliers will also be able to conclude agreements with us. Those countries who agree to co-operate with us will be exempt from any general levy which we may place on imports when necessary to maintain our minimum import prices, and it will be the responsibility of the Governments of those countries which have been in agreement with us to see that, so far as practicable, sales from their countries will not fall below the minimum import prices which we set.
If for any reason the level of offering prices of a particular commodity from a particular co-operating country should fall below our minimum import price and imports were coming in from that country below this figure, we should reserve the right to impose a levy, called a country levy, on imports from that particular country. For instance, if the minimum import price of barley were
280
£20 but one co-operating country was sending it in at £19, then we should reserve the right to impose a country levy of £1 per ton on imports of barley from that particular country. But I must emphasise that we very much hope that this will not be necessary, because the whole object of the arrangement is to avoid precisely this: imports coming in at prices beneath the minimum import price. We are expecting the agreements with the four major suppliers (Australia, Canada, the United States of America and Argentina) to be signed this week, and a White Paper will shortly be presented to Parliament giving the texts of these arrangements. But the Government, as I have already said, are ready to conclude similar agreements with other exporting countries who are also prepared and able to give undertakings to observe our minimum import prices.
May I turn to the method of dealing with imports from countries who, for one reason or another, do not sign agreements with us? There will be a general levy imposed on all imports from those countries which will be related to the difference between the lowest representative prices on the world market and the minimum import price. The world prices of a particular commodity will, of course, from time to time vary, and so also will the levy, and I think it right to point out that the levy will not be altered to take account of minor day-to-day fluctuations, but only when there is a significant movement in the level of world prices. In other words, we should not anticipate altering the levy when the world price moved a few shillings either way, but only when there was a definite shift in one direction.
To give your Lordships an example, if the minimum import price of barley is £20 per ton and the lowest representative world price is £18, we shall impose a levy of £2 on all barley coming into this country from countries other than those with whom we have an agreement irrespective of the price at which the individual consignments are purchased. If the levy is £2 a ton and a particular consignment from a non-co-operating country is purchased at £19, the total cost to the purchaser will be £21. The order which will set out the levy arrangements, and which the Government will present to Parliament, will also provide for the imposition of

281
a consignment levy. This may be imposed on any individual cargo which is priced, when imported, below the minimum import price. But the intention is to use this power only in exceptional circumstances.
Now, my Lords, importers often buy forward, and an importer may wish to buy in April some barley for delivery in, say, September; and for this situation there is special machinery. This system of placing forward contracts is, of course, an essential part of the cereal trade; an importer may contract several months forward for his imports, and it is with this in mind that the Government intend to provide these special arrangements. An individual importer who concluded a firm contract to import goods, which are not, however, to be shipped to the United Kingdom until, say, three months later, may register that contract with the Ministry of Agriculture at a maximum rate of levy which will take into account the offering prices quoted for the month in which the goods are to be loaded on to the ship in the exporting country.
Thus, assuming the arrangements were already in force, an importer buying to-day for shipment in July could register his contract at a firm maximum rate of levy related to to-day's offering prices for shipment in July. When the goods were eventually imported, the levy payable to Customs would not exceed the maximum rate that will be quoted on the certificate which will be issued when the contract is first registered. This means that, if offering prices had fallen between the time of purchase and the date of import, the importer who had bought forward and. registered the contract would be protected against paying this higher rate. These arrangements, which have been subject to detailed discussion with representatives of the trade, will enable traders to continue to contract forward in the firm knowledge that they can, if they wish, register their contracts at the quoted forward rate of levy.
The Customs and Excise authorities will be responsible for the collection of these levies, and they will be made, not at the time of purchase, but at the time when the clearance papers are handed to the Customs authorities at the ports in the same way as for Customs
282
duties. The levy will be paid by the person who at the time of presenting the papers is the owner of the consignment. I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time over this rather complicated and confusing matter. I can only hope that I have succeeded in throwing some rays of light on it and not confusing the issue yet further.
2.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with the noble Earl in regretting the absence of his noble friend Lord St. Oswald, and particularly the reason for that absence. I hope he will soon be back with us fully restored to health. I would also thank the noble Earl for the most valuable and clear answers he has given to the questions addressed to him by Lord Hawke, to whom we are indebted for having put them. The noble Earl has now given a good deal of information which I think may be most useful to the people chiefly concerned. The only other comment I would make is that the fact that these questions have to be asked, and that the noble Earl himself had to admit, before he started to answer them, that this clause was extremely complicated to understand and to explain, reinforces all the arguments which in Committee we on this side of the House adduced against this particular clause. In my belief, it will not only fail in its object but will cause a great deal of concern and, in some ways, disruption in this industry.
There are two points, however, arising from the noble Earl's answer that I should like to put to him. The first is: What is the safeguard in the arrangements against the possibility of secret discounts or some kind of secret drawing-back which, if it were possible to arrange, would completely nullify the arrangements explained by the noble Earl? The second question is: Do I understand him aright with regard to the arrangements for the non-cooperating countries? He explained that the general levy to be imposed would be the difference between the lowest world price and our import price, and that it would be imposed on the imports of a non-co-operating country, irrespective of the actual price at which the grain was being imported into this country. If so, that could well mean that a non-

283
co-operating country could be exporting grain to this country (to quote his example) at £20, or even £22, a ton for barley, yet would still incur the import levy of £2 if the lowest world price at that time was £18 a ton. If that is correct—and I notice that the noble Earl nods his head—it would seem to be a most unjust imposition on the non-co-operating country, which is not cutting prices or attempting to sell below our import price; and indeed an imposition on importers in this country and on housewives and consumers, who presumably would have, unnecessarily, to pay much higher prices. Perhaps the noble Earl will deal with those two points.
2.58 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his extremely clear and concise answer—if I may say so, much clearer and much more concise than sometimes emanates from the Ministry of Agriculture. But there are one or two points that arise out of it. First of all, in the cooperating countries how does a non-totalitarian Government arrange that its citizens do not sell grain below a certain price to this country? I do not understand that. Then, when it comes to deciding on an average world price for the non-co-operating countries, I think it will be difficult to get anything like a true price, because the grains from different countries vary so much; there are different types, different qualities, and, indeed, different dirt-contents, all of which has to be taken into account. I have no doubt that in discussions with the trade some way out will be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made a point about what he called "secret discounts". I should say that under this arrangement one would be at a considerable advantage if one has buying houses abroad and a home firm in this country; because, presumably, the places abroad will always invoice the grain at the British minimum price; so nobody will pay a levy. However, what my noble friend has said has thrown a great light on these matters, and I have no doubt will be studied with great interest by the people who have to try to make their living by working under them. I beg leave to
284
withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Grant for improving efficiency of small production businesses]:
3.1 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in the proviso in subsection (6), after "Provided" to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be to your Lordships' convenience if we take with this Amendment the Amendment to line 34 which is on the same related point. It will be recalled that I moved precisely the same Amendment in Committee stage, when there was considerable discussion which took up some ten columns of Hansard. I make no apology for coming back to the discussion now, because the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, agreed at that time that there was misunderstanding on the point and he invited further discussion.
This Amendment is cast in quite wide terms. At one end of the scale it includes the single programme which might be no more than the sum of one, two or three individual programmes which could equally well have been submitted separately. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, dealt with this in Committee in these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 53), cols. 988–9]:
"I understand that he"—
that refers to me—
"assumes that two or more growers with separate businesses may put forward a plan jointly for purposes of grant, while continuing to be separate for all other purposes, and that these businesses as a whole shall not cease to be regarded as small horticultural businesses because they are above the maximum limit for a small business that may be prescribed in the scheme."
Then the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, went on:
"I cannot see that such an arrangement would be of any advantage to growers eligible under the scheme, for they would be perfectly free, without this Amendment, to put forward proposals for joint co-operation with any other growers as part of their business plan and, provided these proposals were approved, they would each be entitled to the business grant. I think that I can underline this for the noble Lord by saying that, if in the separate plans they put forward there were an element of co-operation with another grower, this would not exclude them."
That makes it clear that the Bill as it stands covers the type of production

285
scheme where there is virtually no surrender of sovereign rights over tenancy or ownership of land. It is a case where each small man obtains a grant and then a number of them club together in some sort of joint: production purpose.
I understand that the Bill does not need amendment to cover that kind of co-operation. That is satisfactory, but it is not nearly as much as I am asking for in the Amendment which, if accepted, would cover even a large-scale co-operative production effort involving the surrender of the tenancy or the ownership of the land which each member contributed to the co-operative effort—not the whole of a tenant's land, but such part of it as he contributed to the whole effort. It is precisely this type of cooperation, which I regard as full cooperation, which is likely to produce the biggest progress in production, the highest returns and, in all probability, the lowest costs. But unfortunately, according to my understanding of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in Committee, this highly desirable full-scale co-operative production scheme would not be eligible for grant because it would be regarded as big business, although it would comprise a number of small businesses each of which of itself would be eligible for grant if put forward separately.
The position is that, unless the Government accept the Amendment which I am now moving, we shall be presented with the anomalous position that growers will be discouraged from doing in combination what they are being encouraged to do as individuals. Surely that is an absurd and deplorable state of affairs. It becomes more anomalous when one considers that under a number of Acts, including the 1960 Horticulture Act, the Government are providing financial aid to assist the farmers to act in combination in processing, grading, distribution and marketing of produce. For example, what I am now asking for in production schemes is already being done in the provision of grain-driers, where the Government are providing grants even in cases where as many as twenty growers come together for the provision of a grain-drier. We are now asking in these Amendments for the same thing, not for the co-operative use of apiece of machinery, but for the co-operative use of a
286
piece of land in a common productive effort.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, justified the refusal of grant when growers combined their holdings into one business and thus brought it above the maximum qualifying acreage, on the grounds that his Department had been obliged to refuse grant to other partnerships formed before. Yet the same afternoon, half an hour later, he used precisely the contrary argument when refusing, my plea for a grant to the Gloucestershire Marketing Society. He argued that when a co-operative had already spent its own money, on purposes which will be grant-aid-able under this Bill, they had no complaint if they did not now get a grant.
As I understand it, there is only one point of substance in the Government's case against this Amendment. It is that in the 1960 Act which I have mentioned, and in the case of the arrangements for the co-operative provision of grain-driers, there is no special small producer grant as there is in this Bill; and that a co-operative with many members in a production scheme is a big producer and therefore ineligible for the special small producer grants which are a special feature of the present Bill. That is at least an arguable point, although I do not accept it, particularly as the benefits likely to flow from co-operative production schemes will be not only far greater than anything which can be achieved individually, but far greater than the collective packing and distribution schemes which are already approved.
It seems to me that what the Government are shying away from is cooperative ownership or tenancy of land. Therefore, I should like the noble Earl to tell me the position, under the Bill as it now stands, in respect to grant for a co-operative production scheme where there was no surrender of tenancy but where the total of land committed voluntarily to the scheme exceeded the maximum acreage for grant. I have in mind a scheme whereby, for example, a number of smallholders who are strawberry and fruit growers on more or less adjacent land wish to get together in a joint production scheme which offers

287
grant advantages not only in production but in enabling them to undertake collectively their own packing and distribution.
Therefore, I should like to know whether that kind of scheme—which is a scheme where any number of producers, each of whom qualified individually and each of whom retained the ownership or tenancy of his land, nevertheless contracted to devote all or part of their land to an approved collective purpose, which could be a joint or cooperative production scheme—would qualify for grant if what they proposed to do was reasonably certain to improve the productivity of their land and the viability of their holdings? The noble Earl will appreciate that I am assuming a scheme where the total amount of land committed to it was above the maximum acreage laid down, and I was precise in my definition of the kind of scheme I have in mind. In my reading of the present Bill, such a scheme would be covered in the Bill as it now stands, and if the noble Earl can confirm this it will go some way to meet my point. I still hope that, in addition, the noble Earl will accept the Amendment and thus take what I think will be a decisive step towards making the advantages of co-operative production freely available to small producers throughout the country. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("Provided") insert ("(a)")—(Lord Stonham.)
3.12 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for putting so clearly the precise purpose he has in mind in moving this Amendment. He explained in Committee that his intention was to assist and encourage co-operative production. The noble Lord also said—at least I certainly gathered this from him—that he felt that the Government were not assisting co-operatives in this respect. I should like to explain the purpose of this provision. This particular clause is designed to help the small horticultural producer, and if he can produce a scheme for improving his farm business which it is considered by the Ministry, and by the National Agricultural Advisory Service, will be an improvement to his
288
existing business, then he will be eligible for a grant as a small producer. If the small producers join together and, as it were, surrender their rights, to become one big co-operative unit, then they are no longer small producers and will not be, individually or collectively, entitled to the grant.
Where, however, they are small producers, and retain the identity of being small producers, but in the course of their production take part in co-operation, then they are still small producers and will accordingly be eligible for the grant. In that respect, I think I can give the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the assurance which he seeks—namely, that if a group of growers retained the ownership or the tenancies of the land they occupied, even though they contracted with one another to devote it to a collective production scheme, they would qualify for grant if they were individually eligible and if the common production pattern would contribute to increasing the efficiency of their individual businesses. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Earl. The explanation entirely answers the question I put to him. In my view, it will be of considerable value to the small producers and, I hope, of some assistance in getting them to work together for joint production schemes in co-operatives. In that belief, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses
6.—(1) A grant under section 4 of this Act or section 1(2) of the Horticulture Act 1960 (as amended by section 5 of this Act) shall not be made to an association whose business comprises the marketing of horticultural produce grown by its members unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the constitution of the association contains provision designed to secure that a sufficient proportion of the horticultural produce grown by a member is made available by him for marketing by the association.
3.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "is satisfied that the constitution of the association" and insert "having regard to the purposes

