Lords Sitting of 5 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester

THE FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING
3.5 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 have given thorough consideration to the principle of retaining the exterior facade of the Foreign Office but removing all the interior and re-designing this: or, if not, would they hold a public architectural competition to see whether some private architect could produce a satisfactory solution to this by no means insoluble architectural problem, as has been proved with such success in many other cultural countries?]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the idea of reconstructing the Foreign Office within the existing facade was exhaustively considered by my right honourable friend. He has, however, reached the conclusion that a scheme of interior reconstruction could provide neither the amount nor the standard of accommodation needed. As my right honourable friend has made clear in another place, he intends to appoint an architect capable of designing a fine building which is both functionally adequate and worthy of this important site.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he will not hold a public competition to see whether he can get exactly what he wants? This is not an insoluble architectural problem, as any architect of experience will tell you.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that this is not an insoluble architectural problem. Is it not a fact that the Home Office also is located in the Foreign Office building; and has the problem of moving the Home Office out to a new building—one on, say, the site of the old Westminster Hospital, which still stands bare—thus making more room for the Foreign Office, been fully considered?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Home Office is at present located within this general building. My understanding is that it is the idea that, when the new Government building is constructed between Bridge Street and Richmond Terrace, part of that new building will be occupied by the Home Office. This will, in fact, give more room on the existing Foreign Office site, but it will give nothing like the amount of room which is required if all the Foreign Office departments are to be brought together, as is clearly desirable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl answer the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Bossom? Why is it that we cannot have a competition, so that we may have the opportunity of studying, the ideas of a number of architects, instead of relying on one architect and the Minister's own decision?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would, of course, be possible to have a competition; but my right honourable friend is absolutely certain that without a new building it is quite impossible to accommodate all the staff that are required within this existing site. I should perhaps mention that it is his intention to appoint a planning consultant, so that the treatment, both of this new site and of the new site opposite, the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site, should be handled together and viewed as a whole.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the noble Earl tell us what is going to happen to the Commonwealth Relations Office, which also is expanding very rapidly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the idea is that the Commonwealth Relations Office will be located, along with the Foreign Office, in this building.
LORD BOSSOM: Is my noble friend aware that, by using long-span, pre-stressed construction, you could do this work and probably get all the accommodation needed at much less cost and in very much less time?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not aware of this, but I will certainly bring my noble friend's ideas to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will not give further and deeper consideration to the suggestion made in this Question? Is it not a great pity that one of the classic views of London, of a really worthy building, should be lightly cast aside? When you come across St. James's Park and see that tower you see one of the best-known views of this city. I would beg the noble Earl to consider further some such suggestion as that made in this Question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will give very careful consideration to the views which are expressed in your Lordships' House on this matter. I would agree with the noble Lord that this is a very fine building—at least to some eyes, including mine—from the outside; but he knows as well as I know how intolerable it is inside for a great many people who work there. Also, I think the Question implies a lack of confidence in our architects to-day which is not entirely justified.
LORD KILLEARN: In reference to the noble Earl's statement just now, judging by the new buildings which are put up in Whitehall I think it would be appalling to have something similar set up in St. James's Park. With all respect—cubic capacity, if you like; but there is something else besides cubic capacity involved. I really would beg my noble friend to give more serious consideration to this question.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that this is partly an engineering problem, and not merely an architectural one? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that long-span, pre-stressed concrete bars might be the answer, but that might be very unpopular with the architects. Will the noble Earl make sure that appropriate consultations take place with structural engineers?—because I am
214
quite sure this problem could be solved as a structional engineering problem. This is a gem of architecture which it would be a shame to destroy.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear, in replying to another noble Lord just now, that my right honourable friend will pay very careful attention to these views which have been expressed.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, are the Minister and my noble friend so totally indifferent to the very serious thought of probably a million or more informed people who have reputations for good taste as to destroy a building of this sort—a building that will not be replaced by anything like so congenial a building when another is erected on this site?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords.
EARL ATTLEE: Is it really so necessary for all the Departments to be under one roof? Surely, we have had many instances where Departments have found it quite possible to send part of their staffs away. I am quite sure that parts of the Foreign Office could do the same thing.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it has been considered that there would be considerable advantage felt by this Government, as it was felt by the noble Earl's Government, in co-locating (to use that horrible expression) the Foreign Office staff in one building.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for what he has said: that he will take all these matters very seriously and convey them to the Minister and see whether something cannot be done to retain the façade of a building of such historical value.

DIPLOMATS' CARS AND TRAFFIC LAWS
3.14 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: 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 cars owned by members of the Diplomatic Corps in London are subject to traffic laws and rules, and to parking regulations; and, if not, what measures are taken to ensure that they do not cause danger to the public or

215
obstruct traffic; how many cars are granted diplomatic status; and how many times in the last twelve months charges would have been brought if diplomatic immunity had not been claimed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, persons who are entitled to diplomatic immunity and who drive cars are expected to observe the traffic laws in the same way as citizens of this country. As guests, they are entitled to as much courtesy as can within the law be extended to them, but the Heads of Diplomatic Missions were reminded in a circular letter last December of the responsibility of all members of the Diplomatic Corps to observe the regulations and to do their best to co-operate with the police in their difficult task of keeping the traffic moving in London. If there is danger or obstruction, cars can be, and have been, removed.
I understand that since January 1 this year the London County Council has issued 1,975 Excise-exempt licences for diplomatic vehicles. During 1963 the Home Office received police reports of 50 traffic incidents in the Metropolitan Police District in which drivers claiming diplomatic immunity were involved. In addition, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that in the same year, in respect of parking offences for which fixed-penalty notices had been issued, no proceedings were taken in about 2,078 cases because the persons involved claimed diplomatic immunity. It is not possible to say whether charges would have been preferred in all these cases had it not been for the entitlement to diplomatic immunity.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether the Government are satisfied that the Heads of Diplomatic Missions in London are fully aware of the apparent inequity of the existing state of affairs; and whether they are bringing pressure to bear on those members of their staffs who are guilty of these offences?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Heads of Diplomatic Missions are well aware of the problem and, as I have already said, a circular was issued reminding
216
them last December. I cannot answer for what steps they themselves take as regards their staff; that is a matter for the Heads of Missions.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the Minister's Answer may I ask whether he can comment on a report in the Press that the Foreign Office has recently circularised the appropriate Departments requesting that action be not taken?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, no such instructions have been issued by the Foreign Office; but I understand (and perhaps I had better amplify this) that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has instructed the police and traffic wardens to do their best for diplomatic persons in not enforcing parking regulations with full rigidity. Where, however, a car is holding up traffic, or is a danger to the public, it is the duty of the police to have it removed. I would stress what I have already said as to the responsibility of all members of the Diplomatic Corps to observe the regulations and to co-operate with the police in their difficult task.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether diplomatic representatives abroad have corresponding facilities and privileges to those of diplomatic representatives in this country?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in general terms the answer is, Yes. I cannot say that there is no country that does not take a similar line—I am afraid that I do not know. I do not think that there is any country where that does not happen; but in the vast majority reciprocal treatment is accorded to our representatives abroad.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, now that the Minister has kindly given us these figures—and they are very important figures—in the Answer to Lord Molson's Question, can we ask the Government to produce, for example, statistics to show how many actions have been taken against British diplomats in countries like the United States of America, France, Italy and the like?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not know whether that information

217
could be obtained. I shall, of course, ask, but at the moment I have no information about that.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from the figures given, some diplomatic representatives seem to show a cynical indifference to the citizens of this country; and is it not time that we withdrew the immunity from some of these offenders?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I can perhaps best answer that question by referring to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is an international Convention and states that it is the duty of all persons enjoying diplomatic immunity to respect the laws and regulations of the country in which they are serving. That is the international position, and I think this is not a case where one can discuss taking away diplomatic immunity, remembering that our representatives abroad also have diplomatic immunity.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that it is the duty of these people to have respect for the laws of the country in which they reside—he cited over 2,000 offences; yet apparently no action can be taken by the Government, and presumably no effective action be taken by the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions—cannot something be done, even under the international Agreement to which the noble Lord has referred?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot accept that no action has been taken by the Heads of Diplomatic Missions. There is not the slightest doubt that action has been taken. But that is a matter for them and not for us.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, since it was not the Foreign Office, which Government Department or Minister asked the Commissioner of Police to have a word with members of the force? Is it true that this action was initiated through complaints from the Heads of Diplomatic Missions who said that the police here were dealing with their staffs too harshly?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is the normal procedure in most countries. They are not too rigid about
218
parking offences. We carry out the practice which is usual in most countries. If a diplomat offends against the traffic laws, we notify the head of the Mission. Unless the offence is likely to cause danger to the public, the police do not operate the law too rigidly, if they can help it, because diplomats are guests here. This applies in other countries in exactly the same way.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which Government Department made representations to the Commissioner of Police? He would not do it on his own initiative.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Commissioner of Police is responsible for traffic in London.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that this question of diplomatic immunity has been debated in two full debates in your Lordships' House in the last few years, the whole gist of which was that it has been perverted for uses for which it was never intended. It was never intended to cover subordinate staff, such as chauffeurs. It was intended to apply to Ambassadors and their immediate staffs. How many people are now covered—2,000 or more? It is intolerable.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Lord's speech, but it has nothing to do with the Question.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I consider that that is an extremely rude remark.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask a question, which I think the Minister will admit is pertinent? Would it not be more in accordance with reasonable procedure, and probably also helpful to Heads of Diplomatic Missions, if the instruction issued by the Commissioner of Police about these parking offences stated that in the ordinary course, people would be served with a notice and could, if they wished, plead their diplomatic immunity, but that if it was clear, on the face of it, that there was good reason for not giving a ticket, then it would not be given? At the present moment, it would appear that anybody—most probably a lot of young diplomats going to night-clubs,

219
and not distinguished Ambassadors keeping important appointments—can get away with it. That really cannot be right.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think that I must make it clear that Heads of Missions are fully aware of what is going on in certain cases, when their staff infringe the law.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not rather unfair of the Government to put all the blame and all the responsibility on to the Commissioner of Police? And is it not quite invidious to expect a policeman or traffic warden to have to decide whether or not to enforce the rigour of the law?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps I may go a little further in roughly describing what the Commissioner of Police has said to his police officers. As your Lordships may or may not be aware, the licence of diplomatic cars has a special marking on the licence holder—I am not referring to "CD" plates. The Commissioner of Police, who is responsible for traffic, with the agreement of the Home Office, has told his policemen where possible to find the driver of a diplomatic car and tell him to shift it; not to "run him in" straight away, if he knows that it is a diplomatic car. If the driver cannot be found, and if the car is causing an obstruction, or is a danger in any way, the car is towed away; and offending cars will continue to be towed away in these circumstances.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if it is mainly a question of parking offences, would it not be reasonable to consider what is being done in certain capitals abroad—that is, in regard to special parking areas reserved for our Ambassadors—so that Heads of Diplomatic Missions would have greater facilities for parking cars outside their premises?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, suggested that diplomatic immunity was being gravely misused. I would suggest to your Lordships that perhaps Question Time is in danger of being misused on this occasion. If
220
noble Lords want to debate this question, I suggest that we ought to do it properly and in order, and not allow Question Time to become a small debate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES AND TRADE UNIONS
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their action over restrictive practices in the retail trade, they will now turn their attention with equal thoroughness to curbing restrictive practices in all sections of the community.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government are opposed to restrictive practices in all sectors of the economy, unless they can clearly be shown to be in the public interest. Their proposals for further strengthening the legislation dealing with restrictive practices are contained in a White Paper published to-day.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but is he aware that there is in this country a growing volume of opinion which considers that, in the interests of the economy and the real value of wages, the time is now approaching when Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the unions, should set up some form of inquiry into the working of the trade union Acts as regards restrictive practices in the unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government regard this matter primarily as a matter of management, whose duty it is to negotiate by voluntary agreement for the progressive removal of restrictive arrangements, and they regard it as the Government's responsibility to remove the obstacles to change which so often encourage such restrictive arrangements.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the Government not set an example by removing the restrictive practices on postmen?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if the Government are so much against restrictive practices, could the noble Lord explain why, out of 23 recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission, the Government have acted on only three of them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, under the monopolies legislation, the Government's duty is primarily to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations that have been made. This has been successful in all the cases where the Government have decided that this is the right course to adopt. As the noble Lord will see, when he reads the White Paper, it is now proposed to go a little further and to take powers where it is not possible to persuade industry to adopt the recommendations which the Government think fit.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, as well as giving attention to restrictive practices among trade unions, would the noble Lord give some indication of whether the range is to be extended so that some attention is given to the restrictive practices of the legal profession, so that we may secure some reduction in legal costs?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that this is probably not a question for me, but perhaps I should explain that the Government consider it right to move step by step in this field of services, and propose, in the first instance, that commercial services relating to goods should be included in future legislation.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in that case, may I ask when the proposed restriction upon householders being forced to accept, willy-nilly, unaddressed mail they do not want, a restriction of the rights and freedom of householders, may be properly protected?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that that is a suggestion which goes rather outside the scope of this particular Question. It does serve to show what was the purpose of the
222
Question of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, which I am afraid I did not appreciate.

DRIVING TESTS IN DARKNESS
3.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether anything can be done to give part of the driving test in real or simulated darkness.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that to conduct driving tests in "real" darkness is just not a practicable proposition. A simulated test would be equally difficult, as well as unlikely to be effective.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I was of the opinion that we could have driving tests in simulated darkness but I am quite prepared to accept my noble friend's assurance that it is quite impracticable.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords I am obliged to my noble friend. I am afraid it would be ineffective. Of course, it would be nice if it could be done, but I feel it is a long way off yet.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in the interests of road safety, may I ask my noble friend what steps the Government are taking for learner drivers to obtain practice and instruction on equipment able to simulate difficult or dangerous road conditions, in the same way that air crews can obtain practice and be tested on flight simulators on the ground instead of in the air? Is it not possible for something of that kind to be done?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I must say to my noble friend that he certainly might ask that if he were to put a Question on the Paper, but, frankly, I do not think I am justified in answering that as arising out of the Question that we have before us.

UNITED NATIONS FORCE IN CYPRUS
3.31 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a statement being made in another place. As your Lordships will know, the Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution on Cyprus yesterday. Part of this resolution recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus. The composition and size of the force is to be established by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Commander of the force is to be appointed by the Secretary-General and to report to him. The force is to exist for three months, all costs pertaining to it being met in a manner to be agreed upon by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus. The Secretary-General may also accept voluntary contributions for this purpose.
The function of the force will be, in the interests of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions.
The resolution also provides for the Secretary-General to designate, in agreement with the Cyprus Government and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, a mediator, who is to use his best endeavours in promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problems confronting Cyprus.
Since the Secretary-General will now be immediately considering and discussing with all concerned the problems of the composition and direction of the force, as well as the appointment of the mediator, it would not be proper for me to anticipate the results of his efforts. All I need say is that we are most anxious that they should meet with success as soon as possible.
I should like to make clear that Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome these arrangements and look forward to
224
their bringing peace to the Island of Cyprus. I think, at the same time, your Lordships will wish me to pay a tribute to the British Forces who have for the last three months performed such magnificent service in the troubled conditions of the Island.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for giving us this statement. To take his last point first, I am sure the whole House will welcome the invitation that we should join in the tribute to the British Forces who, in the most difficult circumstances, have performed their duties with such good temper and efficiency. I am sure we are all proud of them.
I should like to ask whether the Leader of the House could possibly give us some idea of the time that is going to be taken. These matters are urgent. I share the wish of the Government that as great speed should be made as possible in bringing these necessary preliminary talks to a conclusion. But, especially, ought it not to be a matter of early consideration to announce the appointment of a mediator, as well as, as soon as the agreement has been made upon the United Nations peace force, the appointment of the commander? The appointment of a mediator seems to us to be of great importance.
The other point I want to put to the noble Lord is this. We have all been reading about the efforts which are being made by the Cyprus Government to enlist further security forces of their own, and there will no doubt be a question of arms for them. I should like to know what the view of the Government is, or what representations they will make as to the future distribution of arms of this kind. If there is to be a United Nations Force, ought not these things to cease?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I note with pleasure the way in which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has associated the Opposition with the tribute, which I know all your Lordships endorse, to the British Forces in Cyprus. With regard to the noble Earl's first question I know that the Secretary-General has very much

225
in mind what he says: there is a great need for speed and urgency. I know, too, that the Secretary-General is taking steps at this moment on the two matters to which the noble Earl referred. It is, of course, within the competence of the Secretary-General to appoint the commander of the force without consultation with the other countries concerned; but for the appointment of a mediator it will be necessary for him to consult with the four Governments most closely involved. As to his second point, this is a matter for the terms of reference of the force itself, and is within the competence of the Secretary-General. I have no doubt that he has very much in mind the sort of problem the noble Earl has raised.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am sure it is unnecessary, but I should like to add from these Benches my warm tribute to the British Forces who have done so well in that particular part of the world. While I accept the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the matter must be treated with care until it is gone into, I should like to ask him two questions, but if he cannot answer them at this moment I shall well understand. Can he give us any idea of what proportion of this new force will be British? Secondly, if at the end of the period, unfortunately, things do not come to a satisfactory conclusion, will this country still be left bearing the heavy responsibility which it now has?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, to take the last question first, it is because we have felt for some time that this was a very onerous duty imposed upon us as a member of the Commonwealth, to have the sole responsibility for peacekeeping in Cyprus, that we welcome this resolution. Since the resolution went through only yesterday, it is perhaps a little early to talk of failure. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, I am afraid it is too early to say what the exact composition of the force will be. After all, the Secretary-General has had only a few hours so far to make up his mind what steps to take.
LORD REA: My Lords, I quite understand. I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, it is one of the functions of the international force to maintain and restore law and order and a return to normal conditions. Will it be one of the responsibilities of the international force in that connection to see that there is a stoppage of the illegal distribution and possession of arms, which is a contribution to the uncertainties and troubles in Cyprus itself?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must say that I should certainly have thought so. But we shall have to see what are the exact instructions the Secretary-General gives.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a great many people in this country who regard a British political solution to the problems in Cyprus as still of great importance, having regard to our historical responsibility for that island and the fact that Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth? I confess to some anxiety about the nationality of the mediator and the possibility that he will range so large through the United Nations channels for a solution, and that Britain will be only one of the countries consulted. If the mediator is not to be British, may we press that at any rate we shall take a foremost place in trying to find any solution to this problem?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not entirely know what my noble friend means by a "British solution". If he means that the solution should take account of British interests, that will be the aim of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask what arrangements have been made for the general and administrative staff of this United Nations force; and whether it has not been the lesson of the United Nations force in the Congo that what is required by the United Nations is a permanent staff organisation rather than a permanent organised force, which might provide great difficulties for the United Nations in future?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have no doubt that this point is very much in the Secretary-General's mind. I take note of it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, since in our debate here in February, 1963, there was on all sides great pressure for the formation of a permanent United Nations force, could the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps during the last year to bring this to the attention of the United Nations?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to put that Question down on the Order Paper.

CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND ISLE OF ELY ORDER, 1964
3.41 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, it might be convenient for the House if the two Orders were taken together, the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, on the one hand, and the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, on the other—they are made under the same provision of the Local Government Act, 1958, and are very similar in content—although I will move them separately. The House will recall that the Luton and Solihull Orders which were recently approved were the first major measures of local government reorganisation outside London for a quarter of a century and the first Orders to emerge from the process of reorganisation set under way by the Local Government Act, 1958. The Orders now before your Lordships are the second product of this procedure. Their purpose is to constitute by amalgamation two new counties of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and Huntingdon and Peterborough, and to make some other alterations to county boundaries. If the Orders are approved
228
by Parliament, these will be the first new administrative counties to be created since the Isle of Wight was separated from Hampshire in 1890.
The Commission dealt with the four counties of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough in their report on the East Midlands General Review Area which, as required by the Act, has been laid before Parliament with the Orders. At an early stage of their review of the area the Commission found that the problems of local government structure in these four counties were so interconnected that they ought to consider them together. There were three main problems. The first concerned the local government structure in the Soke of Peterborough where there was a lack of balance between town and country. Eighty-one per cent. of the county's population and 88 per cent. of its rateable value lay in the City of Peterborough. Special joint authorities, on which both city and county were represented, had been set up for some services like education, police and civil defence. This lack of balance was likely to become more acute when the city's population reached 60,000 and it would then become entitled to claim delegation of health and welfare services.
The second problem arose out of the local government structure in the county of Cambridgeshire. Difficulties arose partly because Cambridge City had half the population of the county and two-thirds of its rateable value, but was entitled to only minority representation on the county council, and partly from the city's special needs as a regional centre and university town. As the Commission put it, the city was too big a fish for the Cambridgeshire pond; either the fish had to be taken out of the pond or the pond had to be enlarged.
Finally, the Commission thought reorgansation essential for Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough, which are among the smallest counties in England, if their services were to be improved. In considering this problem, the Commission tried to get a general impression of the conditions under which the main services had to be provided, and the extent to which services could be developed beyond a minimum. From these studies

229
they concluded that Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough were, by comparison with larger counties, far too narrowly limited in their population, resources and case loads. These limitations affected the range of staff with special experience and the range of special institutions which they could afford to carry. As the Minister told the Commons on August 2 last, when the county amalgamations were discussed on the Adjournment, there is no criticism of the members or officers of the authorities; it is just that effectiveness of services is substantially determined by size.
The Commission went on to consider claims for county borough status from the Cities of Cambridge and Peterborough. Peterborough's claim was rejected at an early stage because its population, then just under 60,000, was far short of the figure of 100,000 which under the Act is presumed sufficient for the discharge of the county borough functions. Cambridge City, on the other hand, with a population of 94,000 had a much stronger case. The question was whether a pattern of county administration could be devised which would withstand the loss of the City of Cambridge.
In their draft proposals the Commission attempted to find such a pattern. They suggested that Cambridge should be given county borough status and that the rest of the four counties should be merged into a single administrative county. Apart, however, from the cities of Cambridge and Peterborough, the draft proposals were strongly opposed by the local authorities and particularly by the county councils. The opponents said that a single county would be so inconvenient as to be ineffective, and they were strongly against taking the population and resources of Cambridge City out of an area otherwise generally sparsely populated and poor in terms of rateable value.
The Commission were impressed by the weight of these arguments, and also by the support given by three of the four counties to the alternative idea of leaving Cambridge as a non-county borough and forming two new counties by amalgamation on a North-South basis. It was this plan which the Commission proposed on their final report. There were a number of objections to the Commission's proposals
230
and a public local inquiry was held into them at Cambridge in October, 1962. Copies of the Inspector's report on the inquiry and of the Minister's decision letter have been made available to noble Lords in the Library and the Printed Paper Office.
The decision letter makes it clear that, after considering the objections and representations and the Inspector's report on the inquiry, the Minister came to the conclusion that the present local government structure of these four counties was unsatisfactory and unsuitable for the future. He agreed with the Commission that the primary aim must be to strengthen the counties. In choosing between the two possible ways of doing this, he thought it right to give a good deal of weight to the fact that the two-county system commands a large measure of local support. He therefore accepted the Commission's proposals for the amalgamation of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, on the one hand, and of Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, on the other hand.
Before going on to outline the provisions of the Orders, it may be helpful to deal with the boundaries of the two new counties. The Commission proposed some twenty alterations in the boundary between the two new counties and in their boundaries with Bedford, Essex, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire. There were objections to 5 of these 20 proposals. The proposals and objections concerning the boundary between Northamptonshire and Huntingdon and Peterborough have been left for consideration along with any proposals which the Commission may make for Stamford, which is in the Lincolnshire and East Angia area and still under review.
In the other four cases public local inquiries were held. After considering the reports on these inquiries, the Minister rejected the proposal for the transfer of Royston from Hertfordshire to the new county of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and also the proposal for exchange of parishes on the Huntingdonshire-Cambridge boundary. He accepted the proposals for the transfer of Thorney Rural District from the Isle of Ely to the new county of Huntingdon and Peterborough, which were supported by

231
the district council, and also, with modification, he accepted the proposal for the transfer to that county of the Bedfordshire township of Eaton Socon which adjoins St. Neots. The boundaries of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely with Norfolk and West Suffolk remain the present ones pending completion of the Commission's review of those two counties in the Lincolnshire and East Anglia General Review Area.
The contents of the two Orders are very similar. In many respects their provisions are similar to those contained in the Luton and Solihull Orders, which the House considered recently. Other provisions follow wherever possible the general lines of the London Government Act, 1963, and of the Administration of Justice Act.
The object of the Orders is, of course, to create two new counties, and this is done by Article 5. Article 5 also deals with the changes of county boundaries and the consequent changes in the areas of some county districts and parishes. The other provisions of the Orders are consequential on these basic operations. There are a substantial number of them, and I propose to mention only a few of the more important ones.
The new counties will not come into existence until April 1, 1965, but the councils will need some time to prepare for the amalgamations. For this reason, Article 8 provides for elections to the new county councils to be held this autumn. Article 8 also lays down the number of councillors for the new county councils. Article 7 keeps the existing county councils in office until they hand over their functions to the new authorities on April 1, 1965. This provision avoids the inconvenience of holding elections in April of this year for councils which will be in office for less than twelve months. This proposal has been welcomed by the county councils.
The Articles on administration of justice provide for each of the new counties to have a single court of quarter sessions and a single magistrates' courts committee. The new counties will also each have a Lord Lieutenant and a Sheriff. Other Articles make detailed provision for the transfer of services from the present county councils to the
232
new ones. For example, in the case of Huntingdon and Peterborough, Article 22 deals with the education services, Articles 25 to 31 with the health and welfare services, and Article 34 with planning. To start with, the new county councils are required to maintain the services provided by the present authorities. They will, however, need to reconsider and replan their services in the light of the greater scope which increased population and resources will afford them.
The Orders also contain provision for the transfer of local authority staff and for the protection of their terms and conditions of service on the lines laid down in Section 85 of the London Government Act, 1963. All the staff of the present county councils and of the Peterborough Joint Education Board will be transferred to the employment of the new county councils. Local authority employees for areas to be transferred because of boundary alterations will move to the employment of the new authority.
These Orders provide, in the Government's view, a good solution to the local government problems of these four counties. It is a solution which has the disadvantage of not meeting Cambridge City's claim to be a county borough; that is true. But it is a solution which will strengthen county government very greatly. First it will improve the internal balance of the counties incorporating Cambridge and Peterborough cities; and, secondly, it will substantially raise the resources of the counties in population and wealth. These two new counties should be able to provide good services over the widest field, attracting the necessary specialist officers and running the necessary special institutions on a scale which hitherto has not been possible. Moreover, they should draw strength from existing county loyalties; for the great merit of the reorganisation the Government are proposing is that it attracts the maximum possible amount of support in the counties. Even in the case of the Isle of Ely, which has stoutly maintained its claim to independence, there is good reason to hope that the new county will evoke support and enthusiasm.
The Minister is indeed indebted to the members and officers of all four county

233
councils for their ready assistance with the Orders, and is encouraged by the signs that they are ready to come to grips with the problems which will face the new county councils. My Lords, this is perhaps rather a long introduction, but in view of the importance of the alterations I think it is necessary to explain this matter at some length. I beg to move that the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, be approved.
Moved, That the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord Hastings.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to say anything about the merits of this Order. I have not had very much time to examine it, but it looks all right. I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister for the very clear and careful way in which he has explained what has happened. What I am a little concerned about is the position of Cambridge City. It has to-day a population of 94,000. It is within reach of the target for becoming eligible to be a county borough, and it seems to me that it will not be very long before it will strike that figure of 100,000. On the face of it, I should have thought that Cambridge is eminently suitable to be a county borough.
This arrangement seems to me to be permanently excluding Cambridge from becoming a county borough. Cambridge is becoming so important a factor in the new county that to remove it later on, even if it were to obtain a considerably larger population, would destroy the viability of the new county. I wonder whether the Government have considered that point. It seems unfair to Cambridge that, apparently for all time, they should be precluded from becoming a county borough simply because the county, as now reorganised, will not be viable without Cambridge. This is possibly a matter for the future, although the not too distant future, and I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can give us the Government's view on this point.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I do not propose in any way to criticise the Orders which are before us this afternoon. But, as the Minister knows, there has been considerable opposition in the area to the proposed amalgamations and alterations
234
which we are considering. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in informing me of what is now the procedure for making known the views of the local government commissions. The reports are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. I was wondering whether they had just been made available, or when they were available, and, if it has not been done, whether in future in the document which is circulated to Members an indication could be included of the papers which are available, sometime before the Orders are submitted to the House for consideration and agreement.
3.58 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, if I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I think it is true that the various Papers to which he is referring are put in the Printed Paper Office and the Library at the time of the Orders. He will remember that in my letter to him I drew attention to the fact that decision letters are issued a long time before, so that the Orders may be prepared, and they are available to any noble Lord who is interested. I will, however, go into this particular point and see whether perhaps these facts can be made available, or at least notified, at a previous moment. But the real information the noble Lord wants is in the decision letter, and I think that is a quesion of noble Lords' asking the Ministry of Housing and Local Government if they might have a copy. I think that would be the best solution.
To turn to the problem put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of course this was really the basic problem that had to be solved by the Commission. In their first proposals, as I said in my remarks, the Commission suggested that Cambridge City should have county borough status, but they pointed out that the only way in which that could be considered the really appropriate solution in the circumstances of the whole area would be if at the same time the other four counties came together into one unit; because the noble Lord was talking about viability. Even now, if Cambridge City is taken out of the two counties, Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, the rest becomes not viable. How much more would that be the case if Cambridge City were taken

235
out of Cambridgeshire by itself? In terms of population and rateable values, Cambridgeshire would become as small as the Soke of Peterborough is now—in fact it would become poorer, because it would not have Peterborough to support it, as the Soke has.
When it came to trying to get agreement on the single unit for the four counties without Cambridge City, it proved quite impossible, and all the county councils objected very strongly. Even Peterborough, which at one time was in favour of that solution, because it foresaw that it might be the capital, so to speak, of the administrative unit and eventually perhaps get its own county borough status—when the two-county proposal was put forward, changed sides and supported the present proposal which is the subject of the Order. Cambridge City, of course, would soon be entitled to ask for county borough status, but in the meanwhile I think this is the best solution that can be obtained in all the circumstances. We shall have to see what happens in the future. Maybe Cambridge City will be quite content with the new arrangement and let it go along for many years. If it does make an application, we shall have to consider it at that time.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend the possibility of siting one or more New Towns in that area, which would add to the viability of the county and so make it possible for Cambridge City to apply for county borough status one day?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH ORDER, 1964
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, 1964, be approved.
Moved, That the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, 1964, be approved. —(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LEGAL AID BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see, the Bill gives effect, with some minor exceptions, to the recommendations made in the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee about what is known to lawyers as the rule against perpetuities. I fear that this is a somewhat complex and technical subject and the provisions of the Bill are therefore necessarily themselves somewhat complicated. But in essence the problem is a straightforward one. It arises from the fact that the law has for centuries set its face against the possibility of a person's tying up his property in perpetuity.
The law, which was worked out by decisions of the courts over a long period, but particularly in the 18th and early 19th centuries, is that a disposition of any future interest in property is void if the interest is capable of vesting after a period consisting of a life or lives in being at the date of the disposition and 21 years thereafterwards. This period was presumably taken because it is one during which parents may have a family and the children attain full age. The Law Reform Committee thought that if there had still to be some restrictions on the extent to which a man could tie up his property in perpetuity—and this they took to be beyond argument—the basic rule which the courts had worked out at a time during which the traditional forms of family settlement were taking shape was still the right one.

237
The trouble about the rule is that it has become encrusted with a number of subsidiary rules which allow it to operate capriciously and unreasonably. The effect of the rule as it stands is that a disposition of property will be invalidated from the outset if there is any possibility of the interest in question failing to vest within the permitted period, even though the possibility that it may vest outside that period is so remote as to be quite unreal. Moreover, for the purposes of the rule, the courts refuse to recognise a woman as incapable of having further children, however old she may be. The Law Reform Committee, in their very full Report to which I should like to pay tribute, accordingly recommended a number of modifications in the rule which would enable it to achieve its object without the injustices and anomalies to which it is at present capable of giving rise.
The Committee made three principal recommendations which your Lordships will find in the first three clauses of this Bill. First, they thought that, as an alternative to the present period of lives in being and 21 years thereafter, a settlor or testator should be entitled as an alternative to take a fixed period of years within which his disposition should have to take effect, if it was to take effect at all. The Committee suggested 80 years for this purpose, and this suggestion has been adopted in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Committee hoped that by this means conveyancers would be dissuaded from using the device which is frequently adopted at present in an effort to tie property up for as long as possible within the permitted period. This is done by what has come to be known as a "Royal lives" clause, whereby the draftsman provides that the disposition is to vest within 21 years after the death of the last survivor of, let us say, His late Majesty King George V living at the date of the disposition.
Secondly, the Committee recommended that for the purpose of the rule against perpetuities there should be a presumption that no one under the age of 14 should be capable of having a child and that no woman over the age of 55 should be capable of having one. Such a presumption would, of course, be capable of being rebutted by evidence to the contrary. We have adopted this
238
proposal in Clause 2 of the Bill, except that in the case of a woman the lower age is 12 and not 14, as the Committee suggested. Your Lordships may perhaps think that this takes rather more account of practical possibilities. It is interesting to recollect that until 1929, when the age was raised to 16 for both sexes, 14 and 12 were ages below which males and females respectively were unable to contract a valid marriage.
The third of the Committee's three main recommendations was that, instead of requiring the validity of every disposition to be tested from the outset to see whether it could possibly offend the rule against perpetuities, one should have regard to the events that actually happen. In other words, the principle should be "wait and see". Effect is given to this by subsection (1) of Clause 3, which provides that a disposition is to be treated as if it were not subject to the rule against perpetuities until such time, if any, as it becomes established that the event on which the disposition depends can take place only outside the perpetuity period. In the meantime, anything done in relation to the disposition by way of advancement of capital, application of income or otherwise, is to be valid. Under this new "wait and see" rule there will be no obvious means of ascertaining the lives which are to be taken as relevant in determining the length of the perpetuity period. Subsection (2) accordingly specifies the classes of lives which may be taken for this purpose.
Clause 4 provides two methods of validating dispositions which are not saved by the "wait and see" rule that I have attempted to describe. If, for example, there is a gift to the first son of X, a living person, to reach the age of 30 and at X's death his eldest son is 8, the "wait and see" rule will not help, for the perpetuity period will expire 21 years after X's death, and at that time his son will not have reached the age of 30. Provision was made for cases of this kind by the Law of Property Act 1925, which provides that in such a case the age of 21 is to be substituted for the age specified by the testator or the settlor. The Bill gives closer effect to the intentions of the settlor or testator by providing

239
that one is in future to take the age nearest to that in fact specified which would be sufficient to prevent the disposition from being made void. In the example I have given your Lordships, where the son was 8 at his father's death, this means that he would take the property at the age of 29 instead of the age of 30 mentioned in the disposition.
There was some disagreement between the members of the Law Reform Committee on the question whether the "wait and see" rule should, or should not, be applied before what I may call the age-reduction rule contained in the Law of Property Act. The majority of the Committee thought that one should apply the age-reduction rule in appropriate cases without waiting to see whether, and to what extent, it might be necessary to apply the rule in the events which in fact happen. The minority thought that it would be better to give effect to testators' or settlors' intentions, if one possibly could, by waiting to see what happens instead of doing violence to such intentions in every case by reducing the age to 21. I am bound to say that I think the minority were right on this point. I am fortified in that belief by seeing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was included among their number. As your Lordships will see, the Bill gives effect to the views of the minority.
The Committee made a number of other recommendations designed to ensure that dispositions of property take effect more readily than they do at present, and I think I can say that all these recommendations are dealt with in the remaining clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, wish me to deal with these provisions in detail now, although I should be happy to do so at a later stage.
There are only three further provisions which I ought briefly to mention now. The first is Clause 9, which deals with options relating to land. Subsection (1) of that clause provides that the rule against perpetuities is not to apply to an option conferred on a lessee to acquire the freehold or other reversionary interest, the reason being that leasehold options can be said to be in the public interest to the extent that they
240
enable a lessee to secure for himself the fruits of his expenditure on the land comprised in the lease.
Other options, such as the ordinary option to purchase, are in a different category. For, as the Law Reform Committee pointed out, they tend to discourage rather than foster the maintenance and development of the land, because a landowner will be unwilling to spend money on his land if he is at risk of having the fruits of such expenditure taken from him by the exercise of the option. Clause 9(2) accordingly requires all options of this kind to be exercised within 21 years from their creation, after which they are to be treated as void in all respects, even as between the original parties to them.
Clause 12 deals with the periods for which the income of property may be validly accumulated. The law on this subject dates from the time of the Accumulations Act, 1800, which was passed after a certain Mr. Thellusson had bequeathed the bulk of his very considerable estate to trustees upon trust to accumulate the rents and profits at compound interest during the lives of all his sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. The last of these did not die until 1856, by which time the value of Mr. Thellusson's estate had been considerably dissipated by the number of law suits to which his will had given rise.
The Act of 1800, which is generally known as the Thellusson Act, provided four different periods during which alone income might he validly accumulated, and these provisions were re-enacted in the property legislation of 1925. The Law Reform Committee thought that it would be convenient to have two additional periods during which it should he possible to accumulate income. These, as your Lordships will see from Clause 12(1), are 21 years from the date of the relevant disposition, or the duration of the minority or minorities of any persons living at that date.
Finally, I should perhaps mention Clause 13, which applies the presumptions in Clause 2 as to the ages below and above which people are presumed to be incapable of having children to the rule of law enabling beneficiaries to put an end to any provisions of a trust requiring income to be accumulated for