289
of the association is satisfied that its constitution". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which proposes to modify the terms on which the Minister has to be satisfied with regard to the constitution of a co-operative. Here again I am taking a second bite at the cherry, in the hope that this time I can convince the Government of the need for this Amendment.
During the Committee stage, when we discussed the same point, we gained some comfort from the Government reply to my request for a definition of the words "sufficient proportion of production". The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 53), col. 1004]:
" I think the answer is that the society itself would decide and would have to define it, and of course the definition would have to be approved by the Minister. But I do not think this is a very difficult achievement to imagine. The Minister has no intention of requiring all co-operatives to have the same kind of constitution.
" Moreover, granted the constitution as a whole satisfies the Minister, he has no intention of insisting that any or all sanctions shall be applied in every case."
I think that that last sentence from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, makes the whole case for the Amendment; because in nine cases out of ten what would be submitted to the Minister would be a provision empowering the society to enter into agreement with its members, even though the power exists without the necessity of specially providing for it.
What would be wholly unreasonable, and what the Bill as it stands seems to require, is that detailed marketing arrangements, which may run to a good many pages and may need to be modified several times—perhaps half a dozen times—during a single season, would have to be laid before, and approved by, a special general meeting of the society; and, also, that every change would have to be approved by the Minister—at least, that is my interpretation of the clause as it now stands. Yet this is apparently what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, envisaged when he said, in col. 1005:
" It requires merely the agreement of a special meeting of the association."
The noble Lord used the word "merely" —for something that will be required half a dozen times a year!
It will be necessary for each society to send out notices to all the members, with the required number of days' notice, then to call a meeting to approve a provision regarding a modification of the marketing arrangements, and then to submit it to the Minister! That would be an intolerable situation, not only because by the time they had called the meeting and got the provision through the need for the change which they wanted to approve would probably have gone, but also, because it would be intolerable for the society and its members and, I should have thought, for Ministry officials if they were to be given responsibility, however small, for intervening in the commercial arrangements between a society and its members. The Government must surely agree that the extent to which agreements are to be enforced, and the circumstances in which they may be waived, are matters for the society alone. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said during the Committee stage, that we had read rather more into the clause than was envisaged. That is some comfort, but I would gladly exchange that comfort for a form of words which leaves less doubt of the Government's intentions in the minds of those who wish to set up producer cooperative market schemes.
It is not only the wording of the clause hut also its intentions which are obscure, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us precisely what the Government hope to achieve by it. They can surely scarcely be regarding the clause in its present form as a means to underwrite Treasury grant, because if that had been the case, they would have introduced it in the original Bill and not have brought it in at a comparatively late stage. Or perhaps the Government feel that the societies would like to be a little tougher with their members in the matter of agreements than they can at present afford to be, and that this clause will give them the chance to adopt a stricter policy. If that is the case, it would be somewhat unusual because, although legislation often creates a stick, Governments do not often give other people the power to wave it. I hope the noble Earl will be able to clear up these doubts during his reply; and, best of all, that he will finally remove all doubt by accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, leave out ("is satisfied that the constitution of the association") and insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to accept the first part of the noble Lord's olive branch, even if I cannot accept the whole of it. I shall certainly do my best to explain what the Government's intention is, but I hope, nevertheless, that at the end of my explanation he will feel he can accept my views and my explanation, and not press his Amendment. Of course, the noble Lord has spoken with obvious understanding about the range of co-operative activities and the complexities of some of the cooperative associations, but I think I should first of all repeat what my noble friend Lord St. Oswald said previously: that we, too, fully recognise that there are many differences between individual societies. It was because of this that the clause was worded in a way which leaves quite open the kind of provision that might be required in the constitution of an individual association. The clause says that there must be a provision in the constitution designed to secure that a sufficient proportion of the members' produce is made available to the association, and that the Minister must be satisfied with that provision. That is essential. But the form and scope of the provision are left open. As I have said, this is because there are such differences in individual circumstances, and it allows the sensible administration of the clause in the kind of cases which the noble Lord has in mind.
My right honourable friend will be satisfied, in practice, with the existence in the constitutions of co-operatives of clauses which will empower, but not necessarily require, them to discipline their members in one or other of the ways necessary to secure sufficient produce. He is prepared, for the time being, to rely on the willingness of the co-operatives to take sensible and vigorous action to implement those clauses of the constitutions. In other words, my right honourable friend feels that initially he can rely on the co-operatives to give effect, in one way or another, to the intention of Parliament, that normally their members shall have positive and definite incentives to treat the cooperatives loyally. I hope that, with that
292
assurance the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Earl because I feel he has been able to go a good deal further in the assurances he has given than was possible for his noble friend during the Committee stage. I think the assurances we have just heard will give considerable satisfaction to the present and prospective producer cooperatives, and in that belief I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Grants towards fulfilling guarantees of bank loans]:
3.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "to such" to insert "general". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, which is to Clause 9, which sets out the conditions under which the Government will provide £100,000 a year towards expenditure which the finance corporations may incur in guaranteeing loans which the banks may make to producers. It will be recalled that during the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, made the welcome announcement that, as the result of representations which had been made in another place, the Government had altered their original intention of making the entire sum of £100,000 available to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and had decided instead that 10 per cent. of it should be available to the Agricultural Finance Federation as cover for expenditure or losses on guarantees which they may give on loans to horticulturists. He made it clear that the two bodies, the A.C.C. and the A.F.F., would have the same status and would be grant-aided bodies acting in parallel under the same conditions—and I would ask the noble Earl to note those actual words: that these two finance corporations would be grand-aided bodies acting in parallel under the same conditions.
That is all very satisfactory, but, unfortunately, in replying to an Amendment which was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Peddie, Lord St. Oswald used words, in column 1010, which appeared to indicate that the

293
funds available to lie Finance Federation could be used only in connection with guarantees of loans to cooperatives. Indeed. I understand that, whereas the Agricultural Credit Corporation will be allowed to guarantee both individual growers and co-operatives, the Finance Federation will be restricted to guarantees to co-operatives only.
If that is so, it would be quite wrong because it would be contrary to the promise that both bodies would be acting in parallel under the same conditions. It would be unfair to the Agricultural Finance Federation and contrary to their current business practices, which are by no means confined to co-operative business. I understand that the Finance Federation do considerable business with growers other than co-operative producers; and it is imperative, surely, that no artificial obstruction should be placed in the way of growers who may wish to use their services under the Bill. I submit that the insertion of the word "general", which this Amendment proposes, would achieve the desired object because it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Minister to impose one set of conditions in one case and another set of conditions in another. In other words, we are anxious (and I hope the Government are anxious) to avoid any semblance of discrimination between these two bodies, which the Government have already said should have the same treatment and work under parallel conditions. I point out that the Amendment, if accepted, would not prevent the imposition of different conditions where the circumstances themselves justified the difference, but the power to discriminate would no longer be exercisable in an arbitrary way, as it can be as the Bill stands at present.
If the noble Earl tells me that the Amendment is unnecessary because he can give an assurance that I have been misinformed, and that it is the Government's intention that both the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Agricultural Finance Federation shall be free to guarantee both the co-operatives and the individual growers loans, then I will withdraw my Amendment with pleasure. But if he cannot give me that assurance, then I would insist that the Amendment is very necessary
294
indeed because it would, in my view, limit the Minister's powers to act arbitrarily and, as I think, wrongly and unjustly. I beg to move.
Amendment move
Page 8, line 27, after ("such") insert ("general").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to start by reiterating the promise given to the House by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald on both the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill. This was that the Government recognise that the Agricultural Finance Federation, catering particularly for the financial needs of co-operatives, has a part to play in these arrangements and that the Government have consequently decided that 10 per cent. of the funds available shall be allocated to the Federation. This offer will naturally be subject to conditions aimed at protecting public funds, but the main conditions will be on a par with those already accepted by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. But I must make it clear that the Government's offer to the Federation will extend only to grant-aid towards the honouring of guarantees extended by the banks in respect of borrowings by co-operatives—that is, co-operatives as distinct from individual growers. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, implied in his remarks that the sum of £10,000 per annum would be insufficient for the Federation's dealings under these arrangements—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl. I did not say anything that could possibly be interpreted in that way either by implication or otherwise. I made no reference to the amount in my remarks. I solely drew attention to the right of the A.F.F. to be able to guarantee loans both to co-operatives and to growers.
EARL FERRERS: I apologise if I have misrepresented the noble Lord; that is the last thing I would wish to do. But I think he would not differ from me if I say that this sum as such, the 10 per cent., should be quite sufficient if the Federation is to deal with co-operatives only, because about 6 per cent. of horticultural marketings are marketed or at present handled by the co-operatives. We accept that there is some need to provide an alternative

295
channel for those co-operatives whose affairs incline them towards dealing with the Agricultural Finance Federation. It seems to me sensible and equitable that 10 per cent, of the funds should go to the Agricultural Finance Federation. It would be true to say that co-operatives consist of members and the main part of the Federation's dealings have up to now been directly with these members. But, of course, I think it will be fair to state that the majority of the Federation's dealings has been through co-operatives.
What the noble Lord has not pointed out is the very great difference between the sort of business for which this clause has been designed, in backing bank credit to horticulture growers, and the existing operations of the Agricultural Finance Federation which is to provide hire-purchase finance for growers. Those two things are very different. The noble Lord implied that this is not the only business of the Federation, but I think he will agree with me that it is the major part of the Federation's work to provide hire-purchase finance for growers, whereas the purpose and function of the Agricultural Credit Corporation is to provide general bank backing to horticultural growers.
The other difference, which seems to me to be a telling one, is that there are not normally any direct contacts between the Agricultural Finance Federation and the individual growers. I understand that the Federation's point of contact in dealing with the growers is through the cooperatives and in general it relates only to the particular piece of equipment which the co-operatives are supplying. The House would wish to compare this with the case of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, where there is direct contact with the growers and where the contact does not relate to one particular requirement but extends to the whole of the grower's business. It is an essential condition of the Corporation's arrangements that the grower must submit and obtain approval for a business plan covering the whole of his activities, present and future; and I am sure the House will appreciate that not only are the Corporation obliged because of this to go further than the Federation in their inquiries, but they are employing an entirely different approach and a more elaborate expertise
296
which the Federation's operations have not up to now required.
Although noble Lords opposite may still feel disappointed, I hope they will give my right honourable friend full credit for what he is already proposing to do: to recognise the Federation in respect of their dealings with the co-operatives. There is full scope for activity by the Federation in this considerable and important sphere. We expect much new business to arise from the new grants being offered to the co-operatives under Clauses 4 and 5; grants which will, in turn, induce demand for credit, since the co-operatives will have to find their share of the cost. The same applies to the Horticultural Improvement Scheme in which the co-operatives will participate. The Federation should, in practice, find their hands more than full over the next few years in dealing with the cooperatives only. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will realise that the Government have recognised the part which the Agricultural Finance Federation has to play and that the difference of operation between the Federation and the Agricultural Credit Corporation is substantial. Nevertheless, we are preparing to help and encourage the Agricultural Finance Federation to carry out the type of work for which they are best suited.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Earl turning down this Amendment. We have had a very happy afternoon; he has been very reasonable up to the moment. Amendments which we have discussed have been more or less acceptable to the Government. Here is an Amendment which is based entirely on fair play between two organisations. The Government are discriminating between the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Finance Federation. It is obvious that in the future there will be a good deal of co-operation between the growers in regard to the carrying out of this particular Bill. It seems to me that it is right and proper that both finance organisations which will deal with the matter through the banks should be on an equal footing. The Government are discriminating between the two sets of growers in this matter and between two sets of organisations which are catering for the growers. Therefore, I hope that