241
their benefit. This is a matter of considerable practical importance. As the law stands, all beneficiaries under a trust who are of full age and capacity can agree together to put an end to the accumulations and divide the whole trust fund between themselves. But they cannot do this where there is any possibility, however remote, of another beneficiary coming into existence, although very often the only possibility of this happening is that an elderly woman will have another child. It seems obviously desirable that this possibility should be brought within bounds, and accordingly, by applying Clause 2, it would be presumed that no woman over 55 is able to have another child unless the contrary is shown.
My Lords, I fear that, as I warned your Lordships, the provisions of this Bill have turned out to be complicated and, perhaps, dull. They are none the less of considerable importance to all concerned with the law of property. It is interesting to notice that quite a large number of countries in the Commonwealth and States in the United States have found it desirable to legislate on this subject in terms not entirely unlike those in the present Bill, and we have indeed for some little time been pressed to follow their example.
It may be said that we have taken a long time to implement the Law Reform Committee's Report, which was published as long ago as 1956. That, my Lords, is perfectly true, but I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that we have been far from idle in the field of law reform. So far as the Law Reform Committee itself is concerned, effect has now been given to the recommendations in the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Reports, while some important recommendations in the Tenth Report are dealt with in the Hire-Purchase Bill now before Parliament.
In addition to this, a very considerable number of law reform Acts have passed through Parliament in the last ten years. I will not weary your Lordships with a long list of them now. I would only remind you that last Session alone we passed two important measures of law reform, the Limitation Act and the Wills Act, each of which gave effect to the recommendations of the Committees which had considered the subjects with
242
which the Acts were concerned. It is perfectly true that no Government can find all the time it would like for Government Bills on law reform, which is why we so often have to rely on the assistance of Private Members, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. But it is revealing no secrets to say that Private Members who introduce law reform Bills can generally count on having the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen as well as of my office or other Government Department concerned.
I sometimes wonder whether those who criticise the way in which we deal with law reform really appreciate all that has been done. I do not wish to be complacent or to suggest that there is not still a great deal to be done, but I do think that the need for measures of reform is sometimes somewhat exaggerated. However this may be, there is little point in asking Committees to produce Reports unless one can have some reasonable assurance that Parliamentary time is likely to be found for their implementation.
Law reform, like politics, is the art of the possible, and one has to proceed by stages. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of what is reasonably practicable, I venture to say that we have nothing in our record of which we need feel ashamed. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having strayed for a moment or two from the subject matter of this Bill, but I thought it might be useful if I were to say something about the general subject of law reform. I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill now before you represents an important instrument of reform which should be acceptable to all sides of the House, and I accordingly ask you to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in introducing this Bill, referred to it as complex, complicated, dull; and I would add, difficult. Indeed, when I first tried to master the Bill I found it almost beyond my comprehension. I was therefore very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very clear explanation. I think that I almost understand the Bill, although how long I shall retain

243
that understanding I am not sure. But he certainly made fairly clear what was, for me, an impossible Bill.
I was interested to find that in one respect the Minority view of the Committee had prevailed with the Government. I am very glad of that, because minorities are sometimes right, as has been often demonstrated in this House. I hope the views of minorities will be taken more notice of by this Government than has been the case in the past. I was also interested to hear mention of my old friend Thellusson. He was a very famous figure in my student days in relation to the law against accumulations, and it was nice to hear of him again. In regard to the merits of the Bill, there is little that I need say at this stage. Broadly, it implements the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee, and in principle I am sure that the whole House will accept it. There may be one or two matters to raise in Committee, on a point put to me by the Law Society, which I will not raise at this moment. No doubt the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has heard of the point, and it may be that we can discuss it fully in Committee.
Since the noble and learned Lord has referred to the Law Reform Committee, I should like to say a word or two about it. The question of law reform is certainly not a controversial subject. It is of the greatest importance, in a civilised community, that from time to time our laws should be examined, and that those which are out of date or obsolete, or which no longer meet the convenience of the general community, should be reviewed and, where necessary, altered. I consider that the machinery of the Law Reform Committee is an excellent one, and, if I may, I should like to congratulate the Government (I see that there are not many of my noble friends here, and therefore I can do it freely) on the number of recommendations of this Committee which they have been able to implement.
One question that I should like to ask is why it is necessary to wait seven years. As I have said before, seven years seems to be the normal period of gestation of a Report of this kind. We implemented the other day a Report of the Law Reform Committee on the Court of
244
Criminal Appeal. That also took seven years. It could be said that this particular measure is a difficult one and needed a great deal of preparation. I cannot think that the previous measure needed all that time. We seem to be taking too long to implement these Reports, and it is rather discouraging to those members who take part in their preparation. In this particular case Lord Jenkins was the Chairman; the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, was a member, and so were Lord Devlin, Lord Justice Diplock, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, Professor Goodhart and others—all eminent men in the law. They gave over two years of their time to this very difficult task. It is rather discouraging for them to find that, having produced a Report which at the end of the day is being very largely implemented, they should have to wait over seven years before the Government can find the time to introduce a measure.
I hope (and I am not moving a Vote of Censure on the Government over this) that it will be possible in future to speed up the implementation of these Reports, and to give the encouragement which is very much needed if we are to find volunteers to serve on these Committees; so that they find that, at the end of their arduous task—and this was an arduous task—their work is appreciated and implemented. I hope that it will be found possible in the future, whichever Government is in office, to do this. As to the Bill itself, I am not surprised to see that that there is only one other speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, because it is not a subject with which I imagine most noble Lords will be very familiar.
4.27 p.m.
LORD EVERSHED: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has anticipated, I should like to add my support to the Motion for Second Reading of this Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I have spent my professional life in what is, I think your Lordships will admit, the more respectable branch of the law, known as the Chancery Division. It was, of course, there where one came across the rather fantastic results which the rule sometimes produced. That great

245
lawyer, Lord Blanesburgh (as he became when a Member of this House) once described the results as being "the stringent, almost penal, character of the rule".
Without again going over what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to one matter. One unhappy result of a provision being held to be void through infringing the so-called rule against perpetuities was that a subsequent limitation dependent upon the first one was also rendered void. That blemish—for such it is—is remedied by Clause 6 of the Bill. I was pleased that by this Bill the Minority view of the Committee, which was the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, had been preferred to that of the Majority that is to say that one first applies the "wait and see" rule, and then one applies the amended provisions of Section 163. As was pointed out in the Minority Report, that seemed to be the better rule. I have one example to hand of support for that view; namely, the corresponding Act of Western Australia passed in 1962, which in all essential respects followed the same principles as are followed in this Bill.
My Lords, it is perhaps right to observe that it was the view of the Committee—and I think it is generally accepted—that to enable a man who has the means to make it worth doing to tie up, as we say, his property, so that not only his children but his grandchildren also may benefit, is regarded as socially sensible and sound; and that general rule which has long been afoot is preserved. What this Bill does is to prevent—again, I use Lord Blanesburgh's words— "the stringent, almost penal, character of the rule ", when it is, sometimes literally, carried into operation.
I shall not delay your Lordships further. As has been pointed out, this Bill may be said to lack the gripping, exciting interest that some matters have—such as those relating to motor cars and the like—which come before the House. But this is a case where, as I venture to submit, the law should be amended so that a rule fundamentally sound should not by extravagant example become a subject of public disrespect. It is indeed a complicated measure. I have
246
myself been much interested in the problem, and in that connection have been in communication with a notable professor at Harvard University, Professor Barton Leach, who has been responsible for similar legislation in his own State of Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Because the Bill is so complicated, I should like, if I may, having regard to my knowledge of the subject, to pay my respects and offer my congratulations to the draftsman upon his skill in putting into this Bill what is necessarily recommended and is desired to be achieved. It must obviously have been a difficult task, and it has been well performed. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, there may be matters to be discussed at a later stage. But on this occasion I hope that your Lordships will accept what is suggested and give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I add a word in support of this measure, in which I take personally a special interest, for reasons which I shall give to the House? Some years ago I found that it was very desirable that a settlor should incorporate in a settlement something which it will be possible to achieve under Clause 12 of the present Bill, but which could not be achieved in the then state of the law—namely, to provide for accumulation of income for 21 years from the date of the settlement. I was informed by my Chancery friends that the desirability of this reform had been recognised in this very powerful Report of the Law Reform Committee published in 1956. As this particular recommendation was one which was within my own comprehension, I wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir, who was then Lord Chancellor, asking whether there was any prospect of legislation and saying that I thought I could myself introduce a Bill which would at least effect this reform. I am sure he will allow me to disclose his reply. He thought it was very desirable that, when we legislated on this subject, the Bill should incorporate the whole of the Report of the Law Reform Committee, and should be prepared with great skill by the Parliamentary draftsman.
My Lords, my next connection with the matter was when my noble and

247
learned friend now upon the Woolsack took up his great office, and in conversation with him I expressed the view, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressed just now, that it was desirable to embody in legislation some of these admirable Reports; and I gave this one, the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee, as an example. I think it was then that my noble and learned friend extracted from me a promise that, if it were drafted, I was willing to introduce it. Then I forgot all about the matter until, a short time ago, he said that the Bill was almost ready and it would fall to me to introduce it.
I took the very reasonable precaution of approaching the Chancery Law Lords, and finding out whether they were generally favourable and were willing to give all necessary assistance, and I thought that I should be able to answer anybody who raised any question by saying that, of course, on that difficult problem the House would wish to have the reply from my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack. Therefore, when I saw the nature of this Bill and its complication, I was delighted that Her Majesty's Government decided themselves to take over the Bill; and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in congratulating my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on his very lucid explanation of its provisions. I wish, however, to say how much I welcome the precedent that my noble and learned friend is now setting of introducing a Government measure in which to embody this reform. I have some reason to know how many of these matters have been left to Back-Benchers, because it has been my task, I think, to pilot through this House no fewer than four legal reform Bills, always with the support, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, points out, of noble Lords in all sections of the House—because this House is always most willing to carry out important legal reforms.
My Lords, the House will remember the recent most interesting maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who drew attention to the very high respect in which English law and our administration of justice were held abroad; and he also included in his speech some points on which
248
admiration was less universal. Nobody admires English law more than I do, but there are branches of the law which from time to time require reform. As a result of the rule that the House of Lords as a Judicial Assembly is itself bound by its own decisions, the only method now of securing law reform is by Statute. And what better method of preparing for a Statute can there be than referring these difficult matters to this admirable body, the Law Reform Committee? But, my Lords, when the Law Reform Committee does at last produce one of these admirable Reports, I do not think there should be so much delay as there sometimes is; and in this matter I associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am perfectly certain that there will always be, in both Houses of Parliament, private Members willing to introduce such Bills when they have the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen. But I do not think that the possibility of law reform should depend upon that chance. I am delighted that on this occasion my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has himself introduced this as a Government measure, and I hope that that admirable precedent will be followed in future cases.
4.40 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything on this matter to-day, but as each noble Lord who has spoken on this Bill has referred to me I should like, if I may, very shortly, to join in the welcome which is being given to this Bill. It is, as your Lordships know, merely in implementation of a recommendation by the Law Reform Committee, of which I was a member, though I played a very humble part on this most abstruse Chancery subject; but I am naturally gratified to find that, on the one point on which there was any division of opinion, the view of the minority, of whom I was one, has found favour with the Government.
As a certain amount has been said on the work of the Law Reform Committee, I hope that none of your Lordships will think that, because we have a Law Reform Committee, this Committee will see that English law is brought up to date. Having been a member of that Committee for twelve years, I resigned from it largely because I was persuaded by my

249
experience that it was quite impossible for a Committee of that kind to do more than scratch the surface. As my noble and learned friend Lord Evershed has pointed out, this particular branch of our law has been known to be wrong since the time of Lord Blanesburgh, but nothing was done at all until the Law Reform Committee was asked to go into it.
It reported, as your Lordships know, in October, 1956; and I cannot altogether join in the congratulations which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack heaped upon himself for the speed with which law reform has lately progressed in this country. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that seven or eight years was the average time it took to implement a report of this Committee, but I did once spend considerable time and trouble trying to ascertain what was the average period of time between the moment when all lawyers agreed that some particular reform in the law was necessary and the moment when it was carried out, and I found that the average time was 35 years.
Therefore, while I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having, at last, sought to implement the recommendations of the Committee, it is, I think your Lordships will observe, only one of many Bills which have been introduced lately which, though admirable Bills, would have been better still if they had been introduced during the period of stagnation which we have had during the last ten years. Therefore, while congratulating my noble and learned friend on at last introducing this Bill, I would venture to express the hope that reforms in his field may come rather more quickly in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, that he rather misrepresents me if he suggests that I sought to heap congratulations on myself (I think those were his words) for the speed with which this Bill has been introduced. What I said is within your Lordships' recollection. I do not think I said anything of that sort.
My Lords, views may differ as to the extent of law reform that is necessary,
250
but I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his view that the machinery of the Law Reform Committee is an excellent one. It is a powerful body, and although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, resigned from it not so very long ago, that Committee has served, and will continue to serve, a very useful purpose indeed. I should not like it to be thought that any criticism can legitimately be made of the work of that body. Indeed, I should like to do all I can to encourage them in their labours, which do not, I think, perhaps get all the appreciation that they deserve. Nor is it right, in view of the record of legislation, to talk about stagnation in the last ten years. I am not going to take up time now in detailing the list of law reform Bills which have been passed during the last ten years, but I am quite sure that that record in the preceding years, during record in the preceding years, during the Socialist Administration.
This is a Bill dealing with the rule against perpetuities. I am glad the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, was able to give it his support, with his great experience of how that rule works. I moved the Second Reading of this Bill with a considerable amount of trepidation because I have never had any practical experience in the courts of the operation of this rule. But I remember, my mind going back to the last time I had any acquaintanceship with it before now, which was when I was approaching my Bar examinations, what a formidable hurdle I then found the rule against perpetuities to be.
I think this is indeed a useful reform. I am sorry, too, that it has taken so long, since the Committee produced its report, to present a Bill on this subject to your Lordships. I would say only this. It is not always easy, as I think those of your Lordships who are aware of the problems know, to find space in legislation—Government or, indeed, Private Legislation—for all the measures that one would wish; but it certainly should not be accepted that a delay of seven years is anything like the general rule. I could quote instances to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to show that other reports have been implemented in a much shorter space of time. I should like to conclude by thanking your

251
Lordships for the way in which this measure has been received, and by hoping that we can avoid any further delay in putting it soon upon the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has been fully discussed in another place, and many of your Lordships will, I am sure, already be familiar with its form and purport. The Bill covers two clearly defined fields: Clause 1, which provides for the application of minimum import prices and levies to agricultural and horticultural commodities; and the remainder of the Bill, which covers new measures in the horticultural field.
To deal first with Clause 1, this covers most important new powers to apply minimum import prices and levies to agricultural and horticultural commodities in the interest of maintaining market stability in the United Kingdom. This interest is one we share, whichever Bench we may occupy in your Lordships' House. The need for these powers arises consequent upon the Government's policy on cereals. But it was decided that, rather than drafting powers in terms of cereals alone, it would be far better to seek general enabling powers exercisable in respect of agricultural and horticultural commodities generally.
Your Lordships will know that there is wide and hopeful discussion on the possibility of international agreements, not only on cereals—which is already under consideration in the GATT Cereals Group—but also for other temperate commodities. Moreover, market conditions for temperate foodstuffs change
252
rapidly. It was these considerations, in particular, which prompted the Government to bring forward legislation in the form of general enabling powers, though there are no plans for applying them to other commodities at the present time.
The powers in Clause 1 are, therefore, exercisable by Statutory Instrument. The detailed system of minimum import prices and levies for cereals, and indeed for any other commodity to which the powers may subsequently be applied, would have to be brought before Parliament in accordance with the Orders provision in the clause. In drafting these, the Government had in mind two sets of considerations: on the one hand, the need to give adequate Parliamentary control over the scope and details of the arrangements which Ministers may wish to introduce; and, on the other hand, the practical requirements of applying and enforcing the minimum import price system by the imposition of levies.
Basically, there would be three steps in introducing the minimum import price arrangement under the provisions in the clause. The three agricultural Ministers would have to specify the commodities in respect of which they wished to exercise the powers. In effect, this would define the field of commodities within which the minimum import price and levy arrangements would be applied. And it has been thought right to provide for any Order which specifies a new commodity to require Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. Thus Parliament would have the maximum opportunity to scrutinise and satisfy itself as to the justification for applying the arrangements to any particular commodity.
Secondly, the Ministers would be able to prescribe minimum import prices for any specified commodity, and to lay down the arrangements for applying levies and granting any allowances or reliefs under subsection (3) of the clause. Normally these detailed provisions would be prescribed in orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, which again would need to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thirdly, the Minister of Agriculture alone would be able, on the basis of the levy provisions which, as I have explained, would be prescribed in a

253
previous Order, to lay down the rates of levies applying to individual commodities, so as to enforce the prescribed import prices.
Your Lordships will know, the Government's approach on cereals is to proceed, as far as possible, by agreement with our overseas suppliers. As a nation heavily dependent upon world trade for our livelihood, it is wise and proper that we should seek to agree with our trading partners concerned the arrangements for securing greater stability in our cereals market. The Government have been discussing these proposals with our four main suppliers—Australia, Canada, the United States and Argentina. As my right honourable friend announced in another place on February 11, agreement in principle has been reached with these countries for co-operation in the system of minimum import prices for cereals. Their co-operation is, of course, conditional upon the modifications which the Government introduce in their domestic arrangements following the Annual Review discussions, now taking place. We are in the course of approaching our other suppliers to see whether they are also willing to co-operate with us in the introduction of minimum import price arrangements.
Those countries which are ready and able to undertake to observe our minimum import prices when exporting to our market will be exempt from levies so long as they continue to do so. If they fail in their undertaking, we shall reserve the right to apply levies to their supplies in order to enforce our prescribed minimum import prices. The intention would be to apply in these circumstances a "country levy" which would be determined on the basis of the difference between the minimum import price for that particular commodity and the prices at which supplies were available for import into the United Kingdom from the country concerned. The country levy would then be applied on a flat-rate basis on imports from that particular country.
We hope that a large proportion of our supplies will be covered by agreements of the sort I have described. But in so far as we are unable to conclude agreements with some of our overseas suppliers, we should, when necessary,
254
apply a "general levy" to all imports from non-co-operating countries on the basis of the difference between the minimum import price for the particular commodity and the lowest representative prices at which supplies were available for import into the United Kingdom from the non-co-operating countries as a whole.
For the purposes of enforcing our minimum import prices for cereals, our intention is to rely primarily on the types of levies which I have outlined. But the powers in the Bill will enable the Minister to prescribe, by Order, other types of levy arrangements to enforce minimum import prices if it proves necessary to do so. In particular, the powers cover the possibility of applying a levy, not on a flat-rate basis to all imports of a particular type, but in relation to the prices of individual importations.
The purpose of these arrangements which the Government propose to introduce for cereals is to remove the low troughs in import prices which have, from time to time, disrupted our domestic market. There is no intention of applying the minimum import prices at such a high level as to create a restrictive regime which would raise the general level of prices. At the present levels of prices for the main cereals, the minimum import prices we have in mind would not bite and no levies would therefore be charged on them. But the introduction of the minimum import price arrangements would have the effect of preventing unrealistically low-priced imports from damaging our market generally as they have from time to time in the past. As your Lordships will know, we are the only remaining large market which is completely open to imports of cereals. There is, therefore, always the danger at the present time that the low-priced surpluses of any country in the world will come here with disruptive effects on our market as a whole. This is the situation we need to protect ourselves against.
There is no change in the Government's basic approach to agricultural support. The deficiency payments system will continue to be the basis of support to cereal producers in this country. The Government believe that, unless steps are taken now to contain

255
the cost to the Exchequer, our whole system of agricultural support based on the principles of the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 may be threatened. Clause 1 would give the Government the powers they need. I commend it as an important and valuable extension of our agricultural and horticultural legislation.
I now come to the Bill's horticultural provisions. These will be of great significance in helping the industry to reduce production costs and improve marketing. I believe they represent a new charter for the industry, to revitalise and strengthen its ability to withstand fair competition from any temperate country. While the industry will thus be put into a stronger position, making it less dependent upon the tariff, there is no cut-and-dried anticipatory plan for reductions in the protective tariffs. As I explained in the statement I made in your Lordships' House on November 27, there will be a period of some four years before any reduction is considered in the tariff on sensitive items—that is, those items which are particularly sensitive to overseas competition and enjoy a significant level of tariff protection in the home season. After this period reductions may be considered if it is judged to be in the national interest to do so. There will, however, be further consultations with the industry before any such reductions are made, and, in these consultations, account will be taken of all relevant data including the progress made towards achieving a higher degree of competitive efficiency. And I would add that the Government would certainly not be preparing to invest large sums of money in horticulture, and to encourage others to do the same, if they did not believe that great progress along these lines could be made.
I turn now to the details of these horticultural provisions. They fall into four categories: the extension of the existing system of grants to growers and co-operatives; the improvement of credit facilities; grants for the redevelopment of the major markets; and the introduction of compulsory grading. The Bill greatly increases the maximum amount available for grants under the Horticulture Act of 1960. As well as
256
providing for the new grants under Clauses 2 to 5, this will enable us to enlarge the list of equipment eligible for grant under the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme, with particular reference to equipment for the production, as well as the transport, storage and preparation for market, of horticultural produce. Consultations are being held with the industry and we have had many useful suggestions from other sources about the sort of equipment which should be included. A draft of the extended Scheme will be laid before Parliament in due course.
In Clause 2 of the Bill we are proposing to take powers to introduce a scheme to provide grants for improving the efficiency of small horticultural production businesses. We have in mind especially the small grower who wishes to reorganise his business or adapt it to changing conditions; and the grant would be a contribution to the working capital necessary to enable him to do so. Growers have been concerned for some time about the low-quality fruit which sometimes comes on to the market—often, it is reasonable to suppose, from small orchards on agricultural rather than horticultural land. Clause 3 provides for grant for grubbing out orchards, including orchards of this kind.
Clause 4 introduces a new form of assistance for co-operatives—grants towards the initial capital needed to get co-operatives going, or to help existing co-operatives to expand. This will help to surmount one of the chief obstacles to effective development of horticultural co-operation; namely, the difficulty growers find in raising sufficient working capital to mount their operations on a practical and purposeful scale. Grants to co-operatives are also proposed under Clause 5. This will make possible an extension of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme under which grants can be made to co-operatives who wish to build, equip and run their own markets in producing areas. The clause recognises that for this purpose some cooperatives might need to join together with other co-operatives or individuals, and so allows what we might call "second-tier" co-operatives to apply for grant. Clause 6 was added to the Bill on Report stage in another place.

257
It is designed to ensure that any cooperative receiving grant under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme or under Clause 4 of this Bill has provision in its constitution to secure sufficient produce from members for marketing by the co-operative.
Clause 9 introduces new arrangements for augmenting the supply of credit for growers and their co-operatives. Our experience in operating the Horticulture Improvement Scheme up to the present has shown that a good many growers have held back from taking advantage of it, due to difficulties in raising their two-thirds of the cost. The method this clause proposes will make use of the services of the banks, who have a great deal of practical expertise in assessing creditworthiness, but superimposes an arrangement by which one or more institutions will offer guarantees to the banks, and in turn be supported by a Government grant when they have to honour the guarantees on such debts as may go had. This will, we hope, turn out to be a cheap as well as an effective method of inducing an impressive expansion in the total of bank credit facilities. Your Lordships will have noticed that there was some lively discussion in another place, as to the particular institutions which could qualify for grants for this purpose.
The question presented has been whether the Agricultural Finance Federation, as well as the Agricultural Credit Corporation, should participate in the grants in aid under Clause 9. In view of what was said in another place, my right honourable friend has given further thought to the matter and has decided that, by way of establishing a proper relationship between the Federation and the Corporation, some change could be made in the method of implementing Clause 9, as compared with that outlined in another place. Briefly, what we are now doing is to offer the Federation one-tenth of the sums to be made available under the clause, and the Federation, in employing this share, will have the same status in the eyes of the Ministry as the Corporation will have in employing their share. They will, in other words, be grant-aided bodies operating in parallel under the same conditions.
258
My Lords, I come next to wholesale markets. I take it that all noble Lords will be agreed upon the need for action on this front. Most of our major wholesale horticultural markets are out of date, congested and badly sited. Experience has shown that without an effective incentive we shall not have them rebuilt quickly enough. The purpose of Clause 10 is to provide that incentive by making grants of up to one-third of the cost of redevelopment available over the next ten years to markets of major importance. The grants will also have the effect of enabling market authorities to charge lower rents in new markets than they would otherwise have to charge, and so help to keep down costs of distribution. My right honourable friend has stated in another place that our present intention is to adapt an actual potential throughput of £5 million as our criterion for judging whether or not a market is a major one. I have no doubt that this grant-aid will help over the next decade to provide a system of up-to-date and efficient markets playing their part in the modernising of our country.
I now turn to the third Part of the Bill, which gives Ministers the power to designate compulsory grades for certain fresh horticultural crops "when dealt in in bulk". And I would emphasise the last few words, which I have quoted from the Long Title, since they underline that this Part of the Bill is primarily intended to help our growers to compete more effectively with imports. We all know that a great deal of horticultural produce coming from abroad is graded; and where this graded produce is available at the same time as ungraded home produce, the home product is put at a disadvantage. There is every reason to think that this sort of consumer selectivity will continue, and even increase, under present conditions. The introduction of a dependable grading system is therefore urgent if our home-grown produce is not to suffer in comparison with imported produce.
A number of forward-looking growers have already recognised the problem and introduced their own grading schemes. There is, I believe, general recognition of the advantages that would flow from the introduction of standard grades administered on a common basis throughout the country. That is what

259
this Part of the Bill sets out to do. But, of course, we cannot bring in overnight compulsory grading for the whole range of fruit and vegetables. We have it in mind that in the first instance grades should be prescribed, after consultation with the industry, for four or five commodities. These would be apples, pears, tomatoes, cucumbers, and possibly cauliflowers. We shall need to recruit and train an inspectorate, and it is likely to be two or three years before we are in a position to enforce any grading. The grade descriptions will be published as soon as they have been settled, so that growers will have at least one full season in which to accustom themselves to what is required before the use of the grades becomes obligatory.
Your Lordships may wish me, before sitting down, to summarise what this Bill sets out to do. It seeks a realistic adjustment of some of our agricultural and horticultural policies to meet the changing conditions of the modern world. Clause 1 provides a new and essential buttress to our support policy for agriculture. The horticultural provisions of the Bill promote a determined effort to help create a fully efficient and competitive horticultural industry in all its aspects: production, marketing and wholesale distribution. I believe that, together, the Bill's provisions mobilise into a practical and penetrating attack on the problems facing British agriculture and horticulture over the next decade. I am quite sure that during the coming years we shall see its provisions reflected not simply in the Statute Book but in two efficient and prosperous industries, and in the service that they give, and will continue to give, to the entire nation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
5.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and careful, although in some respects not sufficiently long, explanation of this very important Bill. I feel that his explanation of Clause 1 might have brought forth sounds of triumph from the Opposition Benches, because for ten years, as the noble Lord is well aware, we have argued convincingly, and the Government have refused stubbornly
260
to admit, that open-ended deficiency payments, while denying protection and a fair living to the farmers, were a disaster to the taxpayer. We have insisted that deficiency payments, perhaps just tolerable in the conditions of 1953, could not possibly stand up to world pressure in 1963, particularly, as the noble Lord pointed out, when we are the only remaining open food market in the world with food imports totalling some £1,450 million a year. From these Benches we have consistently urged import controls and a managed market, and for years this has been just as consistently ignored. So the cost of support has risen to some £360 million in a single year—£210 million of it for meat and cereals alone—until, of course, the Treasury would have no more of it.
So we are to have import controls and a managed market. But I, for one, am not cheering, for two very good reasons. The first reason is that the Government may at long last be doing the right thing, but they are doing it in a hopelessly wrong way. The second is that the farmers throughout those ten years have had to foot the bill for what I regard as ten years of Conservative folly. The whole of Clause 1 is, in fact, a device to save £100 million or so on the Departmental Estimate. But over these last ten years the Department has been screwing those same savings year by year out of the farmers.
The noble Lord said that these proposals were in line with the Labour Party's 1947 Act. If they are in line with it, it is a very long line, and it is a long distance away.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The 1947 and 1957 Acts.
LORD STONHAM: I do not agree that 1957 was very much in line. It had gone distinctly off the rails, and that is partly why we are having this Bill now. In 1947 the Labour Party said that there should be
"proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry."
And the 1947 Act did just that. But since 1952 the farming community has been, in real terms and relatively, getting progressively worse off. So to-day, two out of five farmers earn less than £12 a week, and only one farmer in

261
three earns more than £20 a week, and that is counting interest on his invested capital as earnings. If we deduct interest from the total income, most farmers get for their labours only two-thirds of the minimum wage allowed for a farm worker.
I would ask: is the farmer being fairly rewarded, as he was promised under the 1947 Act? His output has increased 50 per cent. since the war, but his income has increased only 10 per cent., and the whole of that increase came under the Labour Government before 1951. In the last ten years farmers' costs have increased by £188 million. But their guaranteed prices have increased by only £12½ million, and they have thus been called on to bear £175½ million of increased costs. Compare that with other industries which, like agriculture, have increased their output since the war by 50 per cent. The farmer's income has increased only 10 per cent., while other industries have increased their incomes by 50 per cent. So far as prices are concerned, the things the farmer has had to pay for have increased by 25 to 35 per cent., and the prices he has received have dropped by 1 per cent. in the last ten years. No wonder the National Farmers' Union say that to put their members on something like parity with other industries their income must be increased by 25 per cent. over the next three years!
Agriculture, one of the most progressive industries, is entitled to a fair deal. Since the war home food production has increased by some £400 million a year, and every penny of it a saving in imports. Compared with pre-war our farms are producing two-and-a-half times as much grain, 99 per cent. more eggs, 114 per cent. more sugar beet, and the full yield of milk per cow has increased by 200 gallons. And all this has been accomplished with 170,000 fewer farm workers. Yet for ten years what I regard as the "Scroogery" imposed by the Government's deficiency payments scheme has denied them a single penny of reward for their extra efficiency and effort. So what I regard as this death-bed repentance, even with its promise of such forms of Socialism as co-operative marketing and financial assistance for co-operative and municipal enterprise, brings no plaudits from me.
262
But my main and very deep concern about Clause 1 is the method by which the Minister proposes to control imports and manage the market. He is going to fix minimum import prices, and impose, as I understand it, a levy equal to the amount of the deficiency if imports still come in at prices below the minimum. The noble Lord was careful to point out that, although this is a general enabling Bill, it is proposed only to apply the provisions in regard to minimum import price to cereals. What are the likely consequences going to be? At best, it means balancing on the knife edge of restricting home production and curtailing imports, remembering that even a small percentage of over-supply from overseas can rock the market.
Therefore, the level of minimum prices is crucial: if it is too low, it defeats its object; if it is too high, it affects our terms of trade and puts up prices to the consumer. The noble Lord assured us, of course, that it would not put up prices to the consumer. In other words, it is going to be so low that it will not have the effect that the Bill is intended to have. You just cannot have it both ways. My belief is that in any case, whatever happens, it is going to put up prices to the consumer.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food quoted in another place a hypothetical figure of £20 a ton as the minimum figure for barley. It is within your Lordships' recollection that a little while ago the French, and I believe the Russians, exported (or they certainly would have) barley to this country at £17 a ton. Let us assume that the same kind of circumstances of their having an over-supply arise again. One of two things is going to happen. The French or the Russians, who sold us barley at £17 a ton, will now make the price £20 a ton in loyally keeping the agreement which the right honourable gentleman hopes to make with them. We shall, in fact, be fixing, not a British minimum import price, but a world minimum price.
To me, the spectacle of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture forcing overseas suppliers to charge us higher prices for their food than those at which they are willing to sell is a sight to astonish the world. It must increase prices to the house-

263
wife, and the farmer who buys imported feedingstuffs as a raw material will also have to pay more. Let us take the other thing that can happen, although I do not think it will: exporters insist on selling at £17 a ton, and then we stick a levy, presumably of £3 a ton, on top of that to bring the price to £20. Again the housewife is bound to pay more.
The other point that worries me is that this is a general enabling Bill, and does not merely give powers to fix minimum import prices for cereals; it applies to all agricultural and horticultural produce and to products derived from them—a most extraordinary thing. If it is so applied, it can affect our international trade and our taxation policy, because in the clause the Minister takes power to fix minimum prices for a large proportion of our imports, and to levy import taxes on most of the essential foodstuffs consumed by our people. It is no good the noble Lord crowning and telling me that those powers do not reside in the Bill, because quite obviously they do.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that is probably a tacit invitation for me to intervene. If I have to find fault with what the noble Lord is saying, it is this. He said that the Bill "applies". Of course, it does not apply. The Orders will apply. Until an Order is approved by Parliament, nothing will apply at all.
LORD STONHAM: If it is not going to apply, then no Orders are going to be produced, and we might as well not have the Bill at all.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is suggesting that Orders covering all commodities will be approved virtually simultaneously. That is not so. The point I am making is that, Order by Order, the Bill will be applied, but until the first Order it will not be applied. Therefore his picture of the enabling powers of the Bill being extended over the whole field of food imports simply does not add up.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord is saying that until this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and until the Minister takes action on the Bill nothing will happen, of course I will agree with him.
264
I do not want to read to him the whole Bill, but if he will look at Clause 1(1) he will see that it says:
"The Minister … may by order specify produce of that description or any of its related products or both as commodities in relation to which the powers conferred by subsection (2) below may be exercised …"
Later in that subsection it says:
"… specified commodity' means any description of produce or related product in relation to which those powers are for the time being exercisable by virtue of such an order."
That is the whole range of agricultural and horticultural produce and products derived from them—for example, wool, hide, or things of that sort. It is no good the Minister denying that these powers are being taken, and that once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament those powers can, and probably will, be exercised.
LORD ST. OSWALD: With Parliament's approval.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, with Parliament's approval, but, as I have pointed out, many things over the last ten years have been carried through with Parliament's approval because there has been a permanent majority on the other side of this Chamber. We are now discussing the disastrous financial effects which have flowed from those acts with Parliamentary approval, which the noble Lord is now asking us to undo. I take no pleasure in the fact that we are passing a Bill with defective clauses in it which will become dangerous only if, unhappily, we continue to have a Conservative Government.
These import levies—import taxes, which they really are—although paid in the first instance by the importer, will naturally be passed on to the consumer. Indeed, they could facilitate a major shift in the burden of taxation from direct taxes to indirect taxes on the consumer through increased prices; and the burden, of course, as with any increase in food prices, falls most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to bear it—the poor, the aged, the working people with larger families, and any people with small fixed incomes. I know that some foods in the total bill presumably would not qualify for levy—the non-indigenous food. But, as I mentioned, raw materials would. An increase of just 10 per cent. in the cost of food imports would increase the cost

265
of living by some £300 million. I said that I thought the Government were doing the right thing in the wrong way, and, in our view on these Benches, the only way for British agriculture is that based generally on the 1947 Act, whereby we have really guaranteed prices, wherever those are possible, and subsidies, wherever they are necessary, arranged in such a way that they benefit both farmers and consumers alike. To depart from those policies and to switch to food levies and restriction on supplies will bring expensive, and perhaps even tragic, disaster. Increase in food prices means increase in wages. That means an all-round increase in manufacturing costs and a decrease in our power to export.
On the other hand, food subsidies, although consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, are a most powerful form of export subsidy. We must not forget that since 1957 the terms of trade have moved in our favour by 20 per cent., which is a bonus of £1,000 million a year on our balance of payments. A rise in food prices would start a reverse trend and push us straight into a deficit—assuming we are not there already. World food prices are not still falling; they are rising. In the last two years, prices of imported food have risen by 12 per cent. and retail food prices by 5 per cent. Nor are there quite the same world food surpluses. China, India and the Soviet Union have come on to the market as heavy buyers of cereals.
Our difficulty in the world may therefore be to keep food prices down, not push them up. It is under such conditions that the Government introduce a measure which must have the effect, beyond any peradventure, of restricting home production of staple foods. Labour's policy of food subsidies widened the world food market; Conservative food restrictions and levies will narrow it. We cannot help the underfed nations by producing less food. We should aim to produce more, and then find ways, in co-operation with other countries, to help them with our bounty.
I regret that the noble Lord was not able to say just a word about the proposal for a world food board when he was mentioning the restrictions which would have to be imposed on home production. This proposal, which is strongly
266
supported by the National Farmers' Union, should be investigated and followed up, because it is tragic even to think of restricting production of food here when more than one-third of the people of the world are, in varying degree, starving.
The right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, admitted on February 7 that his attempts to reach agreement with overseas suppliers on the level of imports of beef, veal, mutton and lamb, appropriate for 1964–65 fatstock season, had failed. Therefore I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there can be no quantitative limitation of imports during the coming fatstock year, because no agreement has been reached. I ask him: Does that mean that the Minister may consider applying to meat the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill for fixing minimum import prices? If not—and the Minister shakes his head—I would then ask: What safeguard is there against the possibility, if the conditions turn unfavourably, of another colossal bill for deficiency payments on meat? The Minister's proposals for voluntary restriction of imports, which the noble Lord mentioned very briefly in about half a sentence, would have been coupled with agreements for standard quantities at home, and he will agree that the Labour Party do not object in principle to the idea of standard quantities. After all, the 1947 Act may be said to be the parent of the idea of standard quantities, because in it we referred to the production of such parts of the nation's food requirements as can be produced at home. I am not quoting the exact words, but they are well known. To-day, in fact, most of the staple foods, except meat and cereals, have standard quantities built into the price arrangements in one way or another.
We are, however, very much concerned—and I hope the noble Lord will comment on this—to ensure that standard quantity arrangements shall not lead to artificial or unnecessary restriction of home production, or to scarcity prices. If we are to have standard quantity agreements written into the arrangements with the exporters of food to this country it must mean restriction of some kind in production—of course it does. That is