297
the Minister will take the matter back and agree to do what we have asked him to do.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will accept my noble friend's suggestion of taking this matter back. It seems to us to be unjustifiable discrimination. I feel also that the noble Earl is not fully informed of the background of the Agricultural Finance Federation and of the kind of work they do and are capable of doing. The noble Earl said that his right honourable friend the Minister was entitled to credit for the fact that in making the change of the original intentions, and in giving 10 per cent. of this guarantee money to the Agricultural Finance Federation, he was acting justly and recognising the part they have played. I would remind the noble Earl that his right honourable friend changed his mind only after considerable pressure in another place and after evidence had been brought forward to prove that the information on which he based his original decision to place the whole sum in the hands of the A.C.C., was wrong. I submit to the noble Earl that his information also is wrong, in the sense that it is incomplete, and that there is a sound case for saying (again I emphasise that I am not talking about the proportion of the money, because that does not really matter) that it is the Government's intention to preclude the A.F.F. from using this guarantee fund to guarantee loans of individual growers. That is what I understand the noble Earl to say. Therefore, I hope that he will accept the offer to look at this again between now and Third Reading, otherwise I shall have to advise my noble friends to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, perhaps I should add that the Amendment is very narrow, indeed—only to insert the word "general" after the word "such", so that the subsection will read:
"The Minister may, in such manner and in such general conditions …"
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will explain what exactly is intended by "general conditions" in this particular context. To me the words have very little meaning.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House to answer that point, I thought that I had answered that when I moved the Amendment in the first place, though not perhaps in a legal sense, because I made it clear that the insertion of the word "general" would prevent the Minister from making a particular and express condition which would discriminate against one body or another. That is the intention of the Amendment, and I am firmly of opinion that that would be its effect. Presumably, a final decision on whether that would be the effect could be determined only in a court of law.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was going to respond to the request made by my two noble friends. We appreciate his position, in that he is standing in for the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and obviously he is not in a position to give any undertaking in regard to the case that has been made. But I hope, in view of what has been said and of his admittedly difficult position, that he will give an undertaking to look at this point again, with no obligation one way or the other. My noble friends are asking that this matter should not be brushed aside, but should be given further thought between now and the next stage. If the noble Earl could respond in this way, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may speak again for a few moments, with leave of the House, there is nothing I should like to do more than to respond to the request of the noble Lords opposite. I appreciate exactly how they feel, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having suggested that, in view of the fact that I have not been in charge of the Bill all the way through, it might be easier to take this back. But I can only reply that I am bound to do what I feel my noble friend Lord St. Oswald would do, were he in this position—and that is, to say to the noble Lord that we have looked at this matter very thoroughly and carefully. The functions of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and of the Agricultural Finance Federation are fundamentally different. The Agricultural Finance

299
Federation deals basically with hire-purchase and the Agricultural Credit Corporation deals with the whole circumstances surrounding an individual's agricultural or horticultural business. It is for that reason that, even if I were to take this back again and look at it, I should not be able to do so with any
Clause 12:
PART III
GRADING AND TRANSPORT OF FRESH HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE
Grading of produce
Duties as to grading of produce
12.—
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are as follows:—
(a) a sale of the produce by retail;
(e) a direct sale by the producer of any produce where the produce is, or is to be, delivered at premises, or at any stall or vehicle, from which it is to be sold by retail.
(3) The Ministers may if they think fit by order provide that subsection (2) above shall have effect, in relation to such sales as are described in the order, as if paragraph (e) were omitted; and an order made under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by the Ministers.
(4) In this section "direct sale" means a sale where negotiations on behalf of the
possibility of extending the hope that we may accept the word "general".
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hobson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Margesson, V.

Alport, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Mills, V.

Blakenham, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Milverton, L.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

Monsell, V.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Ogmore, L.

Conesford, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandwich, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ilford, L.

Soulbury, V.

Dudley, L.

Jessel, L.

Spens, L.

Effingham, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Falmouth, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Twining, L.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

vendor are not conducted by any agent other than a person employed by him under a contract of service.
3.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert:
"(a) the exposure for sale by retail of produce bearing a show ticket to which is affixed the label referred to in subsection (1) of this section and is clearly visible to intending purchasers, and sales of such produce which in the presence of the purchaser was exposed for sale bearing such a show ticket;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and I hope it will be convenient for your Lordships if I take Nos. 7 and 8, which are on the same point, at the same time. Here I return to stress once more our sense of the serious error that the Government will make unless prescribed quality grades are enforceable at retail level. It has taken a good many years for the Government to reach this decision—a decision which we regard as excellent, and which we support—that there should be these quality grades

301
of horticultural produce. But we think it will be quite disastrous if they are not to be enforceable at retail level.
On the Committee stage, a self-imposed time limit left me with no time to reply to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, but otherwise I should have taken up quite strongly two of the points he then made. The first was his suggestion that no case had been made out for extending compulsory grading to retail sales. I think a very good case was made out, and the trouble was that the noble Lord did not answer it.
The second point was the noble Lord's assertion—and I quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (53), col. 1030]:
"There will therefore be no more than an insignificant quantity of produce not properly graded arriving in the shops."
The noble Lord produced no evidence whatever in support of that assertion, and indeed the growers, who are being compelled to grade their produce at wholesale level, and I, could not disagree with him more. Apparently, even the Government are not over-confident, because, again to quote the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, he said (col. 1030):
"… we shall not allow the concept of compulsory grading to be undermined in the marketing of any considerable volume of un-graded home-grown produce outside the wholesale channels of trade ".
And, again to quote the noble Lord, he said (col. 1030):
" Ministers will have the power—and they will not hesitate to use it—under subsection (3) to make an order restricting these sales."
I should like to comfort the noble Earl with that reminder. I remain completely uncomforted, first, because when on horticultural matters over the past years I have ventured to disagree with the Ministry's horticultural experts, time has usually proved that they were wrong; and, secondly, because apparently they are relying on the argument that there is no enforcement at retail level of the grades of imported produce. That is a completely irrelevant argument, for the very good and sound reason that no ungraded imported produce comes into our shops; it all comes in graded. Therefore, the argument that, for this reason, and because there is no enforcement of the sales of graded foreign produce at retail level, there is no need to have enforcement of our own grades of home-grown produce
302
seems to me to be quite absurd. As there is no ungraded imported produce, the retailers cannot mix it up with the graded produce and so debase the grades.
However, if the Government allow ungraded home-grown produce to come into the shops, of course the grades will be debased. It means that the growers will then not recover the high cost of grading, which they are compelled to undertake under this Bill; and if they do not recover that higher cost in higher prices, to which they will be entitled, it means that they will be forced to bypass the wholesale markets, go direct to the retailers and sell ungraded produce. I think that, in the light of past experience, the whole grading scheme will be wrecked before the Minister comes to the conclusion that the sale of ungraded produce has reached a dangerous level and he should, therefore, bring into operation subsection (3).
As for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in Committee that the quantities of ungraded produce will be insignificant, I would cite the position in the egg market. With eggs we have a first-class marketing scheme with a product which is abundantly, efficiently and effectively advertised; and, moreover, eggs must be graded and go through the packing stations in order to qualify for a subsidy. In other words, there is every possible inducement for egg producers to send their eggs through the packing station properly graded (they can send them through only if they are properly graded) and so qualify for a subsidy. Yet about one egg in every three laid by British hens by-passes the packing stations and is sold direct, either to the consumer or to a retail outlet. I know that a good proportion of these sales of so-called farm eggs are made under licence, but a great many are not: they are, in fact, illegal sales, but they go on. They are substantial, and far too many, I think, to be called insignificant.
Such sales mean that packing stations operate with a lower throughput and, therefore, at a higher cost—this with a well-marketed, subsidised product which, one might argue, with the financial inducement, is rigidly controlled, compared with horticultural produce in which there would be very little control. There is every reason, there-

303
fore, for thinking that, in horticulture, with no sort of a marketing scheme and in circumstances where it may well pay the grower not to grade, there will be a flood of ungraded produce on the market. This is what the growers believe, and in this I would submit that they know better than the Ministry.
This case was fully deployed in Committee and, therefore, I do not want to go over the same points again; in fact, I have not in the words that I have said this time. But I hope the Government will look at this point again, because the arguments they have put forward in support of the clause as it now stands really do not hold water. There is considerable unease among growers, particularly the better growers, who are most anxious to grade their produce properly. They are very much afraid that if the present provisions for allowing ungraded produce to come into the shops remain unaltered, and unless there is statutory enforcement of the grading, not only at wholesale level, as the Bill provides, but at retail level as well, then all our hopes for the improvement to the industry which will come from grading will, in our view, fail. I hope, therefore, that, even now, before it is too late, the Government will change their mind on this score and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 8, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, at this stage I feel I ought to support my noble friend who moved this Amendment. I hope that in this instance the Government will think again, if they have already decided to turn down the Amendment. This is one of the most important Amendments to the whole Bill, and a most important point, because it concerns us all—all Members of your Lordships' House are consumers. Unless this Amendment is accepted, we are all liable to be foisted off with inferior articles and ungraded produce. The noble Lord shakes his head. He has not had as much experience of marketing and buying in the consumer markets as I have. I can assure him, and all your Lordships, that if you are not very careful in selecting what you are purchasing you can be swindled in many
304
ways. It all rests upon this question of taking grading right through to the retail markets and shops. Unless we do that, the Bill is likely to be of no effect whatever in the consumer's interest. I therefore ask the noble Earl to take the matter back for further consideration.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, sometimes appears before us in what appears to be the guise of a Liberal. On other occasions he comes as a Socialist totalitarian. It is in the latter role that he has been acting during this Amendment, because this is the most Socialist totalitarian Amendment I have ever heard: that a grower shall not be allowed to sell any of his produce unless it passes some particular grade and goes into the market as fully-graded produce. Naturally, the shops will buy and pay the best price for the best stuff. But there is bound to be fruit, and so on, which cannot be graded. Is that going to be thrown away and the price added on to the graded fruit?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Does he appreciate that any grower who sends his produce to a wholesale market is compelled to grade under this Bill? Does he regard his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as a Socialist totalitarian?
LORD HAWKE: The grower can sell locally all the stuff that will not grade. If the noble Lord's Amendment were passed, it would mean that the village shop could not buy the produce of the people round about because it will not be graded. The noble Lord has instanced eggs. This is the worst support for his case, because the reason why one in three eggs does not go through the packing station is that people are willing to pay a larger price for eggs which do not go through the packing station than they are for the ones which do. Are we to take it that if his Party comes into power every egg will have to go through the packing station, and thus one in three consumers will no longer be able to buy an egg which they believe to be fresher? This is a purely totalitarian Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will reject it.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what noble Lords who have spoken have said on

305
this Amendment. I appreciate the views of the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Wise, and that they are particularly anxious to try to make sure that the housewife receives a reasonably graded product. I think it would be fair to summarise the points made on this clause as follows. As it stands, the Bill prohibits the sale of any of these specified products ungraded unless they are sold either over the farm gate or direct to a shop from which they will be sold retail—not to a chain store or to a depot, but direct to the actual shop from which they will then be sold. Those are the only occasions when it will be permissible to sell products ungraded.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, argued that sales of this sort are already far more extensive then we might realise, that they will increase in scope because they will provide a method of avoiding grading and that therefore the purpose of the Bill will be thwarted. I should like to consider this in some detail. It could be suggested that direct sales will rapidly increase in volume once this Bill becomes law, and that growers will try to avoid the expense of grading by selling their produce ungraded to local retail shops. I do not think this is likely to happen to any marked degree, because, in the first place, a grower who wants to sell ungraded produce will have to undertake to deliver the produce himself, and that would be quite an expensive operation. I doubt, in fact, whether he would save much expense by delivering goods as opposed to grading them. I should also like to emphasise again that sales which are exempt are ones where the grower delivers direct to the shop; in other words, the produce cannot be collected in a central depôt and it has to be delivered by the grower to the final place of retail. The retailer involved is being asked to buy an ungraded load of produce, some or all of which may well be below the minimum standard were it graded. As your Lordships know, the greengrocery trade is competitive and a buyer may soon find that his bargain purchases are not such a bargain after all, because he would be selling poor quality, ungraded stuff compared with the shop next door where graded produce was bought.
A further substantial difficulty affecting the greengrocer, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has conveniently ignored,
306
would be the severe imposition which would be placed on the retailer were he obliged to sell by grade. At the wholesale stage, or earlier, it is possible to effect the grading of produce efficiently and easily, allowing some tolerance for human error, but to oblige the retailer to sell each single component of the consignment by grade, possibly two or three days after the purchase, would inflict upon him the liability of placing the guarantee of grade on each individual pear, apple or other item of produce. This, we believe, would be placing an unfair and unrealistic obligation on to the retailer without offering any material advantage either to the consumer or to the industry.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt, our Amendment expressly prevents the need for what he just said about putting a guarantee on every individual apple and pear. If he looks at Amendment No. 6 he will find that it does not make that necessary at all.
EARL FERRERS: I am not so sure about that.
"… the exposure for sale by retail of produce bearing a show ticket to which is affixed the label referred to in subsection (1) …"
means, in other words, that you are saying, "These apples are of grade 1". But if a person purchases four apples, some of them may possibly be bruised and may be below the exact requirement which might, when sold by the wholesaler, have allowed for a reasonable tolerance either for bruising or for anything else.
What the noble Lord is saying is that, if a show ticket is affixed, each person must know when he is buying that each apple or pear is of a particular grade. We consider that this would impose an unfair and heavy burden upon the retailer without any substantial advantage either to the consumer or the industry. If there were to be a marked increase in direct sales, the Minister has the power to take action to limit, or even to stop, this entirely, long before it represents a threat to the grading system. Subsection (3) of Clause 12 gives the Minister power to make an order restricting direct sales of this ungraded produce. The Minister has said in another place that he will not