267
what the standard means. Therefore, what we in the Labour Party are concerned with is that there shall be, not unlimited production but a sensible expansion of British agriculture, and we think that that principle must be built into any fixing of standard quantities. We believe that agriculture is entitled to share with industry the planned 4 per cent. production increase. It is no answer to deny this on the ground that in some products there is no room for increased production without increased demand: the same position exists in some industries. We should allow for an overall 4 per cent. increase in agriculture, and we believe that the best way of co-ordinating imports with home production would be to exercise control over imports through a commodity commission and not by, as we see it, the hit-and-miss, and probably wholly ineffective method of the import levy. I have dealt with this matter at some length because I believe that it is by far the most important part of the Bill, and may have very far-reaching consequences.
I now turn, with considerable relief, to Parts II and III of the Bill and the proposals for horticulture. We on this side of your Lordships' House have for years been pressing for production grants for growers and co-operatives; for capital assistance for the small man; for the provision of working capital for co-operatives; for assistance in building up co-operative markets; and for arrangements for extended credit and compulsory grading. All these measures we warmly welcome, and we are grateful that they have come at last, even though they are, as we think, long overdue. But the noble Lord will agree that it is not possible to speak with any certainty of the effects of these Parts of the Bill until we have seen the regulations which will be published, and which we shall examine with great care. There are, however, some points that' I should mention, because I think they reveal obvious defects.
The Bill proposes a possible total of £27 million in production grants. That is a very useful sum, but I would ask: will it be taken up? In 1960, £8 million was made available for a similar object, but to date only some £3 million, I believe, has actually been taken up—and
268
I have no doubt that if that figure is not a very up-to-date one the noble Lord will tell us what is the exact figure to date. But only some £3 million, out of £8 million available for a four-year period, has been taken up for the very reason that growers could not afford to find their two-thirds share; and so far as the small man is concerned, I think it is generally known that he is already far too heavily "in the red" with the banks as it is. This Bill does improve the credit facilities, but not, I feel, sufficiently to ensure that the amounts available will be fully taken up. In our submission, if these proposals are to succeed there must be far more help for the producers' co-operatives; and in Committee we shall suggest improvement, particularly with regard to facilities for credit for producers' co-operatives.
In this connection I warmly welcome the announcement which the noble Lord has made with regard to the Government's second thoughts arising out of discussions in another place on their original idea to give a credit monopoly, as it were; a guaranteed monopoly for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I welcome the change of heart in principle, but I am not at all sure that the proportions of nine-tenths for this Corporation and one-tenth for the Finance Federation are right, or, indeed, that they will allow credit to go to the quarters where it is most needed. But that is a matter with which I know my noble friend Lord Peddie will be dealing.
Another point on which we are not satisfied is this question of the one-third grant for grubbing-up old orchards on agricultural holdings. I am sure that the noble Lord is perfectly well aware of the kind of old, worn-out, disease-ridden orchard on an agricultural holding which it does not pay the holder to look after properly. He is not going to plough up that orchard for the sake of only a one-third grant. I think the grant will have to be higher, if it is to do any good. We welcome also the plan for compulsory grading, but we are very disappointed that there is no mention of a minimum grade, and also because the proposed quality grading will not apply to retail sales. We take the view that there will be nothing to prevent a retailer from buying cheap, ungraded fruit and mixing it up with graded fruit.

269
If the noble Lord thinks retailers would not do anything so daft as that, I can assure him that he does not know the kind of thing that they get up to.
I should also like to know, when the noble Lord comes to reply, whether it is the Government's intention to use the minimum import price mechanism for horticultural produce. I know he mentioned that action with regard to tariffs is at least four years away, but I should like to make it clear that some of us would not regard the removal of tariffs on horticultural produce as any great loss; nor do we think that they have been of very great help. But what we are concerned about is that, if tariffs are eventually to be removed, it is essential that there should be adequate protection against dumping; and the industry is entitled to know now the Government's intentions in this respect. We hall also discuss in Committee, under Clause 20, the Government's intentions with regard to the pre-packaging industry, which is a subject vital to the future of horticulture.
My Lords, these points, though important, are relatively small compared with the two major defects in the Bill's proposals for horticulture. The first is that action with regard to improvements to wholesale markets is left entirely to local authorities' initiative. The Government, as it were, have only negative powers to say "Yes" or "No" if a scheme is put forward. We all know that in the provision of markets we lag hopelessly behind Europe, and, as the noble Lord says, hopelessly behind what we need in this country. We need not only reconstructed markets, but new markets, and we should like the noble Lord to tell the House how we are to get new markets (and the Bill provides for new markets) if they are to be limited to those existing markets with a throughput of some £5 million a year or more. We shall never get new markets that way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I believe he wants me to, and I think this will be helpful to him. I did say a "potential throughput". Therefore, if a local authority can say, to the satisfaction of the Ministry, that they have a market with a potential throughput of £5 million, it would be eligible.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting me. That is a completely satisfactory answer. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. It means that we can have new markets if the possibilities are there. The difficulty is that the Government propose to leave the whole matter to the initiative of local authorities. We believed that you will never get new markets in areas badly served, and you will never get a proper regional organisation within a national plan—which is what is needed—unless the Government take the initiative. On this point the noble Lord will know—it is his Calais on his heart—that we told the Government three years ago about Covent Garden: and we were absolutely right. Three years have been wasted, and the Government have been in a hopeless muddle about it. When we come to give advice on this Bill in Committee r hope they will accept our advice, and we shall make progress.
My final word is on the great error in the Bill in its failure to provide for a permanent body having continuing oversight of development of horticulture, research, teaching, packaging, grading, marketing, et cetera. Apparently the whole complex problem is to be left to a section of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What possible hope can there he for horticulture in such a setup? The H.M.C. lived a brief span and died, as we said it would, because it had no "teeth". We need a similar organisation but with a clear directive and with power to act and initiate. With such a body, and with this Bill, we could do something to get somewhere with horticulture. Without it, I am afraid it will be another case of hope deferred, but fortunately hope deferred only until a Labour Government are returned to power with the know-how and determination to restore to British agriculture and horticulture the high hopes and certainties of 1947.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I address your Lordships feeling very diffident and rash, in view of the vast experience which your Lordships have on agricultural matters, and I feel that yet another voice may be unnecessary. Nevertheless, since the war I have been, as I am, a practical farmer and fruit grower as well as an owner, and I hope therefore

271
that your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes.
First, I must say that I welcome this Bill as a non-political and constructive effort by Her Majesty's Government to deal with some of the problems inherent in this island. But there are one or two points which I should like to put before your Lordships. Part I of the Bill is a very important part indeed. It marks a complete change of policy, and to judge from the discussions in another place and among the agricultural unions, perhaps it is the most controversial. I think it is a real attempt to protect, first, the farmer and, secondly, the taxpayer against dumping and wrongly priced goods entering the country. The anti-dumping laws of 1957 can be used against special cases, but they are, as your Lordships will know, slow and cumbersome to act. Speed is the essence of market correction and market management, and I hope that a minimum import price coupled with the levy will be an effective way of dealing with these under-priced agricultural commodities without limiting them by quantity or by direct prohibition.
Let me turn to fruit growing, horticulture. I myself am a fruit grower; therefore, I must disclose a quite considerable interest in this matter. It is true to say that there is disquiet in ail parts of the country because if tariffs and import restrictions are removed, so far as horticulture is concerned, any advantage which may accrue under this Bill will not compensate for that. In fact, horticulture will be gravely damaged. In apple growing, for instance, it has been argued that there is a general levelling up of costs on the Continent of Europe with ours. But when we look at the proper basis of comparison, costs per unit of production that is relating costs to output—I do not think we shall find this is the case. Abroad they have enormous advantages over us. They have many more sun hours than we have: perhaps 500 to 1,000 hours more a year. This brings much more uniformity in their produce, much more colour and much higher yield.
Now in the countries in Europe, by withholding irrigation at certain times of the year they can get what I understand is called bud initiation, or, in other
272
words, they can control bud formation, which is so important in fruit growing. I would again submit to your Lordships that any advantage that this Bill gives the horticultural industry cannot be a substitute for tariffs and quotas. As horticulturists we cannot grow regular crops in this country every year, and it is the short year with higher prices which is so important to the English grower to keep him in business in the glut years which are always there. When we see that in the last twenty years apple production throughout the world has increased by 300 per cent.—and I think that in British Columbia, which is a great apple growing district, this has been called the "apple explosion" your Lordships will see how precarious is the industry.
Let me go on to Part II of the Bill, which deals with improvements of efficiency in small production businesses. There is a production grant for units up to 30 acres, and I welcome this. The small horticultural holding is a means by which the horticulturist can start small and go up to bigger things; it is something in which he can have an aim. I can think of many ways in which this money can be spent—purchasing fruit stock, equipping greenhouses, new heating systems, small irrigation plants and sprayers—and I hope Her Majesty's Government will make this grant available for what I might call movables. So often one sees small men plying away, working away, with "dud", secondhand machinery. I know your Lordships will realise that, as in everything else, no farmer ever gets rid of anything good, so the small man has to buy very poor equipment on the secondhand market. I mentioned sprayers. I know that spraying was very fully debated in your Lordships' House in the debate on chemical sprays. But I think I must here say to your Lordships that, if the country wants the English grower to put clean fruit on the market, he simply must spray.
I attach the greatest importance to grubbing of orchards. I think your Lordships may not realise the very large number of old orchards there are in the country. In 1949 half the acreage of apple orchards in the country was orchards under 10 acres, and I think this accounted for 91 per cent. of the holdings. Old small orchards are the main

273
source of rubbish put on the market in glut years, and this is certainly one of the greatest hazards to the English market that commercial growers have to face. Such produce depresses the price. Grubbing these orchards is a very expensive business, particularly because the trees are generally big, old trees, and it costs sometimes £40 to £50 an acre. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that one-third of the cost would not be enough to encourage the farmer, as distinct from the horticulturist, to carry out this work. I would also ask Her Majesty's Government if they will press ahead with producing the fruit census of 1962, which is so important a document, so growers can plan their planting. When they make the census, I hope that they will divide the apple into three compartments—culinary, cider apples, in particular, and eating apples.
Let me deal next with marketing and the provisions in the Bill dealing with help to marketing organisations. It is most valuable that co-operative marketing businesses will be able to receive increased grants for working capital for the first two years to assist their development. I think we should realise that there is divided opinion among growers in the apple industry as to whether to take advantage of one of these cooperative organisations or to sell by grade. Some five or six years ago I took part in a private survey in our district to see whether we should found one for ourselves, and in the end we decided against it. Fruit growers—I am really talking in this sphere about hard-fruit growers, apple and pear growers—are most independent people, and many much prefer to market their own produce. They know that they have a good brand; they have a good repution in the market which they have struggled to earn, and they have kept it over a long period of time. They do not want to be controlled by a pack-house manager. They think that they are doing the job of storing, grading, despatching to market and accounting more cheaply than if it were done by another organisation; and their staffs are largely drawn from the wives of the men whom they employ. Co-operative packhouses, on the other hand, have to employ their staffs on unremunerative, out-of-season jobs to retain them for the late autumn and winter seasons.
274
Private growers feel, too, that they can perhaps more easily dispose of their second-grade produce through the ordinary market channels in small lots, rather than through an organisation which may have to put a big offering of second-grade fruit on the market. Against this point of view, there is the small grower, with perhaps 25 acres, who cannot afford storage and who therefore often sees a considerable advantage in co-operative selling., Again, these co-operative organisations have a buying side in raw materials, as well as a selling side and this helps to reduce the costs of members. On the whole, I submit that the costs of collective packing and marketing have never yet been lower than farm packing, simply because of the high expenses of collective packing. Collective packhouses, I would ask your Lordships to note, are in large buildings, and as a result they are rated by the local authorities.
I come to Part III of the Bill, which deals with grading. This is of enormous importance to the fruit and vegetable industry. I think that all responsible growers welcome Clause 11. Voluntary schemes have failed in the past, and I hope that it will not be long before Her Majesty's Government introduce regulations to this effect. Grading and the inspection of fruit, particularly apples, will not be easy, owing to the immense variations in soils from county to county, from farm to farm, and even from plantation to plantation. The great variation in the appearance of English fruit results. This characteristic makes it most difficult to grow to uniform standards, compared with foreign apples, which are grown on much more uniform soils with much more sun, which in its own right gives much greater uniformity. I would submit to your Lordships that there must be, as the noble Lord opposite said, a minimum grade below which fruit will be rejected. I would submit, too, that the grades should be as simple as possible. I noted this year a variety of apple which was sold in 27 grades. This is much too expensive. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make quite clear the position about the size of fruit. There is no mention of size in this clause of the Bill. I think that all apples—indeed, all fruit—below a certain size we should try to send to process.

275
Now I come to what is perhaps the most contentious part of the horticulture provisions—namely, the direct sale of ungraded fruit to the retailers. I do not think your Lordships may realise the amount of ungraded fruit which may go to the retailer under this scheme. I note that Clause 11(4) can be used to prevent this. I agree with noble Lords opposite that there will be a great danger that retailers may mix up fruit. They will have a box of first-grade and a box of second-grade; they will mix the two, and perhaps sell them as grade one. Under the Food and Drugs Act that is illegal. However, they may well say that these apples are "extra selected"—as indeed they are. I would say that the inspectorate should be carried on right down to the retail shop. I think it is important that it should be compulsory for retailers to mark ungraded fruit or mixed grades with a label saying "Ungraded fruit". One last point about grading. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to phase the operation over a number of years. Inspectors have to be trained: growers have to be trained, and the market has to be trained. This will take a considerable time. When grading has been successful, as I am quite sure it will be, then will be the time for the industry to advertise. The fruit grower has an entirely beneficial product that he is putting on the market, and I am quite sure that there is great scope for increased sales of English fruit.
To sum up, my Lords, grubbing and grading are vital to the industry. If tariffs and quotas are removed, the industry will he in a most vulnerable position; and that risk will not be counteracted by the grant provisions in this Bill. I hope that it is in order to use an expression which we have in food growing. I have introduced, as have all food growers in this period of grubbing and re-planting, many maidens in entire orchards; but I must confess that the introduction of this "maiden" has caused me far greater concern. I thank your Lordships for listening to me with such patience.
6.0 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it is with the greatest possible pleasure that I offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount for an excellent maiden speech. It was wellreceived
276
by all your Lordships. He started off by saying that he thought he was rash. He was not rash in any way whatever, but gave us a maiden speech excellent in every way. I can truly say that we hope he will on many occasions join us in our discussions on agriculture and on other matters, so as to give us the benefit of his practical advice. Many of us on this side of the House remember his father, who I think for many years sat on the same Bench as the noble Lord now occupies. We hope that as a younger man he will be spared sitting on that Bench for so long, and that he may come over to this side. We have had three excellent speeches in this debate up to now—speeches which will be read with interest by everyone interested in this subject. The speeches which are to come will be equally important and I am certain will be equally well read.
I look upon this particular Bill as being important. Some Bills which come before your Lordships are good, some are bad, and some are mixed. So far as I can see, from the speeches we have heard and from what has happened outside the House and in another place, this Bill may he classified as mixed—good in parts and not so good in others. It opens up possible additional advantages for agriculture and horticulture. These are much-needed and long overdue. In these days, when free enterprise is still an accepted doctrine of the Government, some of the clauses in the Bill which lean towards planning and control are not surprising or unexpected at this time of agricultural difficulties. The Bill is better by reason of these new departures in Government policy; and although it is not complete and comprehensive I hope that we can regard it as an earnest of better things to come for agriculture and horticulture.
The Bill has received interesting comments from different angles. I am not going into those angles, but they differ and have received the attention of people who are engaged in these industries and whose livelihoods depend on their prosperity. For those reasons we on this side, subject to some Amendments we may wish to make at a later stage, will not delay the Bill's passage at present. It received long-drawn-out consideration in another place. Some Amendments were made; others were unacceptable to the Government—and these may have to be

277
pressed again and new ones introduced. I hope that when that happens the Government will be more understanding and co-operative in this House than possibly they were in another place.
I am intrigued by the wording of the first three lines of Clause 1(1), which read:
"In the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom …"
I trust that the intention behind that sentence can be treated as likely to become a reality. It looks to me to be rather wishful thinking for the future; but I hope it will not stay at that, and will materialise. For if the industry has suffered in the past from any particular drawback, it has been the complete absence of stability in its marketing operations. Haphazard conditions, doubtful practices, a flood of competitive imports, continuous and sometimes violent price fluctuations, as well as increasing costs, have been the bugbears of farmers or horticulturists. To iron these out or get rid of them entirely should not be beyond the wit of man, but the individual in farming cannot achieve this happy position by himself. He must be helped by Government action. To those of us who believe in this, the measure of control to be exercised by the Government in this Bill is thus welcomed. Personally, I hope that the Government will put back into the, Bill the import prohibition which was in Clause 1(2). The Standing Committee in another place, composed as it was of a proportionate number of representatives according to Government and Opposition strengths, agreed on this: but the Government by a narrow majority later struck it out. I should not like in present company to express an opinion on this action. In order not to give offence, I shall have to choose my words.
I come to one or two smaller points. The noble Lord who has just sat down commended the small horticultural producer. Points have arisen as to what is to happen to him in the future. If the area of land occupied and the nature of the product or use of the land have to be taken into consideration (as I understand is the case), I hope the Minister will not be too dogmatic on
278
this point and will stretch it somewhat, according to the circumstances of each individual case. I want to encourage the small producer, the man who works hard and wants to get on. He deserves every encouragement, and if there is unnecessary frustration he may lose his determination and go under. Diligence and a progressive outlook are commendable and should be rewarded.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, touched on grading, and I should like to deal in a few words with this subject. I am hoping that it may be possible for grading to go right through the operation to the consumer; and that, I understand, is the wish of some branches of the National Farmers' Union. Perhaps I might quote from a newspaper report of a meeting of one particular branch in my own area a few days ago, which said this:
"A … resolution, which was endorsed, recommended that if a new Horticulture Act was introduced any grading standards should be compulsorily applied right through to sales by the retailer."
One member,
… who proposed this motion, said the objection of Norfolk Government M.P.s that such an arrangement would be difficult to administer was no excuse at all."
Another member went even further: he said that,
… existing arrangements were not adequate as had recently been suggested by the Minister of Agriculture. He considered that if grading was not compulsorily carried through to retail sales this clause should be withdrawn completely."
I do not think that we on this side of the House hold that view, but we all hope, I think, that grading will go through to the consumer. The noble Lord mentioned the question of apples. It is very difficult, in the ordinary stall markets, for the purchaser to be certain of the sort of grade he is receiving. The five types of produce which were mentioned by the Minister are products which go through to the ordinary market stalls and to shop retailers, and it is therefore important to ensure that the consumer obtains what he is paying for and the quality he expects.
6.12 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount-Lord Falmouth, on his most excellent

279
maiden speech. When one looks at this Bill, on the face of it one would think that the only people who could have any anxiety would be the housewife, because the price of food might possibly go up, and the overseas producer who might have lost a market for his surpluses. But one would have thought that to the agricultural producer it could bring nothing but joy. There is power to prescribe minimum prices and levies on imports, which are valuable new powers enabling the Minister to control imports for which the industry has so long asked. Then, in Part II, we have generous and much needed grants for the horticultural industry to make it more efficient. But, at the same time, one has to realise that the enthusiasm of the producer is in some cases slightly muted, for two reasons; there is the spectre of standard quantities and there is, for the horticulturist, the fear that he may in the future lose the benefit of the tariffs.
One must realise that one is now looking at the Bill against a background—I would not go nearly so far as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—of a time when many farmers, rightly or wrongly, feel that their incomes are not keeping pace with the rest of the country's. At the same time, they have had some experience of standard quantities, though under completely different circumstances in, let us say, the case of milk and several other products, and their experience has not been altogether as happy as it might have been. I do not propose at the moment to argue the question of farm incomes and so on, because that is a matter to be dealt with much more when we debate the Price Review. But now we see the possibility of new standard quantities being introduced, possibly for cattle and sheep, and probably for cereals. I am not arguing against the standard quantities, but I think one has to realise that they are viewed with a certain amount of suspicion.
I personally support this Bill, and I think it is a bold and imaginative measure. I think that the Government are quite right to take the very wide powers they are taking in Clause 1, so that they can deal with any difficult situation, such as goods coming in at ridiculous prices, as it arises, and far more quickly than they could under the
280
anti-dumping legislation. I think they are right to take wide powers, even though it is the intention at the moment to use them for only the control of cereals.
I must say that I was very surprised at the reception which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave to this clause. I am sorry that he has left. I thought that one would have heard perhaps a certain amount of "I told you so" and "I have been asking for this for ten years". But, when he has now got what one would have thought was the sort of thing for which he was asking, what one did not realise was that he would paint the most gloomy and blood-curdling pictures of what was going to happen: either the price of food was going to go sky-high, or it was going to be so low that it would be completely ineffective. In spite of the fact that every new Order would have to have an Affirmative Resolution of this House, he appeared to say that a very wide range of products would immediately be brought in under these powers. The one thing that he never suggested as remotely possible was that the price might be fixed at the right level; only that it could be so low that it was useless, or so high that the price of food went up.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on the successes of the negotiations with our suppliers of cereals, and I hope that in the future similar agreements may be reached with our suppliers of meat, because I am quite sure that, as a great exporting country, we must do these things by agreement with our suppliers. We cannot afford to take unilateral action except in the last possible resort. Of course, we do not know what the details of the cereal scheme are going to be. They will come out at some time, presumably, with the Price Review. But I hope that any scheme that is brought out, if it involves standard quantities, will be fair to the home producer, the consumer, the taxpayer and to the foreign producer; and in particular, that the home producer will not be put into too much of a straitjacket. After all, standard quantities do not necessarily mean putting the industry into a straitjacket. I would have thought that they are really—and I think this is a part of the Agriculture Act.

281
1947, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, must have missed—such part of our requirements as it is in the national interest to produce. That was one little bit that I think he overlooked.
After all, standard quantities, whether they are restrictive or not, depend on the point where you start them, how much you allow for what is already in the pipe-line and the factors you allow for reasonable growth. I would have thought that in a more stable market, with the worst of the "lows" ironed out, the home producer was really in a better position to compete with imports and, by doing so, to have the standard quantity progressively raised. What I should like from the Government is an assurance that those are the lines on which they are thinking: that if the home producer can compete successfully and win more of the market, then that part will become part of the standard quantity. After all, in an expanding market there is no reason whatsoever why the home producer should not be able to do that.
I hope that this attempt to put stability into the market will be only the start of our trying to put stability into a large number of the markets in primary commodities, because I do not believe, and I think very few people now believe, that violent fluctuations are in the interests either of the consumer or of the producer. They have a disastrous effect on the countries of origin, where these primary products are grown; and, of course, with their development plans, they reduce the rate of improvement in the standard of living and put back the time when those countries can become more markets for our exports. So I welcome Clause 1 of the Bill.
I also welcome Parts II and III, which I think are quite uncontroversial. In particular, I think that the small horticultural business grant, combined with the extension of the horticultural improvements scheme and, at the same time, the improved credits, really should go a long way to help the smaller producers. Of course, this will be a new and quite big job for N.A.A.S., because it will give advice not purely in the technical sense of how to grow the things, but on management, which is the side which is growing so much at
282
the moment. I think that these grants should be a very great help.
The only other point I should like to mention is the marginal producers—the noble Lord, Lord Wise, mentioned it—the people who have just under four acres but are still viable and have useful holdings. It is probably not possible, or it may not be possible, to deal with this in the Bill, but I wonder whether there is not something which could be done to bring more of these people into the scheme.
I think these provisions should go a long way to help horticulture become more efficient. And, as the noble Lord said, they also contain the guarantee that the duties will not come off on the sensitive products for at least four years. Four years is really quite a long time, and they should have some chance. What is more, it is very difficult to forecast at all what the international situation will be in four years' time, and how much other people will have improved. So I think that, at the moment, we should consider increasing the efficiency of the industry and let the other matter wait. I feel myself that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will, together with the 1947 Act and the 1957 Act, make a very great contribution to agriculture.
6.29 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I welcome the Bill within certain limits. I welcome it because I think it is a step towards the co-ordination of imports and home production, which perhaps was not so important when the 1947 Act was framed as it is now. But it is a very great change. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, whom I should like to congratulate on an excellent and most knowledgeable maiden speech, is one of the few people who pointed out quite how major a change it is. By Conservative standards, it seems to me, it is positively revolutionary, because it involves changing the whole existing support policy to a policy of protection; and that in itself involves a major shift in international trade relations. It seems to me that before we make a change of this kind we must scrutinise the major economic principles of this plan, to make sure that we are setting sail on the right course, to make as sure as we can that we are taking not just the only available course but the best course that is open to us.

283
This Bill is, after all, the outcome of the breakdown of our negotiations to enter the Common Market. Of course I regretted the breakdown of those negotiations; and I still hope that at some time in the future we may get back into the European system. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill, because I feel that, within that context, this is probably the best available course open to us. I say "probably" because there are certain aspects of the Bill about which I have grave misgivings. Government policy here may be right—in fact, in the circumstances I think it probably is right. But there are aspects of it which worry me, and which I should like to examine a little. Some of them are points which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, touched on in his speech.
What they amount to is this. The present support system—that is to say, the system of deficiency payments, food subsidies and so on—had very great advantages; but it appears that now, under the stress of changed conditions, it is breaking down. The advantages were, first of all, the question of cheap food. I think that under the old system we undoubtedly had the cheapest food in Europe—though I sometimes wonder whether this is not an illusion. After all, whether you pay for the food by subsidy or by protection, the consumer still has to foot the bill: it is only a matter of internal transfers of payment. I sometimes ask myself whether cheap food is necessarily the right policy at present. Should not the consumer pay for what he consumes at the price it costs, without this illusion? I made the same point in a different context last week, during the Transport debate, when I said I felt that car users were not paying for the services they had, and should be made to do so. I wonder if this does not apply also to food. We have the illusion of cheap food because we support it by subsidy and deficiency payments; but it is the consumer who pays just the same. Can we not help the poorer consumer in some other way or by some other means?
The next advantage which the existing system had was export subsidy. I feel that not enough is made of this point. It is not fair to the agricultural industry always to be talking in terms
284
of subsidy to agriculture, when in fact no small part of the subsidies paid are subsidies to the exporter. As a farmer myself, I feel this very strongly. The point is always made about what idle, useless dogs we are, and how much public money we get, when, in fact, a great deal of the public money is used to support people other than ourselves. Thirdly, the system, as we have been using it, was acceptable under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is possible that this system has now become unworkable; indeed, it is possible that it was never entirely workable under a free market system. And so we are proposing to change over to something entirely new—protection. I do not think that people realise just how much we are abandoning the old system of deficiency payments. I think that the Minister rather suggested that we are continuing a great deal of these. So we are. But the power to change over completely to protection is written into the Bill. It is a sweeping change altogether, not only a sweeping change in agriculture but a sweeping change in our whole taxation policy and our whole import policy; and this, it seems, to me, involves very great dangers.
First, there is the real danger that the terms of trade may be damaged against us. This is fundamental to us. In many ways it is more important than the whole agricultural industry. If we damage our terms of trade it is no good our trying to support agriculture, because there will not be any agriculture to support. Secondly, whatever one says, the cost of living will go up. There must be a rise in wages, and this must, in turn, affect our export costs. Again I ask myself; does this matter? This is part of the illusion. Should we not, in fact, be paying for what we consume at the price it costs? It is possible that a quite small increase in the cost of imports—something like 10 per cent.—would cover the whole cost of the agricultural subsidies bill. I am not absolutely sure of my figures, but I believe that a rise of about 10 per cent. would yield £300 million, an amount which comes near to balancing the subsidies bill.
Another grave danger is indirect taxation, a point which the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, raised. Again I ask:

285
how much does this really matter today? The old concept, particularly from these Benches, was to regard all indirect taxation as anathema. I think we are now changing our views here—I do not mean only on these Benches; but I feel that the old distaste for indirect taxation is perhaps not so great as it used to be. Is it really shifting the burden of taxation, as the noble Lord suggested, on to those who cannot afford it? Cannot one possibly devise means of helping them in other ways? At all events, I put forward the idea that perhaps indirect taxation is not quite so great an evil as has been suggested. Fourthly, there is a very great danger of this kind of system, the protection system, slowing down the whole process of the exchange of agricultural goods over Europe. Any form of protection restricts trade; it does not expand it. That, in itself, is bad.
Those, my Lords, are the four dangers which come out of the new system; and they are dangers which must be scrutinised closely before one adopts a changeover, as we are doing, to this totally different and new system. Again, we do not really know how this new system is to work. There was an interesting interchange just now between the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the latter's figures. He, in turn, criticised the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, as to how this was going to work. We do not know; the Government do not know—they are only guessing.
My Lords, that covers the feelings I have over my major worries and difficulties, over the major implications of this. But there is also one particular implication that I should like to air again: I refer to the question of standard quantities. When I first looked at this question of standard quantities in the Bill I was very worried about it: I felt that it put a noose around the farmer's neck. Then I thought, "Poor chap! he always has a noose around his neck anyway, living in an industrial country like England, in which agriculture is only 5 per cent. of the economy. That smallness of interest is a noose in itself." The more I looked at it, the more I felt that it was the corollary of a limitation of imports. If farmers are going to ask for a limitation of imports—and that is what this Bill is designed towards—then the
286
industry must be prepared to expect a limitation on what they themselves grow and produce. We cannot possibly expect to get agreement with the buyers for our own exports unless we are prepared to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out that the 1947 Act carried the germ of this idea with it. Although one might dislike the idea, obviously it is the only possible one in the circumstances. It, too, has its dangers. After all, it restricts production exactly as any form of protection reduces production rather than expands it.
Noble Lords on these Benches, like noble Lords on the Benches to my left, have felt that it might be done better by some system of commodity commissions. I think that both our Parties have said a good deal on these two points. I would go further and have a wholly managed market. I am not quite sure how far noble Lords on my left are prepared to go towards that, but I am convinced that, in the long run, it must be a wholly managed market.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, where we have commodity commissions, there would be a wholly managed market.
LORD HENLEY: Yes, my Lords, I think that is more or less what I believe it to be. At any rate, some kind of world commodity agreement might be a more helpful way of dealing with this problem than the adoption of the standard quantity conception. But I just do not know. One is entirely in the dark in this matter. Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the concept of standard quantity as a quid pro quo in return for protection. That we must produce less, strikes me as the best available, though I hope temporary, solution of this rather difficult problem. It seems to me probably as reasonable a compromise in the context of the Act as we can hope for.
Having said that, within these limits, I welcome the Bill, I would end with a plea. It seems to me that this country, as the biggest importer of food in the world, is able, as no one else is, to take the initiative in laying the foundation for a sounder food and agriculture policy over the whole world. Although we have been excluded from Europe, it seems to me, that this Bill takes us a little nearer to the Common Market. I am

287
sure that here I am at odds with the noble Lords on my left, but I feel that, consciously or unconsciously, this Bill is getting us a little nearer to the Common Market and that this is to be welcomed. That, in its turn, is a step in the direction of a managed world market; and I feel that, in the long run, a managed world market is absolutely essential. It is not only ourselves who are bedevilled by these difficulties in agriculture. Every other country—Russia, America, the Commonwealth, and the countries of Europe—is faced with this problem, one of the most difficult and intractable in the world. At one moment, the world is flooded with surpluses; the next moment, the larger part of the world is plunged into hunger. There is this extraordinary dichotomy between these two aspects of agricultural industry, and this applies to the whole world. And it can be solved only by having a wholly managed market, not only for this country but for the world as a whole. So that, in spite of my misgivings on the Bill, I welcome it as a step in the right direction.
6.46 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of joining in the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, on his maiden speech. He gave us the benefit of his practical experience and his speech itself carried many shafts of clear, cool wisdom, particularly where he agreed with this side of the House. It is my intention to deal with only Part II of the Bill, and particularly with Clauses 9 and 10. But, before I do that, in the light of the comments we have just heard, I will make a brief reference to Part I, which makes provision for minimum import prices and levies, which are presumably designed to make the cheapest imports dearer. I am kindly to the viewpoint, just expressed, of concern about the possibility of substantial increases in the price of foodstuffs. The policy that is being put forward ends the practice of free imports of basic agricultural products and, I would agree without question, makes it easier for this country to join the European Economic Community.
I think a case has been established that deficiency payments have become far too expensive. Already we have had reported
288
the crazy situation of deficiency payments for grain being held down by producers being asked to charge more. This new method may be better, but it shifts the burden of deficiency payments from general taxation to a direct tax, which, so far as I can see, is more likely to be imposed upon the most efficient importer. That in itself is not a good principle.
Only 4 per cent. of the population of this country are engaged in the production of food, of all kinds, but 100 per cent. of the population eat it. While protection for the agricultural industry is important—indeed, I would concede, necessary—it is equally important that the population should not necessarily pay high prices, because high prices for foodstuffs can have important repercussions upon the economic system itself. Ask any industrialist or anyone responsible for the negotiation of wage rates about the influence that the price of food has on these negotiations.
To turn to Clause 9, I must say that I welcome the statement that was made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that Her Majesty's Government have had second thoughts in regard to their attitude concerning recognition of the Agricultural Finance Federation. This makes it unnecessary for me to express a great deal of the criticism I should have expressed had it not been for that statement. I am sure that the change of heart and policy on the part of the Government is welcome, but, nevertheless, I think it is in itself a tribute to the persistent logic and emphasis of those in another place who pressed the point upon the Government.
However, I should appreciate it if the noble Lord would give the House a few more details. I understand from the noble Lord's statement that the facilities to be afforded to the A.C.C. will be precisely the same as those afforded to the A.F.F. The suggestion is that one-tenth of the £100,000 will be made available to the A.F.F. I am speaking personally now, but I think there is little justification for the figure being 10 per cent.; it ought to be more. At the same time, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be no difference in the treatment afforded to the A.F.F. as against the A.C.C.

289
There is a strange story of the attitude of the Government in these negotiations. While we welcome the comment that has been made, at the same time we deplore the circumstances surrounding the attitude of the Government so far as their relationship with the A.F.F. is concerned. It is, as I say, a strange story, and it indicates that throughout the whole period these negotiations must have been held exclusively with the A.C.C., despite the fact that, surely, the importance of the Agricultural Finance Federation must have been recognised in this field of effort. Indeed, I believe that in the early stages, following upon the obvious alarm that was expressed by the Agricultural Finance Federation, a communication was addressed to that body indicating that there was no possibility of their recognition. But on Second Reading a different story was told.
I am glad that there has been this change of heart, because had it not been so it would without question have been an indication of favouritism and a refusal to recognise an organisation that is doing work equally as important and useful as that of the A.C.C. As I have said, it is not necessary for me at this stage to bring forward many of the points I should have done to justify recognition of the Agricultural Finance Federation. This has been done, and I am glad to hear that the guarantees given will be in precisely the same terms as those afforded to the A.C.C.
I should now like to turn to Clause 10 of Part II, which authorises grants not exceeding one-third towards the cost of extending, building or reconstructing wholesale markets. A substantial sum of money—£20 million over a period of ten years, which could possibly be increased to £25 million—is being allotted for this purpose by the Government, and I feel that in the debate so far insufficient attention has been devoted to the significance of this action. I think all noble Lords would agree that the great majority of urban wholesale fruit and vegetable markets need improvement. Most of them, if not all, are too small to deal with the current volume of home and foreign produce. The majority of them have bad layouts, which make it difficult to employ those modern methods of handling produce which could effect economies in operation.
290
It is essential to remember that the location and form of many of these markets are the result of historical factors in transportation and pattern of consumption rather than present-day requirements. Few of the wholesale markets in this country to-day really conform to the demands that are set by present-day requirements. These factors add substantially to the operational costs and, what is more, they add to our traffic problems. Therefore, the offer of financial aid over the next ten years to local authorities will, as I am sure we all agree, give a stimulus to the modernisation problem.
Nevertheless, I think it is as well to give some thought to the influences that will be brought to bear upon the prosecution of the policy which the Government obviously have in mind. In the first place, inadequate markets have been with us for a long time. It is interesting to note that less than half of the local authorities to-day have any firm plans for market redevelopment; and I believe there have been only two new wholesale markets constructed since the end of the war. There are a number of reasons, also, to cause one to believe (I should appreciate some comment from the noble Lord opposite on this) that even the offer of this assistance can be no guarantee that a comprehensive modernisation programme will be launched if it is left exclusively to local authorities, because there are difficulties involved which would in many cases justify non-activity on the part of local authorities.
We were discussing some of these difficulties yesterday when dealing with the problem of urban renewal. Let me recount some of them. In the first place, there are the complexities of town planning, including the difficulty of purchasing land and its fantastic cost; and the need to secure agreement among traders who frequently occupy sites in the markets with a full recognition that a transfer to another site will mean a substantial increase in rent: in other words, the changeover from the rent established by conditions of a generation ago to the economic rent that would be demanded by the new markets.
Another point—and there has been no indication that the Government recog-