307
hesitate to use this power if necessary, and I repeat his undertaking here.
The noble Lord also suggested that grading at the retail level would benefit the housewife because she will be protected from misrepresentation. As my noble friend Lord St. Oswald explained during the Committee stage of the Bill, the housewife, in fact, does not need this particular protection, because she already has it. She is safeguarded against deliberate misrepresentation by the provisions of the Foods and Drugs Act. Section 6(1) of that Act makes it an offence to display a label calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the goods so labelled. This is a valuable protection, and it is not necessary, in my submission, to take these additional powers here. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that what we have done in this Bill is to allow for the grading of produce at the wholesale stage which will enable the retailers to purchase a reasonable grade of fruit or produce and yet, at the same time, not have the liability imposed upon them that they must be responsible as regards to grade for every single item of produce which they purchase and subsequently sell.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he could help me. He said earlier on, in regard to the question of retail trade, that if goods went through a depôt they would then have to graded. What is the situation of a chain store of greengrocers who buy and collect produce from farmers and then distribute it themselves to the shops? This would be a retail operation. It would not be wholesale because the chain store would be buying direct from the farmer. Would those goods have to be graded or would they escape within the terms?—because there are a considerable number of these chain-store greengrocers in London and our main cities who buy their main produce from farms and distribute it in their own vehicles.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the question which follows up? If those goods were graded, presumably they would sell them as graded and get a higher price for them. If they were not graded they would get a lower price for them.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is of course true, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned this, because I had hoped that I had emphasised the point. Clearly, I had not done so sufficiently. If a chain store of retailers purchases from a farm, then that produce must be graded. The only instance where it need not be graded is where a farmer sells direct to the shop from which it will then be retailed.
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords.
EARL FERRERS: Perhaps if I explain a little further the noble Lord will understand the point. If the farmer sells produce to a retail shop, it need not be graded because it will thereafter be sold direct from that shop. If he sells to a chain store, and delivers actually to the individual chain store, and the produce is sold from that store, then it need not be graded. But if it is accepted by the chain store, and possibly taken some to one store and some to another, then it must be graded because it would be sold, as it were, to a depôt.
Perhaps I might draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 12(2):
" The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are as follows.…
(e) a direct sale by the producer of any produce where the produce is, or is to be, delivered at premises, or at any stall or vehicle, from which it is to be sold by retail."
In other words, if the farmer sells his produce, to a shop which happens to be a member of a chain store, it may be sold from that shop ungraded; but if he sells it to a chain store, as such, to a depôt of the chain store, then it must be graded.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Earl will agree with me that it is not a question of selling to the shop, but of the farmer delivering to the shop.
EARL FERRERS: I do not know really whether one is in order to have this chit-chat across the House. The point is, that the farmer must deliver the goods himself to the shop.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the answers which the noble Earl has now given in response to the questions of his noble friend and my noble friend Lord Shepherd expose the complete folly of the Government's case in this particular clause. This is now the wonderful setup we have: the fruit grower delivers

309
his produce direct to a retailer and it does not have to be graded; the grower delivers his produce direct to a single shop of a chain store and it does not have to be graded; the grower delivers his produce to the depôt of a chain store and it must be graded. That is clearly the position as it stands under this Bill, and it is utter, abject nonsense. When the produce, the apples and pears, arrive at the depôt of the chain store, they must be graded immediately; if they get into the shop of the chain store by a direct process they do not have to be graded; there is no statutory enforcement; they do not have to be graded at all. I ask you, my Lords, was there ever more stupid nonsense than that, which we are trying to amend? It is absolutely indefensible. Nobody can argue that it is a sensible provision when it is such complete nonsense. I stated the position correctly. In the case of the chain store most of the produce comes to tie depôt and has to be graded. But when they become retail sales in the individual stock of the shop of the chain store there is no compulsory enforcement of the grading because they are retail sales. Subsection (a) says that a sale of produce by retail is excepted from the provisions of Clause 12.
EARL FER RERS: I was not shaking my head at the noble Lord's interpretation but merely at the fact that he said it was indefensible and would not work.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Earl thinks distinctions of that kind are defensible and they will work, he is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
The only other comment I would make is in regard to his point that it would be unworkable with regard to retail sales to have compulsory enforcement of grading because it would mean that every individual apple or pear would have to be guaranteed. He asked what would happen if an apple was bruised and therefore below the grade. I would say, exactly the same thing as happens in the wholesale market, where the produce will have to be graded by law. Is it to be assumed that produce gets on to the wholesale market, is graded and is never sub-standard, and that nothing has to be thrown out? Of course that is not so. If, for any reason, the produce
310
is sub-standard, below the grade, in the wholesale market, the position is exactly the same as it would be if there were statutory enforcement of retail grading and the produce were substandard there; so there is nothing in that point at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 21 [Power to require use of prescribed containers, etc.]:
4.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
" Before regulations are made, the Ministers shall appoint an organisation fully representative of all the interests which appear to them to be affected by the regulations, to define by research and investigation the containers and other articles most suitable for each purpose and to make recommendations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and I hope it will be convenient if at the same time I take the final Amendment, because it is on precisely the same point. In regard to Clause 21 I feel obliged to say, "and it came to pass after many years", because it is for something like thirteen or fourteen years that my noble friends and I have been insisting that we must have standard containers for the conveyance of horticultural produce. Your Lordships will recall how hard we pressed this particular point during discussions in the Committee on the 1960 Act, when despite all we said the Government turned us down. But now, at long last, they have seen the light, and we are grateful for it.
There is, however, what I regard as a glaring omission from the clause, which we seek to correct with these two Amendments. I think the noble Earl will accept that before any decisions are taken about specific containers there must be detailed discussion with growers, with distributors and with the container manufacturers to decide on the best types of containers for different purposes. It is also certain that this will call for a good deal of prior research and investigation. But the Government do not appear to have foreseen this, because they have made no financial provision in the Bill for it. Hence the second of the two Amendments with which I am now dealing.
We think that the best way of doing the job is to appoint an organization

311
fully representative of all the interests likely to be affected by the regulations, and to give this organisation the job of undertaking the necessary research and then defining the most suitable containers. It would, in fact, have been another task for the Horticultural Marketing Commission which I should very much like to see set up and to which I have previously referred. But, failing that, it is obvious that we must have a representative organisation for this specific purpose, and I think there is no doubt that it should be set up and put to work without delay, even if it is not intended to implement this particular clause for a number of years. Indeed, I do not see how grading and the regulations regarding containers can possibly be introduced until you have an organisation of this kind in action.
I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will give some clarification on one or two points. First, do the containers which are referred to include both returnable and non-returnable market packs? Do they include consumer packages, for example pre-packed? I think these are matters on which we could be advised now. If it is the case that all those are going to be included it will greatly increase the already large number of container and package types to be considered under this clause.
Secondly, on what basis are the containers selected by the Government to be prescribed or defined? Is it the intention to lay down solely dimensions or their performance, or will the prescriptions also include complete specification as to material, design and construction? I would mention that the designs of non-returnable market containers are often patented by the manufacturers, and the introduction of statutory prescriptions could have a very restricting effect on the packaging industry. Again, new packaging materials and designs are constantly being brought out, and it is probable that the introduction of detailed container prescriptions would, as it were, have a braking effect on further development by packaging manufacturers, unless the regulating machinery to be set up under this clause was extremely flexible.
There is in Clause 23(1) an undertaking to consult interested organisa-
312
tions before regulations are made, but I would mention to the noble Earl that that does not fulfil the purpose of this Amendment. The views of these organisations, in the absence of extensive trials and experiments, would not be sufficiently complete and, I submit, could not provide the Government with a valid basis for the necessary decisions. Then, because of the many types of produce and the even larger number of containers which are involved, a comprehensive programme of performance testing would be required which would have to be planned over a number of years. Then again, an initial period of time would be needed to set up the necessary administrative organisation and to recruit suitable scientific staffs, and so on.
Even if it is not proposed to make regulations in the foreseeable future, I submit that it would be necessary, nevertheless, to implement this Amendment without delay, because at present there are only two existing bodies with any knowledge of this particular subject. The first of these is, of course, the British Standards Institution, although, so far as I know, the B.S.I. have not undertaken work of this kind on a substantial scale in the past—and the standardisation of containers represents only a small part of their work. The other organisation which I have in mind is the Produce Packaging Development Association, which is a specialist body representative of the interests of producer, packer, distributor, and container manufacturers. It has something like ten years' standing in the field of horticulture pre-packaging and is recognised by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Some years ago I believe it received a small grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, but recently lack of funds has caused a reduction in its development activities.
I hope that the Ministry will be able to remedy this under the terms of this clause, because since the death of the Horticulture Marketing Council, the Produce Packaging Association is the only organisation with specific interests and experience in the development of horticulture containers. The remarkable advance in horticulture pre-packaging is, I think, largely due to the Association's work. As we know, of recent years there has been a phenomenal increase

313
in the pre-packaging of vegetables, and it has been of great value to the horticulture industry. I hope that the knowledge and research facilities of this organisation may be fully used and that it may provide the nucleus of the type of organisation referred to in my Amendment which, I submit, will unquestionably be needed. In fact, unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, tie powers sought in the Bill at present appear likely to prejudice the interests of many sections of the industry, and I would submit that they need to be looked at carefully.
I think this is the fourth occasion during the passage of this Bill upon which I have shown that there is a clear need for an organisation to help the Ministry with regard to specific problems. So far we have not had a single word from the Government on how it is proposed that he Department will cope with the many problems to which I have referred. I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will he able to fill this gap on this subject, and I would suggest that the first step towards filling it effectively would be to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Stonham.)
4.37 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, again I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's points, and I realise that he is most concerned about the standardisation of containers for marketing produce. I appreciate what he has said about them. I should find it difficult to fill the gap in the way that he has suggested, by accepting his Amendment in toto; but I fully appreciate what he has said.
Perhaps I could begin by outlining the purpose of this clause. The clause, as it stands, enables Ministers to make regulations standardising the containers and pallets which horticulturists use to send their produce to the market. Although there is a general measure of agreement in the industry on the benefits of standardisation, it will take some time to draw up specifications for containers for the various products. A lot of research is being done at the moment on containers and the different materials, shapes and sizes and so forth, and it will be
314
some time before any specifications can be produced. Nor will we make the use of such containers compulsory before the industry in all its various sections, has had an opportunity to get used to them and to try them out.
It could be argued that we should not make any real progress until a coordinating body such as the noble Lord suggests has been established. This could be responsible for undertaking research work leading to the designation of standards for containers. I think really this is a matter of judgment rather than of principle, and where the noble Lord and I might differ is over the method of obtaining the same end. There is, as the noble Lord opposite realises, a great deal of commercial interest in the manufacture of containers, and several large firms have their own research teams. I am sure the prospect of standardisation will encourage these firms to increase their efforts. Others have not lagged behind. The noble Lord mentioned the British Standards Institution. Indeed, well he may, because they have a programme of work in this field as well; and the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee have made grants for specific projects, and would be prepared to consider applications for further work.
Then, when we look at the present arrangements for co-ordination, we find that research needs in this field is one of the subjects which are being considered by the Horticultural Advisory Council, whose views upon it the Minister will receive in due course. If they suggest that some extra research is necessary, there is the Agricultural Research Council, who will be prepared to consider firm proposals for additional projects. I hope that noble Lords will take the view that there is, in fact, plenty of evidence to show that a lot of work is being done on research into containers, their different sizes and shapes and the materials and things to be used in them, and that there is machinery for this particular work which ought to be successful.
The last thing I would do is to be complacent and to suggest that the outcome is easy or simple—it is not. We realise that this is an important matter; but I believe the existing machinery is sufficient for the purpose, and that if one were to set up another body merely

315
to co-ordinate all the works that are going on at the moment, one might in fact hamper that work by putting yet another tier on to the existing organisation. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not press his Amendment too hard. We want to get standardisation of containers as soon as possible, but his Amendment would merely add another tier on to the existing machinery, which I do not think would really help.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not intend to press the Amendment; indeed, matters of this kind cannot be satisfactorily settled in this way. They can be settled only by detailed discussion and consideration of the points. I quite appreciate that the noble Earl is not complacent about this, but, although a good deal of research work may be going on in regard to containers, there can be no effective implementation of the provisions even of this clause unless there is some co-ordinating or directing force—which may indeed be his own Department. I do not dispute that, although they have so much on their plate that I should have thought that it would be much better to have another body, representative of all interests, to do it. In fact, I feel sure that eventually that will have to happen, otherwise the job will never be done. Unfortunately, the only two organisations which are undertaking the work at the moment are the two I have mentioned. There may well be research going on, but, judged in relation to the need, it is extremely diverse and woolly and must be brought together. The need for it will become ever more apparent.
My only concern in moving these Amendments is to draw attention to that need and to the urgency of the matter. Decisions must be taken now, and it will be several years before it is possible to say that we know enough to have standard containers and then to bring forward the necessary standards and the regulations for imposing them. The only difference between the noble Earl and myself is that, although we both agree it will be necessary, I believe that the organisation should be set up now, whereas he is prepared to wait. I think time will prove that I am
316
right. For the moment, I will leave it at that. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NURSES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LEGAL AID BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, before the Continental Shelf Bill left your Lordships House last December, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (and I am sorry to see that he is not in his place to-day), regretted—and I am sure all of us who were present agreed with him—that the Bill was going to another place without your Lordships' House having done on it the work it would have wished to do. But the views expressed and the helpful suggestions made by your Lordships during our discussions were duly noted in another place. This is clear from the substance of the Amendments we are now considering. Before moving approval of these Amendments, I think it may help your Lordships if I say something about the detail of the changes.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential on Amendment No. 9, which I shall explain presently. Amendment No. 3 was introduced to meet an undertaking I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lord Merrivale, that the Government would do what they could to meet this point on ancillary rights. The object of the Amendment is to apply Section 3 of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. This will bring in the procedures set out in Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, whereby if a

317
licensee is unable, by private treaty, to obtain rights on land to erect such things as storage tanks for oil and gas found in his licensed area, he may apply to the Minister of Power. If the Minister is satisfied that there is a prima facie case he must refer the matter to the High Court who, if satisfied on certain matters, may make an order conferring the necessary rights.
My Lords, apparently I am out of order in procedure. May I at this stage interrupt myself to move that these Amendments be now considered? I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [57] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out ("4")
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out from ("petroleum") to ("shall") in line 21
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after ("Britain,") insert ("and section 3 of that Act (which enables persons holding licences under that Act to acquire ancillary rights)")
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) Model clauses prescribed under section 6 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by the preceding subsection shall in-dude provision for the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on operations undertaken under the authority of any licence granted under that Act as so applied.
(5) The Minister of Power shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report stating—

(a) the licences under the said Act of 1934 granted in that year in respect of areas beyond low-water mark and the persons to whom and the areas in respect of which they were granted, and the like information as respects such licences held at the end of that year;

(b) the total amount of natural gas and of other petroleum gotten in that year in pursuance of licences held in respect of such areas; and

(c) the method used for arriving at the amounts payable by way of consideration for such licences.")

Clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert ("unless he proves that the prohibition imposed by the order was not, and would not on reasonable inquiry have become, known to the master.")
Clause 3, page 2, line 36, leave out ("yards") and insert ("metres")
Clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out ("yards") and insert ("metres").
After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
Radioactive substances
(". An Order in Council under section 3 of this Act may make provision for treating for the purposes of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and any orders and regulations made thereunder any installation in an area or part with respect to which provision is made under that section and any waters within five hundred metres of such an installation as if they were situated in such part of the United Kingdom as may be specified in the order, and for modifying the provisions of that Act in their application to such an installation or waters.")
After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
Use and supply of natural gas
(".—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to the use and supply of any natural gas gotten in pursuance of a licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by section 1(3) of this Act, and section 52 of the Gas Act 1948 shall not apply to any such gas.
(2) The holder of the licence shall not without the consent of the Minister of Power use the gas in Great Britain and no person shall without that consent supply the gas to any other person at premises in Great Britain.
(3) The Minister of Power shall not give his consent under this section to the supply of gas at any premises unless satisfied—

(a) that the supply is for industrial purposes and that the Area Board is whose area the premises are situated has been given an opportunity of purchasing the gas at a reasonable price; or

(b) that the supply is for such purposes as are mentioned in subsection (4) of this section;

but shall give his consent under this section to the supply or use of any gas if satisfied that it is for the purposes mentioned in that subsection.
(4) The said purposes are industrial purposes which do not consist of or include the use of the gas as a fuel except in so far as the gas is used to provide heat or other energy required—

(a) for a process in which the gas is used otherwise than as a fuel; or

(b) where such a process is one of a series, for any further process in the same series, not being a process in which a bulk product is converted into manufactured articles;

and in determining whether any industrial purposes are as mentioned in this subsection the use of any gas derived, otherwise than as a by-product, from any natural gas shall he treated as the use of that natural gas.
(5) For the purposes of this section gas provided by a company for the use of any subsidiary or holding company thereof, or of any subsidiary of such a holding company shall be deemed to be used by that company.
(6) This section shall not affect the supply of gas by any person otherwise than through pipes or the supply of gas by or to an Area Board.
(7) In this section ' Area Board ' has the same meaning as in the Gas Act 1948 and 'holding company' and ' subsidiary ' have the same meanings as in the Companies Act 1948.")
Clause 9, page 5, line 16, after (" by ") insert (" or under ")
After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
Northern Ireland
(". Nothing in this Act shall be taken to restrict the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws; and any laws made by that Parliament with respect to any matter with respect to which it has that power shall have effect notwithstanding anything in this Act.")
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, perhaps I might say here that, so far as noble Lords on this side are concerned, we are disposed to agree to these Amendments. We think that they are reasonable; indeed, some of them are concessions to points that were advocated by this side of the House. Therefore, if they are acceptable to the House, and if the noble Lord would like to move that they be agreed to en bloc, we shall not resist.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not certain what the noble Lord meant. Did he mean that he would be willing to accept these Amendments without further explanation?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are willing to do that. I do not want to discourage the noble Lord. If he feels that it is his Parliamentary duty to explain them, he should by all means do so. But as we are in a reasonable mood at the moment, if he prefers to move them en bloc then, because we are not disposed to resist them, we will agree.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if the whole House is agreeable that I should not explain them, I am prepared to carry out that somewhat unusual procedure and not explain the Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MANUFACTURING POWERS OF BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
4.50 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of all the circumstances, they will reconsider their policy so as to enable the Railways Board to undertake work with the existing powers provided by Section 13(4) of the Transport Act, 1962. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question arises out of a Question I put to Her Majesty's Government a little time ago with regard to permission which had been sought by British Railways concerning a certain matter which had been vetoed by the Minister of Transport. I do not think there is any question but that British Railways have a right to manufacture equipment to run upon their own lines, equipment owned by British Railways themselves, though as a matter of fact they sometimes do it themselves and sometimes by contract outside. Nor is it contested that the Board has legal power to manufacture other equipment which is to be owned by private operators but is to be run on the railways of the Railways Board or any other associated Board. It is accepted that that would be lawful.
What has happened is that the Board, having satisfied themselves that they have that legal authority, and believing that it would be in the interest of the collective well-being of British Railways undertaking, proposed that they should be able to manufacture equipment of private undertakers running their own equipment or their own rolling stock as the case might be. I believe that some of the oil companies are going to do that, and there are others, among whom may be the National Coal Board—but I am not quite sure about that. If the equipment is going to run on British Railways, then the British Railways Board are in a position, arising out of their own experience of manufacture for their own purposes—they are technically equipped to do so—to manufacture for the purposes of those undertakings whose equipment will be running on the British Railways Board system.
It seems to me that that is all right, provided that the Board enter into competitive tender with other people, including private manufacturers, and that

321
their tender is fairly worked out, as I am sure it would be. In any case, if the Minister found that it was not fairly worked out he could warn them, and then he might have to act. But that is most unlikely; and, in fact, there would be no sense in their putting in tenders as the result of which they would lose money. But in so far as the British Railways Board are in a position to tender for this manufacture, then to that extent it would be conducive to improving somewhat the finances of the Board's undertaking. It would also provide some employment for the railway workshops, in a number of which there are threats of redundancy, or there have been or will be. Therefore it seems to me, from the point of view of the nation as a whole, that that is a good thing, and I cannot see why they should not be allowed to tender.
Moreover, when it comes to publicly-owned undertakings, the Government sometimes create trouble for them in the name of free competition. For example, the Government denationalised a large proportion of the commercial road transport element of the former British Transport Commission, and they did it in the name of competition, the desirability of competition against the publicly-owned railways. They instituted commercial television, because they considered it desirable to set up competition against the British Broadcasting Corporation. So the Government are not only willing to stimulate competition against a public undertaking; the Government are eager to stimulate competition against a publicly-owned undertaking, because they have a bias in favour of injuring publicly-owned undertakings. Indeed, if they had their way the only publicly-owned undertakings would be those out of which there is no money to be made. If the Government had their way, the only publicly-owned undertakings permitted would be the undertakings that were losing money, so that therefore the expense could be put on public funds or at any rate set to the discredit of the publicly-owned undertakings.
All the railways are asking for is the right to tender—not for a prescriptive right to get a contract, not to exclude any private undertakings from tendering in order to prevent a check against the
322
costs or the tenders of the Board. All they are asking for is the right to tender. But the Government say, "We will not let you tender." So, although the Government have gone out of their way to institute competition against public concerns, they are now going out of their way to prevent public concerns themselves from being competitive with others, even at the point of the right to tender. They say, "Not only shall you not get the contract. You may not even tender for the contract and put in a price at which you are prepared to do the business."
My Lords, I do not know, but I think this opens the Government to grave charges. I think the Minister is utilising his prerogative not for the public good, but to protect the allies of his political Party in the field of private enterprise. I think he is doing it for an ulterior purpose, in order to build up the profits of private undertakings and to prevent the modest relief of finance which would come to British Railways if tendering were permitted. Therefore, I think the Minister of Transport is guilty of utterly anti-social conduct.
This is not the first time that this has happened. There was the case earlier of the London Transport Executive. At that time the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, was in charge of the matter for the Government. The London Traffic Combine, the London Underground group of companies, headed by my late friend Lord Ashfield, had built up the Associated Equipment Company into a very successful private enterprise concern, which built and overhauled buses for their fleet. The London Transport Executive came along and had similar powers, and then a deputation of unions, concerned about the possible diminution of employment, not necessarily at the A.E.C. works at Chiswick but at other building undertakings too, met my noble friend Lord Stonham. They brought with them the minutes of a meeting they had had with the London Transport Executive. I mention this, not because it is directly involved in my Unstarred Question, but because it is part of the same business and the same process, and is therefore relevant to the debate.
The minutes of the joint meeting between these two trade unions and the