291
nised this—is that additional market organisation ranks very low in the order of priorities so far as municipal authorities are concerned. The markets may be inefficient, but they are performing a function; and when the local authority are considering doing what the Government want them to do, and they have in mind matters of much greater and immediate concern to the voter, such as slum clearance, re-housing, provision of schools, roads and the like, it is perfectly obvious that the majority of them are not likely to pursue the development of new markets merely because of an offer of assistance of the character the Government are suggesting. One could say more with regard to that.
There is a second point which I would mention. Even if the local authorities were persuaded to modernise their markets, it is very doubtful indeed whether local authorities or anybody else has any precise idea about what sort of markets should be built at the present time. As an illustration, what thought has been given to what extent the construction and functioning of wholesale markets should be modified to conform to a trend whereby specialisation in food retailing is being replaced by the growth of organisations handling all types of foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetables? Whilst I would agree that the Chambers Report of 1963, I think it was, provided some information on food and vegetable market design and construction, it was certainly not comprehensive. Largely, the problem of market location remains a completely unexplored field. My noble friend made reference to the problem of Covent Garden Market, which is an indication not only of the complexity but of the difficulty in this matter of siting.
My third point in this regard is my final point. It is by no means clear that local authorities generally would at this stage be wise to embark upon the big-scale problem of market redevelopment without a detailed examination of the trends that are taking place in distribution, both wholesale and retail to-day. There is a great growth in the volume of retailing organisations, and an increasing tendency to integrate the wholesale function into their activities and deal directly on a specification basis
292
with large-scale growers. This trend may become the dominant factor in the determination of marketing in the future.
May I also refer to the question of grading? Grading, if carried much farther than this Bill carries it, could in the future be a factor affecting wholesale markets. If grading is carried to its practical and logical conclusion, I suppose a case of fresh tomatoes could be bought as easily, and with as great a certainty of quality, as one could buy a can of peas. If we arrive at that situation, the whole conception of wholesale marketing will be quite different. I mention those points because it is obvious to me that Her Majesty's Government have given not the slightest attention to the real question of marketing. Have they given this sop of some financial aid so that they will be able to say to the municipal authorities, "Why have you not got on with the job?" Yet the slightest investigation on their part would reveal the tremendous obstacles and difficulties in the path of municipal authorities who may desire to take up the offer that is made by the Government.
Our problem to-day, I agree, is to replace these 19th century buildings and markets—and sometimes they are older—and to create in their place the form of marketing that will not merely handle the produce of to-day but will be able to deal with the sort of trade, both wholesale and retail, which we may get in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Therefore, unless we give attention to this, it is possible—I place it no higher than that—that municipalities will be persuaded or coerced to engage in certain market developments which, before the passing of more than one or two decades, will he considered complete white elephants.
7.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill and should like to confine my few short comments to the horticultural section of it. I am pleased to see that the Government are taking positive steps to assist the horticultural industry, and I must say that the industry as a whole is very vulnerable and badly needs Governmental assistance. This industry now has an annual turnover of £160 million and, in the recent words of

293
the Minister, makes an important contribution to the national economy. Direct assistance by production grants to the small producer will, I am sure, be warmly welcomed, but I do not feel that a maximum of £500 per holding will go very far to assist the small grower to expand his business. As no doubt many noble Lords are aware, the present-day costs required are enormous, and I am told that one acre alone of glasshouses would cost over £20,000. I should like to suggest that this figure of £500, as provided in the Bill, should be reconsidered and increased to a higher sum.
The grant available for co-operative societies, I feel, needs careful examination. I consider that the marketing organisation should be a local government responsibility, and not be left to the co-operatives. The history of co-operatives has not been in every case a story of success; and although a number started after the war, the total co-operative sales today represent only 2 to 3 per cent. of the horticultural market. There have been a number of failures, and I wonder whether a grant to be made available under this Bill will necessarily be a good public investment. So often the reason for a co-operative society failing is that there is no control over their members. So often the members use the society's facilities to dispose of their produce as a last resort when other outlets have failed.
I cannot believe it right for public money to be made available for the benefit of only a few growers: I do not believe there is any proper benefit to the industry as a whole. Members of a society may be far more anxious to see the society succeed where only their own money is at stake. As to the setting up of new co-operative markets, I would humbly suggest that the existing markets in numbers are quite adequate. We should improve the existing facilities rather than set up new, costly markets that will be in direct competition with existing markets.
The provision of compulsory grading has received certain criticisms from the trade. The main concern is how many inspectors the Government are expecting to need, and who will pay for them—the trade, the housewife or the Government. Many of the wholesalers take
294
the view that, in any case, buyers of horticulture themselves visually grade, and they do not feel that lower quality goods on the market have any real detrimental effect on trade. It is felt that to set up an efficient team of graders will require a great number of staff and considerable expense.
Much as one welcomes the Bill as an immediate assistance to the industry, there is a growing fear among the industry that the real problem is that British growers cannot compete on equal terms with Continental growers, and if, in the future, this competition is allowed to come about, the present injection into the industry will be of no real value. The conception of the Bill, one is told, is to encourage growers to improve their competitive production in relation to foreign suppliers by improving the marketing. The Bill, of course, does benefit the industry, but I do not believe that it will have any lasting effect on the reduction of growers' costs; and this, surely, is the reason why we cannot compete on equal terms with foreign competition. As I understand it, the Minister has given the industry four years before reducing tariffs. This I regard as an ominous warning for the livelihood and the future of the grower.
7.11 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I will start my speech by offering my warmest congratulations, not only formally but sincerely, to my noble friend Lord Falmouth for his maiden speech. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for making many of the points which I was going to make, for I am thereby able to shorten my speech, to the benefit of your Lordships. I shall speak only to the horticultural part of the Bill.
I welcome this Bill, which is a good Bill so far as it goes, but I feel that in some respects it goes rather in the wrong direction. There have been enormous changes in horticulture since the war and the dominant one is that the buying is getting into fewer and fewer hands, and the small man is getting a worse and worse deal. Inevitably, the big buyers go to the big sellers for their produce, and the small man, for the most part at present has to go to the wholesaler, who acts on commission. That is, in my view, an entirely wrong principle. I

295
come from an area of smaller growers than there are in the East and South-East counties, and it seems to me that the small grower is not likely to take up much of the grants on the 33⅓ per cent. basis which has been offered to him. Under the 1960 Act only a very small amount was taken; and I think that that was a good thing, because there is a grave risk of getting over-capitalised. The grower has increasingly become not only an accountant but a salesman and a mechanic, and to-day the "green fingers" end of it is another man's job altogether.
I regard the industry as in two parts: first, growing and, second, grading, packing and selling. The latter is really a factory job, which I should like to see handled right throughout the country by co-ops; the co-ops taking produce at a fixed price, selling it to wholesalers in the big markets at a fixed price and not on commission. Then, we should not see produce of first-class quality being retailed in the shops at double the price which the grower obtained initially. An outstanding case of growers getting over-capitalised is in the erection of cold stores, which cost roughly £100 an acre—a very large amount of money to put up for equipment which will be used only for a few weeks in the year. Cold storage, to my mind, should be done by the co-ops, and the wholesalers, who have an opportunity of using their big stores for other purposes throughout the year.
I welcome the clauses regarding grading, but grading only for the wholesale market is nothing like sufficient. We must somehow get the rubbish off the market; and one is apt in these days to include as rubbish the small fruit which has become very unfashionable, although some of it is good. But this past season it has been quite unsaleable. For myself, I give all my small dessert apples to the local education authority to be eaten in the schools, thereby promoting the doctor's dental scheme, and they have been extremely grateful. It would not cost other growers anything to do the same thing, and in a season of scarcity the local authorities might very well buy up small apples and feed them to the schools. That is only one suggestion.
296
Another way of getting rid of—not necessarily rubbish, but a glut of other produce is by processing. The recent record of processing has not been particularly helpful. During the last war two drinks were introduced as producing vitamins. One was blackcurrant juice, in the form of Ribena and the other was rose hip juice. Unfortunately, in recent years a tax has been put on Ribena, which has promoted the sales of rose hip juice, which is very good juice anyhow. The result has been a catastrophic drop in the price for blackcurrants, which makes it practically impossible to produce blackcurrants at a profit in the many parts of England where they can be produced only at a rate of one ton or one and half tons an acre. A few areas are luckier, but in a great part of the Eastern Counties they cannot produce more than about one ton to one and a half tons per acre, and at a price which does not pay the grower. If that tax could be taken off Ribena it would help the blackcurrants growers enormously.
There is another outlet for processing. In recent years numerous attempts have been made in this country to promote the consumption of apple juice on the sort of scale on which Hitler made an appeal to the youth in Germany. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that in this country all the attempts have been failures. I understand that in the State of Washington, in America, one company has spent an enormous amount of money on research and development. I have written to try to get some details, but so far I have not succeeded. This company take in a matter of 300 to 400 tons of apples a day, process them and produce a very saleable and popular drink. I gather that the process has been enormously expensive, but that is the sort of thing the Government might well subsidise.
So much for processing and getting rid of the "smalls". I think the present system of marketing (to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, made some reference) to the wholesale commission agents is entirely wrong. There are good and bad wholesale commission men, but they nearly all have an interest in selling foreign produce; and in many respects the foreign produce is more specious than ours. The Italians, in

297
particular, send over here round, rosy rubbish with skins like a cricket ball and absolutely devoid of taste. The wholesalers find that they have a greater appeal to the housewives than a good English Cox has, and sell at a higher price. That, I think, is wrong; and if the commission agents could buy their stuff outright and not sell it on commission, I believe that it would be for the benefit of the home growers.
The only other point that I wish to bring out is the question of publicity. A few years ago there was a scheme for publicising the consumption of apples. It was not well supported by the growers, merely because it was on too small a scale. There was an appeal for money. I think £30,000 was put up, but £300,000 was needed. So people lost heart and did not subscribe, and the effort died out. If a publicity scheme for home-grown apples and home-grown produce could be introduced it would assist enormously in the revival of the industry.
7.22 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I also would start by adding my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Viscount who made such an admirable maiden speech, so full of his own practical experience and wise thought and I, too, with my noble friend Lord Wise, hope we shall hear frequently from him again. Perhaps I may begin by saying that there was one point on which I disagreed with him, when he said, in a slightly different context, that no farmer ever gets rid of anything good. But I would remind him that farmers assisted in getting rid of something that was the best thing they ever had, and that was Tom Williams, my noble friend Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, and the Government of which he was a prominent member some twelve years ago.
Where I agreed with the noble Viscount very strongly, and indeed with other noble Lords who made the point after him, was on the question of grading fruit and horticultural produce, and whether that should he carried through to the retail end or riot. After all, what is the point of grading? Why is there this provision in the Bill that there should be compulsory grading? It must surely be simply because it is to the
298
benefit of the consumer; otherwise there is no need for it at all. It is not inserted in order to benefit the wholesaler or the retailer and to make life easier for them; it is to make it better for the consumer, so that he knows what he is buying. And yet by failing to follow this through to the shop itself, the whole purpose of the provision is being defeated. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter very seriously and make what is a wise and reasonable provision really worth while instead of stopping just short of the target they wish to achieve.
There was another point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and also by one or two other speakers later on—I think the two noble Earls who last spoke also made this point. It was implicit in some of the things they said, which I do not think they meant in quite that way, and I hope they did not; it was to the effect that the British grower of horticultural produce is at an inevitable intrinsic disadvantage when compared with foreign growers. That, of course, is true in certain respects for certain commodities. There are some things which we cannot grow so easily or so well as foreign producers. Obviously, we cannot grow peaches so well as the Italians or the South Africans; we cannot grow artichokes so well as the Bretons, although they have great difficulty in getting rid of produce at a reasonable price.
But there are some things we grow infinitely better, some we can grow as cheaply, even tomatoes—Worthing growers can compete in their growing costs with the Dutch, but when it comes to marketing costs it is a different story. When we turn to raspberries or strawberries, so far as quality is concerned we are away ahead, and when we turn to what the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, mentioned, the Coxes, there is no apple in the world to beat it or come anywhere near it. I think it would be a great misfortune if it were thought that noble Lords in this House, with their great experience, really felt that the British horticulturist could not produce things as good as, or better than, the foreign producers. I must say I can never understand why people in this country insist on buying these extraordinary, soft, shiny red things called apples which come all the way across the Atlantic,

299
and will often pay more for them than for some of the rather smaller but absolutely first-class apples which the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, has to give to his local authority—and they are very lucky to get them.
I, on occasions, when I go abroad to rather distant climes, especially into the Caribbean, occasionally have a hankering for an apple. I go into a multiple store there and all I find once more are these soft pieces of cotton wool with glossy red paint on the outside. Why cannot we export apples? They are good enough, and would be a very good export if we could build up demand for them and make people realise what a good apple can taste like. I hope we shall not be content with trying to improve horticulture at home simply for home consumption, but that we shall realise that we have something which is better than is grown anywhere else in the world, and we could build up an export trade on it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, surely the point is the cost, not quality. I personally was discussing cost. I quite agree that on quality Britain cannot be bettered.
LORD WALSTON: I am afraid I could not quote off-hand how much apples cost in the shops to-day, but I do not think the price differential between second-quality Cox's and the imported apple is so very great. I think we can compete with them, and that those not considered good enough to sell at all could certainly be sold.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: The noble Lord mentioned tomatoes.
LORD WALSTON: Yes. There the point I wished to make was that our producers in certain areas—and I specified Worthing—were competitive in costs with the producers in Holland, but when it came to distribution, there, for some reason which is too involved to go into at this stage, our costs shot up and theirs remained very low.
Perhaps that can lead me on to the second point—I wished to make only two points on the horticultural section of the Bill—and that is the question of wholesale markets. I agree with every word my noble friend Lord Peddie said
300
on that matter. It is a subject that clearly is of the utmost importance in the problem of reducing our costs and making us competitive; and it is quite intolerable that we should be satisfied with a condition whereby it is in fact cheaper, or appears to be cheaper, to take a tomato or lettuce from a horticultural holding in Holland and bring it into a London shop than take it from the Lea Valley to the London shop. That is something we cannot accept with equanimity.
It is good that the Government have made some financial provision in this regard, but of course my noble friend Lord Peddie is absolutely right in saying that it is not simply a question of having the money to do it: you must know how to spend the money wisely. It is no good simply leaving it to the local authorities in the hope that they will spend that money wisely. They may have a market that has the requisite turnover; it may be a very backward market, and therefore presumably they will rank for this grant. But it may well be that in the type of wholesale distribution which will be coming in the years ahead and in the type of regional development that will take place also, that particular market should not exist at all and should be phased out and some neighbouring market be made the main market for the centre, or possibly all those markets should be abolished and one entirely new market should be made. These things cannot be decided by the local authorities; it is not their job, and they do not have the overall vision. It must be decided on a regional basis, and the initiative must not be left to the local authorities but taken by some other body, which I suggest, in the first instance, should be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We must remember, too as both my noble friends have reminded us, that the example of the Covent Garden business is not an encouraging one. We waited years before the Covent Garden Authority was set up. We have now waited three years since it was set up, and not one step forward that one can see has been taken. Even if they start immediately with their plans, we shall have to wait at least another three years before any benefit can possibly come from this project either to the grower or to the con-

301
sumer. So if we are to follow anything like the speed that we have seen with the Covent Garden Authority, the outlook is indeed grim, and the millions which the Government are preparing to spend on these schemes will stay in the Treasury coffers for a long lime. If, on the other hand, it is simply doled out to any local authority which has or thinks it is likely to have a turnover of £5 million, then I am afraid a lot of this money will be squandered.
I will not deal any more with the horticultural side of this Bill. Important though it is, it has been most adequately covered. I will turn to deal solely with Clause I of Part I of this Bill and all that that implies. This Bill has been described by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, as a penetrating attack upon the problems which exist. Of course, why these problems exist at all after he and his colleagues have for so long graced their offices is another question which we may discuss at some later stage. But, at any rate, he feels that this is a penetrating attack upon these grave and serious problems. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, described it as a "bold and imaginative measure."
Let us look at this a little more closely. What in fact is being done, and why does it need to be done? As my noble friend Lord Stonham has so forcefully expounded to your Lordships, we have from time to time suggested that the present system of agricultural support is a bad one and is not working. In fact, on more than one occasion, I think, I have drawn attention to the rather curious state of affairs, whereby, although in our churches in this country prayers are often offered up for a bountiful harvest, and at Harvest Festival thanksgiving is made for the bountiful harvest, if we remove ourselves from the churches and go into the Ministry of Agriculture or into the Treasury we may well find people offering up prayers—if, indeed, they do pray in such places—for a thin harvest, a poor harvest, because if there is a big one, as we well know, there will be a glut on the market, prices will drop, the deficiency payments will rise and the total amount which is called for in deficiency payments will be that much larger, and so the burden on the Treasury and on the taxpayer will be colossal, and Ministers will even have to go to another place and ask for Supplementary Estimates.
302
That is what has happened under this particular system, and of course, as has been pointed out, there are grave difficulties in this. No wonder the Government have finally realised that this is so. So what do they do? They bring in this "bold and imaginative measure" to make a "penetrating attack" upon this problem, and the way they make this penetrating attack is to go along to the four countries from whom we buy most of our cereals—on the whole, four rich countries: not underdeveloped, not countries suffering from malnutrition or anything like that: Canada, the United States, Australia, and the Argentine, which is not quite so rich—and say to them, "We are having difficulty at home. Our market fluctuates too much, and so, in the interests of market stability"—those are the words of the noble Lord—"we want to make some arrangement with you to help us solve this problem."
The arrangements they ask them to make are, not to restrict what they are going to send us, not to give us a long-term contract at a fixed price or anything like that, but simply to promise not to charge us as little as they have been charging us in the past. That is just as cock-eyed as this other system whereby it suits the Government to have a poor harvest, and it is difficult for them if we have a good one. That in itself is cock-eyed, and it must be cock-eyed to remedy an existing evil by asking the people who are selling us produce to charge us more for it.
I do not want to give the impression that I am against this Bill; I am not. We welcome—I think that is the official word; I would say "we accept"—the Bill as it is, and I am certainly not in favour of leaving these vital commodities, the food of this country, to the free play of the market. That far we go hand in hand with noble Lords opposite, because they now at last realise that it is not wise to leave these things to the free play of the market. That is a great victory for those of us who talk of a managed market, as did the noble Lord. Lord Henley.
Nevertheless, if we are going to move away from the free market to a managed market, surely it is not good sense or good housekeeping simply to ask our suppliers to charge us more. They do

303
not mind charging us more; it is quite nice for them. But cannot we obtain some quid pro quo? We have a selling price as well in the world. I know that the noble Lord opposite will say to me in a little while that of course we have, that we have the International Wheat Agreement with an upper and lower limit. But these are pretty wide limits. Apparently the lower limit is not low enough to satisfy the noble Lord, so it must be different from that. The International Wheat Agreement is not adequate to cope with this.
Therefore, I believe that we could yet get some benefit for ourselves as well as for the exporters of the world, instead of going rather plaintively, as it appears we are, and saying, "Please will you help us with our own internal difficulties and"—I do not think I am reading too much into what the noble Lord said "in return we will agree not to expand our production and, provided that our Price Review figures are correct, we will then come in with you". We are going as suppliants to them instead of doing what, surely, we should have done—saying, "Here we are, the largest importers of foodstuffs in the world. We are in a masterly position in the world food market. We can do what we like with it. We can wreck it or we can make it." Let us make use of that, but do not let us wreck it. Let us make it into a good food market. Is the noble Lord anxious to interrupt?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, I am. The noble Lord is speaking as if the food market were the only market in the world.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I was going to come to the other factors. There are other world markets, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I suggest that our competitive position might be worse if we pay more for our food. I will not repeat their argument. But we as the biggest importers of food in the world at present—whether we always shall be I do not know—should say to these other countries that we want to regularise our food market; we want to take the fluctuations out of it and we do not want prices to drop too low—the International Wheat Agreement tried to do that, but for one reason or another,
304
which the noble Lord did not explain, it was not satisfactory—and also we do not want prices to go too high; let us make some arrangement between ourselves that will achieve that.
If possible, I should like us to go still further, and to say—perhaps this is asking for too much—"Let us have specified quantities; not only standard quantities for the British farmer but standard quantities for the foreign farmer as well". I do not see why we should bind the British farmer to produce a certain amount which has been calculated as being desirable, while allowing other countries to be free, subject to certain price regulations, to export to us as much as or as little as they want.
Let us remember that these long-term agreements are not always solely in the interests of the exporting country. At the present time the price of sugar fluctuates between £75 and £105 a ton, but we are buying it at something like £45. It may be that in the next few years, if Russia and China come into the market as they are beginning to do with wheat and sugar, we shall find a hardening in cereal prices throughout the world. Would it not be prudent for Her Majesty's Government to take that into account and to have a maximum as well as a minimum price for all these commodities?
As my noble friend Lord Peddie said, this is a big change from the old system of free food imports. The Government have taken a significant step forward, and we certainly welcome that. We are glad that they have done so and we believe that it is the beginning of something which makes us feel that they are at last seeing sense. We do not expect them to see the blinding light on the road to Damascus, but to see a little glimmer from a faint candle held afar. That glimmer, I hope, will grow brighter, and before long I hope they will again see a little more light and come closer to our way of thinking, so that we shall eventually find that we in this country have an agriculture which is not entirely subordinated to imports and is not completely protected from more efficient producers outside, but an agriculture where a balance is held between the two, where efficiency is increased, and, above all, where the price of food to the consumer is lowered.