323
Executive of London Transport said that the Secretary had said:
"… that under the Transport Bill, then in the Committee stage in the House of Commons, the new London Transport Board would have unlimited powers for the manufacture of equipment for the Board's use, subject to an overriding control by the Minister."
But, unfortunately, the minutes also recorded that,
"Immediately before the Report stage "—
not in the original Bill, nor at Committee stage, but "Immediately before the Report stage"—
"of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Executive were told that the Minister of Transport proposed to seek to amend the clause dealing with the manufacturing powers of the new Boards to be set up under the Bill, including the London Board, by including an Amendment which would prevent the Boards from manufacturing road vehicles, bodies or chassis for road vehicles, or major components for road vehicles."
The London Transport Executive made representations to the Minister disagreeing with this Amendment, and asking him not to pursue the Amendment, but they were rejected, and the Amendment was made at Report stage in the House of Commons. So there was a case where the private undertakings, headed by Lord Ashfield, had done this very thing; where the powers of the London Board to manufacture were continued, but where at Report stage on a Transport Bill the Minister promoted this Amendment to prevent their doing that very thing. This is reported at column 168 of your Lordships' Proceedings, on May 29, 1962. So here is another case where the Board was prevented, for its own purposes and for its own undertaking, from manufacturing road vehicles, and so on. My noble friend Lord Stonham very properly moved in this House that the subsection of the appropriate clause of the Bill should be struck out, but there was a Division and he was defeated.
What does all this mean? It means that the present Minister of Transport has greater obligations in his own mind, and in his own soul, to private, capitalistic interests than he has to the public interest. It means that he is a steady and consistent opponent of the public interest; that, being a good Conservative, he thinks it is his duty to look after the financial welfare of pri-
324
vate profit-making businesses in the commercial capitalist world. I say that this man is unfit to hold office. He is unfit to hold office in public administration. The Prime Minister ought to get rid of him and let him go back to speculative building, where his philosophy would have ample opportunity of being expressed and coming out.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, replied to this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Stonham, and practically all he said was that he recognised that he had a poor case—in fact, that he had not any case at all. That is one of the rare qualities that the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, has: he knows when he has no case, and admits it. I like a man like that; and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary, when he gets up, would say, My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Mills said on the other occasion. He knew he had no case. I have no case, and I will therefore say what my noble friend Lord Mills said on that occasion". Indeed, in column 170 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241], Lord Mills said:
"I understood the noble Lord to say that if his Amendment were not accepted he intended to divide your Lordships' House, so I am not going to indulge in argument; I am just going to state the facts for the Record",
and he went on with a thin summary of the facts, but no argument.
Why did the noble Viscount not argue? Because he could not argue. And I admire the noble Viscount very much for knowing when there is no argument, and frankly telling the House he is not going to argue. I doubt whether he will, but I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, for whom I have a great respect—I think he is a good Parliamentary Secretary, but he does bat on the most shameful wickets now and again, almost as if he enjoys it—would rise to the heights of Lord Mills and say, "I have got my instructions. The führer who runs the Ministry of Transport"—he is equivalent to the Führer of the Hitler German Reich in these respects, or, if you like, to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, because he is a dictatorial man; he is bossy; that is why he is making himself unpopular —"has told me what the facts are. I

325
cannot argue the case. I will not argue the case because I cannot, but I will give the House the facts".
My Lords, there is no defence for this at all. It is utterly anti-social, and the Minister of Transport is anti-social. He is opposed to the public interest. He has done his best to wreck the railways by stimulating reckless road competition. He is anti-railway. He hates railways, and he loves motor cars and bicycles. Why he is Minister of Transport I really do not know, and he should be thrown out bag and baggage as being unfit to hold that position. In fact, I think the Minister of Transport is unfit to hold any public office. He belongs to the capitalist world, arid that is where he ought to go back to. That is his natural place. Let him go profiteering in the capitalist world. After all, there are great opportunities for building development coming in the South-East under this "pretty, pretty" document of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and he is a bright spark at building. Therefore, he could have a go at that.
I do say that this is a wicked thing; that it ought not to be so. It is damaging to the finances of the Railways Board. It is denying them the right of tendering in free competition with private undertakings, and I therefore submit that it is an abomination. It ought not to be so. I hope teat the Government will give us a favourable reply, but I must say I am not too optimistic, because of their past or because of what I have said. It does not encourage them to make a favourable reply; but, as we are probably not going to get a favourable reply anyway, we might as well get a bit of argument out of it before the reply comes.
This matter was argued out in another place, and again the answer was that the Government consider that the business of British Railways is to run railways and not to manufacture. So they just stuck to their guns, and that is all there is to it. My Lords, this is one of the most shameful episodes in British public life, and I hope that, at any rate among the public outside, notice will be taken of the protest that we make against it.
5.5 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, anybody who does not agree with the noble Lord,
326
Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is generally anti-social, and this particular Government is generally, but not always, anti-Socialist. I think, with that slight emendation, his description of them is probably correct. But, shorn of its polemics, this is the old, old question: what should the railways manufacture? We were the country that originally started the great world railway boom, and all through the last century and up to about 1930 or so the railway material business was one of our biggest and most flourishing exports. After the slump of 1931, things were never quite the same again. I recall that one of the biggest British locomotive manufacturers, a household word in the railway world, was, if I remember correctly, employing 21 men in 1931. I remember that because I was later connected with a foreign railway, and I was told that by placing an order for half a dozen locomotives we gave them the opportunity of restarting their works.
If the old British railways had not manufactured such a large proportion of their own material all that time, people like the firm I have mentioned would never have got into such straits. In other words, the boom and stump pattern which is typical of all capital goods, and which applies particularly to railway goods, requires that, to do an export trade, anybody should have a broad basis of trade at home. For that reason, I think it can be strongly argued that the railways manufactured a great deal too much of their own stuff; that far more locomotives should always have been manufactured outside the railways' workshops, and other material, as well. Because, given that broad basis of constant demand at home to carry their overheads, manufacturers would have been able to go out into the export markets of the world, where the competition is absolutely intense, with a better chance of success.
I think that this special plea, which comes up from time to time and always whenever there is a certain threat of unemployment in railway workshops, to allow them to extend their activities over non-traditional markets, is one that we have to be strong-minded enough to dismiss. After all, if you are creating employment in a railway workshop you are presumably taking it away from another workshop, and if one is to be-

327
lieve the stones of the various unions about wages in the railway service, one can only assume that it is going to be performed by lower-paid workers, which is certainly not in conformity with the principles of the Party opposite. No, my Lords; a very strong national case can be made out for the railways to manufacture less, and always to have manufactured less, in their own workshops than they have done over the last three-quarters of a century.
5.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, being, as I know he is, a good Parliamentary Secretary, will indicate a repudiation on behalf of his right honourable friend of some of what my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said about him. Nevertheless, there is a strong, growing and accumulating case for saying that in all these transactions there is a very strong private-enterprise bias. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that the railways should not do so much of their own equipment work; that they should not do what he called the nontraditional work.
I understood—and I know that the Minister of Transport has said this many times—that we want a twentieth-century transport service; we do not want so much of the "old traditional". Indeed, he brought in Dr. Beeching, a famous apostle of private enterprise, who in turn enlisted the support of Batchelor's Peas and many other distinguished exponents of private enterprise, in order to give a new look and a new policy to British Railways; and it is Dr. Beeching's proposal that the railways should be allowed to tender for this particular work which forms the whole crux of my noble friend's Question and the whole burden of his complaint. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that the left hand of the Government has ordered the railways to make a profit and theright hand is destroying all their chances of doing so.
The 1962 Act laid on the British Railways Board the task of eventually (I am not using the exact words) making the railways viable; and this is one of
328
the ways in which Dr. Beeching hoped to do so: it was not done only to provide employment. And this is after Dr. Beeching has taken steps to reduce the number of railway workshops and the number of shopmen. Therefore it is reasonable to say—and I hope that the noble Lord will answer this point when he comes to reply—that Dr. Beeching thought there was good commercial, economic reason and "twentieth-century tradition" for engaging in this particular enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is aware that when questions are asked on matters of detailed management affecting British Railways the usual reply given, quite rightly (although the noble Lord may give a private or personal answer) is that these are management matters and must be referred to the Railways Board. I should have thought that this particular matter of being allowed to tender for railway equipment was, in fact, a management matter and one on which the Railways Board should have been allowed to decide. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that this is one example of the left hand ordering the railways to make a profit and the right hand destroying their chances of doing so.
My noble friend quoted the earlier case which I raised during the passage of the Bill with regard to the workshops of London Transport at Chiswick and Aldenham. The noble Lord will remember that earlier, when the Bill was first produced, they would have been allowed to go on with their repair work there; and it was a later Amendment—which I sought to remove; and which the Government introduced during the passage of the Bill in another place—that produced the present situation. I had always thought that what I refer to as these apparently "daft" management decisions of the Railways Board were the work of Dr. Beeching; but I am now coming to believe, in view of this decision about tendering, that they are not; and that Dr. Beeching, as on this occasion, is acting under orders. I refer to the loss-making decisions, of which there are so many examples, because it now appears that there is substance in the case that the Government, knowing that they could not secure majority support for denationalisation of the railways in the ordinary

329
way, are determined on denationalisation through the back door, or on "death by a thousand mistakes".
There are other examples apart from this particular case of refusal to tender. Perhaps the noble Lord when he replies will say who is responsible—the Minister of Transport or Dr. Beeching—for giving three weeks' notice to the Derby railway workshops that they are to cease dismantling surplus railway stock and recovering the material so that it could be used again. This is now to be done by private enterprise; and British Railways will then buy back their own material at a price which will include two profits. On whose instructions is that to be done? And can we know, in general, on whose instructions—is it the Railways Board or the Minister of Transport?—railway property, when it is scrapped, is to be sold to dealers at give-away prices? And on whose instructions do the Board refuse offers made by local authorities or by other bodies, sometimes private, which desire to preserve a railway? In some cases of this kind a line is scrapped by the Board. If the Minister genuinely wanted to assist towards the viability of the railways, then, if these decisions are being made by the Railways Board to dismantle their own lines, he would intervene and reverse those decisions. Otherwise, it seems that the Government, to reduce or lose altogether the railways' chances of making a profit, are ignoring all these steps the Board are apparently taking. They are intervening adversely in the case to which my noble friend referred when the Railways have a chance to make a profit.
Perhaps the noble Lord would say something on this point about the question of staffs and whether this policy has the approval of the Government.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry, my Lords, but I am not clear where we are now. Did the noble Lord say "staffs"? Which staffs?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was referring to the stars employed in the railway workshops. I have just referred to Derby workshops and to the decision, as I understand it, that railwaymen in these workshops shall no longer do the work they have been doing in the past. That must create redundancy. The
330
refusal of permission for the Railways Board to tender for these contracts is likely to create redundancy. The point I want to make is that last year there were 38,000 fewer railwaymen's jobs—that is the Board's own figure and therefore cannot be disputed. I do not say 38,000 fewer staff; but 38,000 fewer jobs during the year. But, meanwhile, the number of jobs at headquarters has been increasing. For example, since 1948 the staff at Marylebone has increased from 59 to more than 650—an enormous increase in headquarters staff. Who is responsible for what could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to make sure that the railways lose money left, right and centre?
I would quote one other example, which came to me only this morning, from the Templecombe Parish Council. They sent me the label by which freight, which they described as clay traffic, was sent from the Wareham area to Fowey, in Cornwall. They say that this traffic, instead of being moved for a distance of 30 miles, taking three hours, was deliberately sent by a different route so as to travel 50 or 60 miles longer and to take some 20 hours longer in time. I have all the details here.
These things are extremely disturbing, because every day matters of this kind come to my knowledge. They cannot be properly investigated, unless we can talk about them here and get an answer. Failing a satisfactory answer, I would say that the evidence is piling up to provide justification for my noble friend's suggestion that in various ways decisions are being made—and we ought to know who is finally responsible for these decisions—which steadily, step by step, are removing from British Railways all chance of their reaching viability; and all because the railways are a publicly owned industry and because of the prejudice of the present Government against publicly owned industry.
5.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, I am brought to intervene in this debate, not so much because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned my name in the course of his speech, but because of what I regard as his unwarranted and intemperate attack on my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. The noble Lord was kind enough

331
to inform me, with his usual courtesy and kindness, that he was going to mention my name, but he said that I need not bother about that and could safely go home—and, indeed, he said nothing about me which would cause me to get up. He said that I asked your Lordships to rely upon the facts and that I did not indulge in any argument. I do not think that argument is a very strong point of mine, if I have facts to support the case.
But in connection with his attack on the Minister of Transport, I should like to say that my right honourable friend has worked and slaved to try to improve the efficiency of the national services for which he has a responsibility. Nothing has been too big for him to do, nothing has been too arduous for him to do, to try to promote efficiency. I would say that the Socialist Administration which set un these nationalised concerns did not do much more than set them up. They did not do much to ensure that they should be efficient. I think that the Minister is quite entitled to judge whether, in the interests of efficiency, the Board, where they have to seek his permission, should or should not do a particular thing. I do not like to hear the Minister criticised and told that he should get out because he is anti-social. He is nothing of the sort. His actions are dictated by the desire, which has all along actuated the Conservative Government, not to destroy the nationalised industries but to see that they work efficiently. I am sure that that is the sole object of the stand my right honourable friend is making.
I wanted to get up and say this, because I honestly believe it; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whom I have always found to be fair, should just look at this problem again and see whether he cannot come to the same conclusion.
5.27 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hesitate a little to venture into this debate, which seems to be a private controversy between the Opposition and the Minister of Transport, but I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Chesham will stand fast with regard to the tendering by British Railways for the manufacture of privately-owned railway equipment.
332
I say that for several reasons. One of these reasons is that British Railways already manufacture a large proportion of their own requirements of equipment. In certain items they manufacture 100 per cent. of requirements. Their practice differs radically from that of almost every other national railway in the world. Foreign railway systems purchase about 100 per cent. of their requirements from private manufacturers. On the other hand, British private manufacturers have little domestic business on which to base their export efforts. This point has already been made by my noble friend Lord Hawke.
With regard to this question of tendering by British Railways for privately-owned equipment, I believe that I am right in saying that the policy of British Railways is to limit their production to a small number of standard types, and by standardising these types they have been able to achieve certain economies. If, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, they were to embark on the manufacture of equipment for special requirements—equipment usually tailored for specific firms—the benefit of standardisation would certainly be lost. For these reasons, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will stick to his guns—or rather to his right honourable friend's guns.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I did not initially mean to intervene in this debate, and I shall be only a few minutes, but I think that it would be a pity if nobody mentioned the achievements of British Railways over recent years. Everybody would think that we had a third-rate railway system. Of course, there are black spots, but the good trains are second to none in the world, and I think that this point should be made, and made again. I think that all these articles slinging mud at the railways and those in charge of them should be torn up and buried in the waste paper basket. I suppose that all this reflects on the Minister of Transport. I do not know him personally, but measured purely in accomplishment over the last ten years I think he has accomplished more than has ever been done before.
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as a railwayman, I am glad to hear the

333
noble Viscount, Lard Stonehaven, pay that compliment to railways and railwaymen: I must say that, in the circumstances, I think it is justifiable. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that this question of the manufacture by a publicly-owned undertaking of goods for use outside that undertaking is an old question which was considered under the Act of 1947.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does it not go back still further? This controversy as to how they should manufacture used to rage in the days of the old railway companies.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think it is the case that under the 1921 Railways Act they were specifically prevented from manufacturing for outside bodies if they so wished. I think the first prohibition was contained in Section 2 of the 1947 Act, which, as everyone knows, was passed by the Labour Government.
The 1947 Act was intended to give the British Transport Commission near monopoly conditions for long distance road and rail freight traffic, and the restrictions as to freight rates were designed to ensure that that power was not abused. The point I would make in connection with that Act is that there were a number of political considerations surrounding the prohibition of manufacture included in the Act, arising out of the fact that, although the Labour Party had in the House of Commons at that time a substantial majority sufficient to enable them to push through any legislation, they had to make sure that it would also get through the House of Lords, where there was then a large and hostile majority. Many of the things we should have liked to have in the 1947 Act were not done because of this simple fact. It is true—and I think some tribute should be paid here—that we did not know at that stage quite how this House would behave in relation to the other place. We had not had the experience of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, leading the then Opposition as sensibly as he did, which eventually proved to us that this House on certain matters would behave reasonably in relation to legislation which was being pushed through the other place.
334
The Act of 1962, to come a little closer to to-day, was designed to meet conditions produced by reason of the denationalisation of road transport and the removal of these near-monopoly powers which I have mentioned. The Act of 1962 was designed to give to the various Boards greater competitive powers and commercial freedom. It is true that an exception to this commercial freedom was a retention of the prohibition to manufacture anything not required for the purpose of the undertaking, which was contained in Section 13 of that Act. This we regarded as an exception quite unjustified in the circumstances created by the 1962 Transport Act, and Section 13, as has already been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Stonham, was fought by the Opposition. We thought it quite wrong to include this prohibition at a time when Parliament was giving to these undertakings the degree of commercial freedom that seemed to be justified in the circumstances created by the Tory Government. I remember moving an Amendment on this matter which was rejected by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, who was then speaking for the Government. But Section 13 also clearly enabled the British Railways Board to manufacture products for anyone, always provided that they were designed for use on the railways, although this was, as of course this case clearly proves, subject to the Minister's veto.
Mr. Marples appointed Dr. Beeching with a mandate to make the railways pay. Dr. Beeching's drastic Report of 1963 was accepted, in principle, by the Government. I must say that it was a Report with which I found myself largely in agreement, given the conditions produced by successive Tory Governments and, to some extent, I agreed with the mandate which had been given to Dr. Beeching. Much of it I would have accepted even without those conditions: for I have never been one of those who sought to retain for ever the shape of the railways produced by the railway age of the last century, a good deal of which has clearly outlived its usefulness. I have always accepted this, and that is why I have refrained from sniping too much about the closing of the branch lines, although I suppose that my knowledge of the industry would have enabled

335
me to do this. I believe that the railways have to be remodelled largely on the lines proposed by Dr. Beeching in his Report of 1963.
This man was brought in to make the railways pay. His intellectual capacity and commercial training enabled him to look at the railway problem with a fresh and pretty ruthless eye. He is the man who proposes to reduce the number of men employed in the main railway workshops by over 19,000 in five years, with disastrous consequences to the staff, and, indeed, in some cases, to whole railway towns. This will result, he has told us, in an annual saving of £4 million. This man, who was brought in for this special purpose, is the man who submitted a Memorandum to the Minister of Transport setting, out in six paragraphs his proposals for the future manufacture of equipment. These paragraphs were as to the exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the 1962 Act.
Paragraph 6 of this Memorandum reads:
"It is quite possible that rail customers may increasingly wish to own their own rolling stock and containers; particularly the latter. The Board are advised that so long as privately-owned railway equipment is manufactured for use on the Board's railway system or on that of any other Board (within the context of Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1962), which has railways, the Board can themselves lawfully tender for the manufacture of that equipment; otherwise they cannot. It is the intention of the Board, therefore, to seek opportunities to tender for the manufacture for their customers of privately-owned railway equipment which is to be used either on British Railways or on the railways of any other Board."
I think it should be noted here, and underlined, that the operative word in this connection is "tender". Clearly, this means that the tender, to succeed, will have to be competitive, both as regards price and as regards quality. There was nothing in this Memorandum, or anything behind it, which suggested in any way: "Buy with us, or else you will not be able to use our undertaking". Indeed, Dr. Beeching dare not use that sort of threat. All he was asking for was a straightforward opportunity to make equipment for a lawful purpose if the tender of the British Railways Board was accepted; and the Minister's sanction was all that was required in this connection.
336
To that memorandum, submitted by his specially appointed commercially-minded man, Mr. Marples, replied "I decline to approve proposal No. 6." He reserved his position in relation to, I think, one other proposal, but he declined specifically to give his sanction to permit the British Railways Board to tender for the manufacture of the equipment set out here. Why did the Minister decline to approve this proposal to allow the Board lawfully to tender for the manufacture of this equipment? I have read most carefully the replies given by his Parliamentary Secretaries in both Houses. They amount to this: first, that Dr. Beeching's proposal would not accord with the Government's policy for the British Railways Board, which is to provide railway services; second, that if this facility was given to the British Railways Board, certain private firms might go out of business altogether: third, that never once in the history of railways have they ever manufactured for private concerns; and, fourth, that the validity of the costing systems used by the British Railways Board might well be in question.
Let me say a word on the first point, that the job of the British Railways Board is to provide railway services. This is, I admit, quite in line with all that the Tory Government have done in this connection—namely, that, no matter how great the amount of publicly-owned capital involved, no matter how much of it might be wasted by a doctrinaire decision, how many of its men may be made redundant, or how many whole towns may be made to suffer, the publicly owned capital must be wasted, the men dismissed, and towns injuriously affected. That is the beginning of the Minister's reply. This is, in other words, protecting capitalism against the public interest. I am sure that this is one of the few points that Mr. Enoch Powell would find satisfactory in the present Government's policy.
More and more this Government are saying that to safeguard our future there must be a greater element of competition in our economic system. The abolition of resale price maintenance and further action against the monopolies are promised, and it is all said to be part of this job of providing greater efficiency in our economy as a result of competition. Yet by such decisions as

337
the one we are now discussing, the Government are prepared to reduce the element of competition by specifically debarring the publicly owned undertaking from entering into competition for the manufacture of wagons to be used on its own system.
The second argument was that many privately owned firms might go out of business if the British Railways Board were given this right to manufacture certain types of railway wagons. This argument seems to me to come strangely from a Government who do not seem to care how many small shopkeepers would go out of business as a result of the Resale Prices Bill. I do not want to see privately owned wagon manufacturers go out of business, any more than I want to see the small shopkeepers go out of business, unless (and this is the point I want to stress) they are a drag upon our economy. If they are a drag, they ought to go out of business. The Government say that unless that small shopkeepers can compete successfully, they must go; but so far as the privately owned wagon makers are concerned, if they cannot compete with the publicly owned undertaking the competition by the British Railways Board must be prevented.
It seems to me to be a strange inconsistency, even for this Tory Government, that while, on the one hand, they say they are fighting for competition, when it comes to the competition between a publicly owned undertaking and a privately owned one, the Government, or Mr. Marples, steps in and says, "No; no competition of this nature". I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hawke and Lord Merrivale, that if private firms are to compete abroad, it would be nice if they had a good solid market at home as a jumping off point for their competition abroad. I would say that it would be a good thing for those private undertakings to be stimulated into efficiency by competition at home, for a start; and if they are good enough to win contracts from the British Railways they would be in a pretty good condition to fight the competition of the foreign manufacturer.
The third point was that the railways have never once manufactured for private industry. Never once, until this Government's actions drastically reduced the railways near-monopoly position, have railways had commercial freedom
338
to compete on freight rates or rail fares. From their very beginning they were hedged about with restrictions, and rightly so, in monopoly or near-monopoly conditions. But the Conservative Government said, "We are now removing all that and they will be, and are, free to compete." That is what they said in the 1962 Act. The purpose of that Act was to give them greater commercial freedom. They specifically excepted freedom to compete for works for their shops to produce for outside industry products having no relation to their function of providing transport facilities. But in the provisions of the 1962 Act there was no prohibition against manufacturing for railway purposes unless the Minister so ordered.
We were led to believe that Dr. Beeching and the 1962 Act were heralding a great departure from the thinking of the nineteenth century; that gone were the restrictions of the nineteenth century; that the railways must use to the full their efficient capital and close down the rest. In this new beginning, Dr. Beeching closed branch lines and ruthlessly cut wasteful capital, but by his proposal to be allowed to tender he said, in effect, "Under the law, and economically using my capital, I believe that I can compete with the private manufacturers of wagons". He asked for permission to tender, and although the railways have entered a new competitive era this was denied to Dr. Beeching.
The last point—which was made by Mr. Galbraith in another place—was that the validity of the costing systems are in question. Is it really being suggested here that this great commercially-minded man, Dr. Beeching, whose drastic proposals for streamlining the railways shocked so many of your Lordships, is prepared to betray his training and background so far as virtually to "cook the books" in favour of the British Railways Board in order to tender successfully for orders for railway wagons? I would imagine that, with his background, he would recoil in horror from such a proposition, and I could understand that very well. The more I look at the Minister's decision in relation to proposal No. 6 of Dr. Beeching's memorandum, the more I am bound to see that decision as a narrow, doctrinaire decision, weighted against the