305
That is what we aim at doing. The reason why we welcome this Bill is that we believe it is a first, faltering, tentative, hesitant step away from the system of completely free food prices, in which importers of food do what they like and make what they can out of it: a step towards a more orderly and better form of agricultural regulations. For that reason, we welcome this Bill.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should first of all like to join other Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Falmouth on a memorable maiden speech. He said in opening that he felt diffident and rash. Almost all of us, no doubt, felt diffident and rash on first giving tongue in your Lordships' House, but few, I think, with so little reason as my noble friend—and I am certainly not among those few. His mastery of the subject and clarity of exposition are comparatively rare, even in this House of experts, and I know that we all hope he has been given sufficient encouragement to speak with great frequency in the future.
My noble and friendly opponent, Lord Stonham, opened the debate for the Opposition. I am always refreshed by a brush with the noble Lord. So far nothing has happened as a result of those brushes to undermine our friendship, and I am sure that nothing will. Tonight I found him at his intolerant and inconsequential best. He said in paraphrase, it seemed to me, that we, the present Government, ought to have done this years ago, as he had been telling us to do, but that because it was we who were doing it, it must be entirely wrong. That was my reading of his speech. He said that we were balancing on a knife-edge. I should prefer to call it a tightrope, which is rather more comfortable. But what he ignored was that the measures in this Bill enable us, instead of falling on one side or the other of the tightrope, as we have been doing on occasion in past years, to have a kind of balancing bar so that we are able to walk from end to end of the tightrope with confidence and to return the following year with equal confidence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that they use an umbrella on a tightrope, not a balancing bar. What I said was that
306
the Government is at last doing the right thing in the hopelessly wrong way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is always the wrong way, of course, from the noble Lord's point of view; and the more successful it is, the more wrong it is. I quite appreciate that. He asked me whether there would be no limitation on fatstock under this system this year—he put it, in fact, as a rhetorical question. There will not. And he wanted an assurance that there would be no repetition of the drop in prices in our fat-stock market due to over-supply which we were going through at this time last year. We hope that there will not be. I would remind him that if he refutes the methods we are adopting in cereals he would be inviting the same sort of drop which he thinks is a possibility for fatstock. It is precisely against that sort of danger that we are, by these measures, guarding.
The noble Lord talked in terms of our controlling imports and thus having a managed market for cereals—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, has the noble Lord finished with meat, because I asked him a direct question? I asked, in view of the circumstances the noble Lord has just described, whether the Government intend to use this Bill to fix a minimum import price for meat.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Clearly, we do not intend to use it this year. We have said, in words of great clarity, I thought, that for the present we intend to use it only for cereals. But we have enabled ourselves to use it for other commodities right across the field of agriculture and horticultural produce, as and when it seems wise, and if and when Parliament approves it, commodity by commodity.
However, to return to the point I was taking up, the noble Lord talked in terms of our controlling imports and thus having a managed market for cereals. This would not be the effect of the arrangements the Government are proposing to introduce under the powers which Clause I would provide. As I explained in opening this debate, the Government intend that the deficiency-payments system should continue to form the basis of our support arrangements for cereals producers. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was suggesting, we are not abandoning our

307
deficiency-payments system. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, recognised, it would be folly to ignore the pressures on this system from unrealistically low-priced imports, which even in relatively small quantities can do considerable damage to our market as a whole. The arrangements which the Government would bring forward under the powers in Clause 1 would be tailored to deal with this situation.
There is no intention on the part of the Government (though I am not clear whether this is the case with the noble Lords opposite) to control imports of cereals by physical means. The Government's proposals, on which we have already reached agreement in principle with our four major overseas suppliers (and I should have thought we might have received a greater measure of congratulation on this) would provide for the imposition of levies, when necessary, to maintain the minimum import prices, which would be set at levels designed not to raise the general level of import prices, but to eliminate the very low troughs of prices, of which the noble Lord is aware and to which he has referred.
It is clearly impossible to forecast how the introduction of minimum import price arrangements will affect food prices or the prices of feedingstuffs, because no-one can foresee how world prices are going to move over the next few years. One would require to know that. But if minimum import prices at the levels we have in mind had been in operation over the last few years, the effects on the cost of imported cereals as a whole, and so on the balance of payments and the cost of living, would, in fact, have been small; and those are figures that we have studied.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He was rather complaining that nobody had congratulated him on reaching agreement with these overseas suppliers. But would he seriously expect to be congratulated by his friends if he had persuaded his tailor to provide him with a suit at £10 more than the tailor had originally intended to ask him?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the
308
case here. That is a fair piece of twisting of the situation: I do not complain, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the issue.
My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney expressed surprise at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about Clause 1 of this Bill. I have no doubt that he must be equally surprised by the corresponding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who wound up for the Opposition. I do not expect them to be in complete agreement with what we are proposing, but I cannot help feeling that their exaggeration of their case will one day embarrass them when they read it. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seemed to give the impression that, with the failure to reach agreement on the recent meat-sharing talks, the Government would be making no further efforts in this field—I thought I read that into his remarks. I might remind him of an Answer given by my right honourable friend in another place on this subject:
"The Government will continue its efforts to secure comprehensive and satisfactory arrangements on these lines and will participate in the work of the G.A.T.T. Meat Group. Meanwhile we are seeking the cooperation of our overseas suppliers in coordinating the level and phasing of supplies to the United Kingdom market in the interest of maintaining market stability in the coming months."
But that is not, of course, invoking the enabling possibilities of this Bill, which I think was the question he put to me. I seriously believe that this approach is more likely to succeed than the splendidly jingoistic attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, from which, as he prompted me to remind him, one might have judged that this country was buying food and receiving no trade advantages whatever from the rest of the world.
My noble friend Lord Falmouth was suspicious, I was sorry to hear, about the tariff removal, but he welcomed the small horticultural business grant, knowing some of the uses to which it might be put. I should like to explain to him that those horticulturalists will qualify who can produce a comprehensive business plan. It will have to be approved by the Agricultural Advisory Service officer, and, if it is approved, a grant will be given for the improvement and rejuvenation of the holding.

309
After what I have said, I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give a degree of commendation to the horticultural provisions of the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House and many others outside know and appreciate the sustained interest and effort which the noble Lord has devoted to the cause of the horticultural industry. He is one of its best-known and most effective proponents, and it is, therefore, all the more heartening to hear some degree of approval from him. But it was only to be expected that the noble Lord should differ from me about some of the means we intend to use in this part of the Bill.
Perhaps the chief point he has advocated is the need for what he calls a central directing authority for horticulture. As I understand it, in his mind this would be a body rather like the old Horticultural Marketing Council—in fact he referred to that—but with more extensive and more rigorous powers. I am bound to say that I see objections to such a body. In the first place, I do not need to remind your Lordships that the old Horticultural Marketing Council failed through lack of support and, indeed, through actual opposition within the industry. I find it hard to see how the sort of body which I feel the noble Lord has in mind, with its necessarily greater powers of control over the individual members of the industry, could hope to succeed in these circumstances.
Secondly, it seems to me that a body such as the noble Lord has in mind would need to be almost omniscient, in order to undertake the tasks which he would like to see done. Thirdly, I find it difficult to see how this body would be supposed to direct the running of horticultural markets. These markets have been run successfully—I do not think the noble Lord challenges this—for many years by local authorities. Their day-to-day business is not such as could be properly directed by a central body. The local authorities are very anxious to fulfil their duties in this field, and we think that the grants under this Bill will help them to overcome some of the frustrations from which they have suffered in recent years. The noble Lord disagrees. He thinks that they will not be given sufficient incentive, but there we must differ; we think
310
they will. I really cannot see why the noble Lord wants to go further than this and overthrow the centuries of traditional responsibility which the local authorities have fulfilled and jealously maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, mentioned the question of the minimum size of holding eligible for grant under the extended Horticulture Improvement Scheme. This question has been discussed at some length in another place, where it was suggested that the appropriate Minister might be given discretion to pay a grant in respect of a business which does not pass all the normal tests of eligibility. If he was satisfied as to that, it would be reasonable for him to do so. The objections to giving the Minister so wide a discretion are fairly obvious, and I do not think I need to enlarge upon them.
My honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consult with the National Farmers' Union to see whether any way could be found of including those growers with under four acres who are genuinely viable, while still excluding the many who are clearly not. This gives rise to very difficult problems which the National Farmers' Union appreciate, and I may say that they agree with us that as a general rule the four acres limit is a reasonable one. Our discussions with them are still proceeding, and if we can come to a solution it will be incorporated in the schemes that will in due course be laid before the House and debated. But I must emphasise that the difficulties are considerable.
During the course of the debate some noble Lords have referred to the expansion of the Horticultural Improvement Scheme, and I think it would be of interest to the House if I filled in, briefly, some detail as to the background and effect of our proposals. As I have already said, Clause 7 provides more money, not only for the new grants in Clauses 2 to 5, but also for extending the Horticulture Improvement Scheme which was made under the Horticulture Act, 1960. This scheme was confined largely to facilities needed by growers and their co-operatives for improving the marketing of their produce. The 1960 Act, however, gave all the powers we need to extend the Scheme to facili-

311
ties required for growing produce, as well as for storing it, preparing it and transporting it to market.
Clause 6 of the Bill, by raising the limit from £8 million to £24 million or possibly £27 million, will enable us to use these powers to the full. As soon as possible after the Bill has been enacted, we intend to lay before Parliament a draft Scheme for approval by Resolutions of both Houses. There will then be opportunity for debate on the scheme itself. I think it was also the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who doubted whether sufficient of the available £24 million or £27 million would be taken up, pointing out to me how little of the money available under the present Scheme has been taken up. I would very briefly refer him, if he would forgive me, to one passage in my opening speech, in which I said:
"Our experience in operating the horticulture improvements scheme up to the present has shown that a good many growers have held back from taking advantage of it, due to the difficulties in raising their two-thirds of the cost."
Now, of course, in another manner, in this part, also, we are assisting them to do that and to overcome, we hope, that real difficulty which the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble friend Lord Falmouth, said they thought the rate of one-third grant for grubbing orchards would be insufficient. We have given thought to this question, but we are not convinced that a higher rate of grant for grubbing orchards would be justified. There is already provision in the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme for grants in respect of grubbing up as part of the normal operation of replacement of orchards. I cannot see a strong case for singling out grubbing for a higher rate of grant than any other facility. Secondly, the farmer or grower who has a worn-out orchard will, if it is a grass orchard—and the majority of them are—get a ploughing grant of £5 for each acre. This, together with the one-third grant we are proposing, seems to me to be sufficient incentive. What matters is that grant aid for grubbing should be extended to the farmer—and that is what the clause does.
I have been debating with myself whether I should blushingly admit to the
312
noble Lord that last year I did in fact grub out, without any grant at all, one-and-a-half acres of old apple trees, leaving him to accuse me of unwisdom and lack of prescience; but such is my loyalty to the argument I am proposing that I feel I should use it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord to tell me how much it cost him to grub up that one-and-a-half acres, how many trees there were in it and how old they were?
LORD ST. OSWALD: They were very old; I do not know the number of trees, but it cost me about £85.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has suggested—and this was one of the two main themes of his most interesting and powerful speech—that we need a much greater degree of central planning than is envisaged in the appropriate clause: that we need, in effect, a planned regional markets system. This might well be true if—and I must emphasise the "if"—our major markets were not, broadly speaking, where they ought to be. I contend that they are. Since our markets system has grown up freely and naturally, it could hardly, I should have thought, be otherwise. Where there has been a demand for large-scale supplies of horticultural produce, that demand has automatically been satisfied. I ask the noble Lord: where would the all-wise planner put his markets? It is where they are already—near the centres of consumption and distribution and conveniently close to the buyers who serve those centres.
Where I agree with the noble Lord, and where there is no argument between us, is that they are badly sited in the sense that many of them are too near the centres of the cities that they serve; but they are not badly located in the sense that they need moving to a different city altogether. I was able, however, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, during his speech, that grant-aid will be available for the provision of new markets as well as for the improvement of existing ones. We need only a fair way of assessing which are the major markets, and that, we believe, we have found.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, went rather further. He said that we were introducing grant-aid for markets

313
without the slightest consideration of the future pattern of marketing, or whether or not its object would be achieved. The inter-Departmental Committee set up a year ago by my right honourable friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been many months inquiring into these very questions, both here and abroad. They visited over a score of markets in seven other countries, and every important market in the United Kingdom. It was in consequence of their findings that my right honourable friends decided upon the policy embodied in Clause 10; and, unlike, I am sorry to say, the noble Lord, we are confident that it will in fact lead to the results that we all, he as much as we, wish to see.
Several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Stonham, and Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Falmouth come to mind—suggested that the Bill would be strengthened and consumers given valuable protection if compulsory grading were to be extended to retail sales. This subject was discussed at some length in another place, as noble Lords will know, and the Government have given it considerable thought. In our view it is not necessary to extend the Bill in this way. In the first place, this is an agriculture and horticulture Bill. As I explained earlier, one of the purposes of all the horticultural provisions of the Bill is to enable the industry to cope more effectively with fair competition from abroad, and the introduction of compulsory grading in this country is intended to put home-grown produce on the same footing as imported produce.
To achieve this it will be sufficient to ensure that supplies of home-grown produce are properly graded before they reach the retailer, just as imported produce is at present. The retailer does not now sell imported produce as being of a particular grade, and from the point of view of enabling home-grown produce to compete on equal terms it is unnecessary to take compulsory grading right down to the consumer. That is not to say, of course, that the consumer will not benefit. The consumer will have the assurance that what he or she buys has been graded and has been subject to official checks. He or she will notice a great uniformity of quality, a characteristic hitherto confined to imported
314
ported produce and the small proportion of home-grown produce marketed by growers who have voluntarily adopted grading standards.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, on that question of imported goods, may I ask the noble Lord a question on tariffs? The Minister is quoted as saying on December 12 that he would assume the tariffs would be dropped or lowered on imported goods within four years. Would the noble Lord confirm this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, my right honourable friend did not say that. He said that in four years' time we should feel free to look again at the tariffs on sensitive items. He did not say that any definite action would be taken, but, in consideration of the impetus which is being given to the industry at present by the terms of this Bill, we should hope that, by the end of four years, the industry would be in a better position to compete on what are at present regarded as sensitive items. If that is so—and the decision will be judged on circumstances—I feel sure that my noble friend will be as pleased as myself. I think I should also say (unless noble Lords are getting weary) that fears have been expressed that the grades may in some way be undermined and brought into disrepute by the exemption of retail sales. We do not feel that there is any real basis for these fears.
I turn now to the points arising under Clause 9, and I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is now better pleased with what we are proposing than he was when the debate opened. I felt that he would be, because what we are doing is conceding a principle requested by his honourable friends in another place. Her Majesty's Government have responded to that request by offering that a proportion—a generous proportion, objectively assessed, I would say, of 10 per cent.: at least 3 per cent. more than the co-operatives' share in horticultural business—should be available to the Agricultural Finance Federation with the backing of credit co-operatives. As I mentioned earlier, my right honourable friend has now offered the Federation a share of the sums to be made available annually under the clause and to put them on

315
an equal footing in the administration of the clause. That, I think, is the assurance the noble Lord wanted.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. He made reference to business transacted with the co-operatives. I take it that the facilities extended to the A.F.F. will not be confined solely to the business done with co-operatives, but will be on exactly the same terms as those afforded to the A.C.C.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I look into that point? I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at the moment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord. I merely asked—and, of course, he indicated it earlier—whether the terms will be the same as those afforded to the A.C.C.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my wording was that they will be "on equal footing in the administration of the clause".
LORD PEDDIE: In the operation of the clause, I take it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In the administration of the clause. For reasons which the noble Lord will appreciate, I had better not go further than that. I hope it means what the noble Lord thinks it may; but I feel that I ought not to go further at the moment, since this is a very recent agreement. But I will look into the point and get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, it seems obvious that "administration" will refer to "operation"; and I accept it as such.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes, obviously there will be an Amendment at the Committee stage, which I suppose the Government will move, to clarify this point: because I am quite sure my noble friend will not mind if I say that it is not he alone who wants to know about this point.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I realise that.
My Lords, I was very encouraged by Lord Walston's confidence in the ability
316
of the British horticultural industry to compete with anyone: notably in selling apples to people who prefer apples to cotton wool. When the improvement in distribution and the guidance to consumers by dependable grading are brought in, I feel they will respond with a new lease of life; and I hope that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull also feels reassured by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. My noble friend Lord Fortescue will not expect me to say anything about the purchase tax on blackcurrant juice, except that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to consider representations that have been made to him on behalf of the growers and manufacturers. My Lords, on such a note of sweetness I choose to end this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
8.13 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Temporary cohabitation with a view to reconciliation not condonation]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the two Amendments I have on the Order Paper are, I think, obviously matters of drafting. It would be a mistake to have the wording in the three subsections of Clause 2 different in each case, as they are now; and the two Amendments that I have put down are to ensure that the wording in each case shall be "for any one period not exceeding three months". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("for") insert ("any"). —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("any") insert ("one"). —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL [H.L.]
Report received (according to Order).