339
general public interest, and in favour of a small group of manufacturers.
I am not one of those people who like to threaten anyone with what we will do when we again form the Government of this land. I believe that no Government should be fettered with dogmatic promises made with the authority of prominent leaders, regardless of the fact that by the time the promises have to be implemented circumstances will have changed, or may have changed, considerably. But I must say that I do support the statement about this ministerial decision by Mr. Marries, made by Mr. Strauss in the other place, and by others, who have said that immediately the Labour Party gets power again it will change this bad decision by this bad Minister.
5.52 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, sets me some pretty problems. He always reminds me of an unskilled gardener who gets a lot of seeds from everywhere, jumbles them up and scatters them all over the place. Up comes every kind of plant and weed, and I am left as the chap who has to sort out the tangled mass of herbage. Somehow I must get the noble Lords opposite away from a position in which they have led themselves completely up the garden path, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. If I reject Lord Morrison of Lambeth's invitation to use arguments such as he has used, it will be because I propose to stick to the facts of the matter and not to deploy such arguments as noble Lords opposite used, which were loaded with Party political bias to a degree that I have seldom heard, even from them, before. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, perhaps got into this position by abandoning the role we have become more used to recently, when some of his speeches might almost, it seemed, have come from this side of the House. Perhaps that is the reason.
I do not know whether the noble Lords who spoke opposite have forgotten exactly what happened, but I think I had better go back to the basis of the Transport Act, 1962. May I digress there, to hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will forgive me if I do not respond to his suggestion that I should answer some ques-
340
tions he put to me? I would point out to him that we are to-day discussing the manufacturing powers of the Board and not the repair arrangements, over which, of course, my right honourable friend does not have powers, as he does over the manufacturing ones. Perhaps on some other occasion it may be appropriate to do so.
I would remind your Lordships of what was the basic policy of the Government in the Transport Act, 1962. It was that the basic job of a railway system is to provide transport, not to make goods. It was the provision of transport which Dr. Beeching was asked to make a paying proposition, not the other things. Manufacture is, therefore, not the purpose of the railway workshops.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH:
My Lords, the noble Lord says that Dr. Beeching was appointed to run the railways and not to manufacture. Is he suggesting that Dr. Beeching is breaking his contract of service, that he is acting ultra vires by merely requesting that he should be able to tender in competition with private firms for this work?
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps as my relating of facts goes on a little further it will become clearer, because, after all, I have said only two sentences so far.
As I said, the basic fact, which I repeat, is that it was the transport system that Dr. Beeching was asked (and this is a matter of policy) to make as far as possible a paying proposition. I believe that is perfectly clear; and I do not think that manufacturing is the purpose of the railway workshops. The purpose of the railway workshops is to carry out the repair and maintenance of the railway system and its equipment and so support it in its job of providing transport. But, all the same, as my noble friend Lord Merrivale pointed out, historically the railway workshops in this country have built up a manufacturing capacity which is almost unique in railway systems in the world, even if that manufacture, as it is, is designed to manufacture only for its own purposes.
If I may digress for a moment, I should like to point out that the French railways, which we are continually told are so much a pattern and example to us, do not manufacture their own capital equipment. This is done by specialist firms

341
who are now among our biggest competitors in the export market. The railways in Poland do not either, and neither do those in the other Iron Curtain countries. Poland, in particular, is sending railway equipment all over the world. But I do not want to go on too long about other countries, because we must talk about our own. We in the Government have always recognised the practical fact that railway workshop manufacturing capacity exists, and that was why, when we brought in the 1962 Transport Bill, we approached the manufacturing problem in no doctrinaire spirit whatever. In fact, we left things exactly as they were. We gave the railway workshops the same field of custom for their product as they had under the 1947 Act—and if noble Lords opposite think that that is Party dogma at work they will believe anything.
But what is sauce for the goose, I am told, is sauce for the gander. Private rolling-stock makers have been hard hit by the general fall in the demand for rolling stock, and they have as much right as the railway; to expect that the status quo should continue to apply, and that the railways should not enter into an entirely new field of competition with these firms who, as taxpayers, can claim that they are being asked to contribute towards the finances of their rival. It is also a fact that, not so long ago, private firms were building more carriages and more wagons hr British Railways than the railway workshops were doing. The last year for which I have figures is 1962, and they were then, my Lords, on carriages. British Railways took from the railway workshops 666, as against 91 from the private firms. On wagons, they had 6,485 from rail way workshops and 2,244 from private firms. Although my noble friend Lord Hawke is not sure about it, I must say that I do not see anything immoral in those proportions. If noble Lords opposite believe that the situation that arises from that is the result of Party dogma at work, they will believe anything.
If only noble Lords opposite would look at all the manufacturing proposals which my right honourable friend has approved, and not just pick out those facts which are a suitable background music to the Party political song and dance they have chosen to put on, they would see that for their own require-
342
ments the railways are entitled to give preference to their own workshops where there is level tendering. This seems to us quite natural, and my right honourable friend accepted this proposal. If noble Lords believe that this is Party dogma at work, they will believe anything.
I would, if I may, deal with a few other points, because there has been so much—"misconception" is a mild word really, but being where I am I think I will use it, about this matter, not only this afternoon. I would take the opportunity to deal with one or two points, not all of which may have been made this afternoon. The first is that my right honourable friend has chopped off a limb of the railways' existing activities. This simply is not true. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, reminded us that the Party opposite, in the Transport Act, 1947, gave the railways no power to build for outside owners, and in fact the Minister at the time made it clear that he was giving the Transport Commission the same powers, no more and no less, as those of the old main line companies.
Incidentally, the noble Lord may like to know that that business goes back well before the 1921 Act. There was litigation in 1873 on this very subject. That point, I must say, came from somewhere else and was not a result of searching inquiries. But we have made searching inquiries and we have so far failed to trace any manufacture by the railways for private owners before nationalisation, and there has certainly not been any since. In all that time, therefore, it is the private firms which have continued to make for private owners the private rolling stock, such as tank wagons, which, despite another misconception, was in fact permitted to continue in operation under the 1947 Act.
There seems to be some thought—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said it himself the other day—that my right honourable friend or I myself had admitted that there is a legal right for the railways to manufacture for private owners. What I said was that this was not the point. We are not concerned to confirm or deny this legal right. The legal interpretation of the Act is not for us. My right honourable friend has merely used his powers in order to up-

343
hold the policy and the undertakings on the basis of which Parliament passed the Act as it now stands. But since it has been suggested—not only by the noble Lord, but elsewhere—that we have trespassed into the field of legal interpretation, I would only ask all concerned to look very closely at what has been said on the subject by my right honourable friend and myself, and they will find we have done no such thing. In fact, the position is that the Board are advised that they have the legal power in question, and private industry appears to be advised to the contrary. But my right honourable friend and I have in fact offered no opinion on that subject either way, and we see no reason to do so.
Apart from that, as a matter of interest, I understand that action bearing directly on resolving these matters is still pending in the courts, and it would therefore also be improper if we were to do so.
It has also been said that a new situation has arisen since the 1962 Act was passed, and that the policy on which that Act was based should no longer apply. I remain unconvinced, and unrepentant on anything I have said on the matter. There is no new situation. Private tank wagons, privately built, operated on the railways then. They will continue to operate—more efficiently, rather naturally—on Dr. Beeching's one-commodity trains. They are not liner trains. That is another misconception. Liner trains are flat wagons carrying containers. There is no change in the situation, and I do not think the noble Lord can claim that is Party dogma, either.
It has been widely said—I thought it was not directly said but insinuated this afternoon—that my right honourable friend's decision has spread ruin and destruction throughout the railway workshop towns, meaning of course those towns which have nationalised railway workshops. Certainly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that, because he said so the other day, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh; and, if a report in the Sunday Teleqraph of March 15 is right, the right honourable gentleman who leads the Opposition in another place told the London Labour Party Conference that he thought so too. We are
344
asked to believe that Derby is devastated, Doncaster desolate and Swindon swept off the map. That is a wild allegation, and people who go about saying that sort of thing either do not know, or else are very careful not to mention that under British Railways current plan of workshop reorganisation there are only two workshops which, as well as doing repair and maintenance, manufacture new wagons, and those are Shildon and Ashford. So far as the rest are concerned, some repair and maintain wagons, and others, being locomotive or carriage works, are not concerned with wagons at all.
So far as the two wagon building works go, it has been said that my right honourable friend's decision has deprived Shildon of orders for cement wagons, and both Shildon and Ashford of orders previously placed by Shell for oil tankers. I am told that the cement wagons in question were never to have been anything but railway owned, so my right honourable friend's decision could not have affected them at all. As regards the tanker wagons, I need only say that the Shell Company issued an immediate repudiation of the allegation at the time it was made. It was published by some newspapers. I think I might be allowed to read a short extract. This is from the Yorkshire Post of March 13:
"An allegation that Mr. Marples, Minister of Transport, had deprived British Railways workshops of orders for oil tanker wagons worth £15 million was denied by a spokesman for Shell-Mex and B.P. last night … The spokesman … said Mr. Noel-Baker's letter was incorrect in its suggestion that Mr. Marples' ruling had caused Shell-Mex to reverse a decision. No decision had been made by the company at the time Mr. Marples made his ruling. British Railways, along with other concerns, had been invited to submit tenders to supply tanker wagons, but they had been ruled out on purely commercial grounds. The company's decision on where to place its order had not been affected by Mr. Marples' ruling."
I am trying to dispose of this rumour. It has not been said to-day, I quite agree, but I wanted to tackle it while I was on that particular ground.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord rightly, the spokesman for the company said that tenders had been rejected on commercial grounds. Could the noble Lord say why it was necessary for the Minister to intervene?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I said that the Minister had not intervened and had had nothing to do with it. That was the purpose of my quotation. He did not intervene. I just wanted to make that point about that so-called loss of £15 million. I would point out that some of the talk I have heard about it, and some of the things I have read about it, certainly imply that that £15 million was a net loss to the railways, whereas if it had existed at all it would have been a gross one.
I must deal with this question of redundancy in railway workshops in relation to my right honourable friend's decision. I thought I understood the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, to say something about that to-day, and I have seen reports that his right honourable friend the Leader in another place has certainly said something. I said in this House the other day that there would be no redundancy at Shildon and Ashford resulting from my right honourable friend's decision. If these are the only two firms who would have built wagons, it is difficult to how not building them could cause redundancy anywhere else. There will he none at these two places where manufacture would have taken place. As a result of this decision there will not be any this year, or any change in the capacity under existing plans. All that will happen is that they will be doing more repair and maintenance work.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked about Dr. Beeching's position in this matter. I have no doubt that Dr. Beeching would have liked to have up his sleeve the possibility of this extra work. All good employers like well-filled order books and are out to get as much work as they can for their staff. But, in fact, neither Dr. Beeching's workshops nor his staff are going to be idle as a result of this decision. I understand that, at the most, about 250 men, all told, might have been employed by the railways on the job. But I think that, despite the rather denigrating attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to it, it is important to remember that, up to now, no tank wagons have ever been built in the workshops of British railways, and, as I have just said, the building of a given number of them can result only in employment for a specific number of work people
346
expressed in man-weeks. There is no suggestion that these wagons will not be built in this country, and therefore this employment for British workpeople will be provided in any case in the workshops of the private firms. Therefore the effect of building a proportion of these tankers in the British Railways Board's workshops could result only in providing work for men who have never previously been engaged upon it, while an equal number of men who have been on it all their lives would possibly not have any work at all.
I should like to come back to the Question which started this discussion. My right honourable friend has no intention of reversing the decision he has taken—a decision, contrary to the views of noble Lords opposite, that he has taken in no doctrinaire spirit, but, as I am perfectly certain I have demonstrated, based on a practical and common-sense appreciation of the realities of the situation and an assessment of the real role of a transport undertaking. My right honourable friend's decision was not taken hastily. In matters of this kind there are always arguments in favour of both sides. But we have no doubt as to the rightness of the final decision. Above all, it is consistent, even if noble Lords opposite have completely forgotten about it, with the undertakings given to Parliament in a situation which has not changed since those undertakings were given.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, makes great play of his personal political animosity towards my right honourable friend. He loves to say the kind of thing that he has said to-day. He knows that the shoulders of my right honourable friend are extremely broad. The noble Lord can really get up on his tub or his dogma kennel, or anything like that, and shout away about it. But it will not detract from the fact that my right honourable friend is going to prove just about the most successful Minister of Transport of all time. It must be most galling to have to admit it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Is it? Is the noble Lord admitting saying that it is most galling to him to have to say that this is the greatest Minister of Transport—past, present or future?

347
Is it galling to the Parliamentary Secreary? Does he hope to fill the Minister's position and hope to do better?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I said that it must be galling for the noble Lord, not for me. And I think it must be. But of course, I do not expect the noble Lord to do other than take that attitude, because he has this business of Party dogma so much on his mind. He has it in his mind he has it in his soul. He has gone so far as to suggest that the nationalised railway undertaking should be allowed a new departure, with utter disregard of the consequences to the private sector of the industry, of its contribution to exports, the effect on its workers, or indeed of the national interest.
348
All noble Lords opposite can do is to see this matter in terms of profit. Profit can be most useful, and some of these old-established firms have kept the chaps in their jobs because of it—they have not an open-ended, bottomless, taxpayer-backed Exchequer to make up their deficiencies. My Lords, I think it is the Government who are shouldering their responsibility for the interests of both the public and the private sectors in a most realistic and practical way; and I say, once more and finally to your Lordships, that if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, believes that his attitude is not based on Party dogma, then he will believe anything.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.