Lords Sitting of 16 March 1964

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

DERELICT ARMY VEHICLE ON OKEHAMPTON COMMON
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: 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 the derelict armoured fighting vehicle photographed on July 23, 1963, below West Mill Tor (Okehampton Common) has yet been removed.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): No, my Lords. This derelict vehicle is a target for the firing ranges on Okehampton. As noble Lords will appreciate, practical targets are essential for proper training on any field range.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, would it not at least be possible to prevent it from being used as a receptacle for old tins and other rubbish, as shown in the photograph?
EARL JELLICOE: I will certainly bring my noble friend's suggestion to the attention of the military authorities. I think that most of the debris around it is, in fact, bits of the armoured fighting vehicle concerned which have been shot away.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Let it be shot away.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I thank the noble Earl.

DARTMOOR AMENITIES AND SERVICE TRAINING
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: 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 what steps they propose to take to prevent further damage to the amenities and antiquities of Dartmoor by service units, including units of the Royal Air Force and Territorials.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, considerable efforts are made to reconcile the interests of the National Park training which has to be carried out in this area by the Armed Forces, including units of the Strategic Reserve. The area in which live ammunition is used is kept as small as the safety of the public and the needs of training allow. When there is no firing the public can otherwise enter the area. Officers in charge of units training are given instructions to safeguard the amenities, and liaison officers are appointed to deal with complaints. So far as antiquities are concerned, I am not aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has received any complaints of any damage to any scheduled monuments as a result of this training.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Are Her Majesty's Government not aware that a Bronze Age tumulus on Hanging-stone Hill was defaced by a concrete observation post with a flagstaff as late as 1959?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess to some imperfect knowledge of this particular act, but I will certainly look into this possibility. I have, of course, seen the pamphlet produced by the Dartmoor Preservation Society, which I see the noble Earl has in his hand, and I am sure the menhir (if that is the correct description) which is to be seen portrayed on the back has not been damaged by the Armed Forces since the war but was in fact damaged by a member of the Home Guard during the war.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the general public have access to these areas when firing is not in progress. Apart from the actual noises, what signal is there to tell them that they are free to go on these ranges?
EARL JELLICOE: I think red flags are flown when it is not safe for them to go on the ranges; but, of course, the times when range firing is being carried out are publicised in the local papers.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider supplying the commanding officer of every military unit with a copy of this pamphlet, so that their attention may be called to the complaints which are still being made?
EARL JELLICOE: I should be glad to consider that suggestion. But I would merely remind my noble friend that there is an inter-Service Committee for Dartmoor which has recently been set up with a view to looking into, investigating and bringing to the attention of the units concerned the complaints which are made.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while I appreciate the extreme difficulty of Her Majesty's Forces in finding suitable training grounds in the South of England, and in view of the problem of amenities, may I ask whether the Government would again consider taking our training grounds to, perhaps, the North of Scotland., where they will not interfere with such a large number of people who wish to enjoy their holidays and the general amenities?
EARL JELLICOE: I think this is a slightly wider question. But, of course, at the present time the Army Strategic Reserve and the Royal Marines, for example, are both stationed in the South of England, and so far as I know there would be no accommodation at least immediately available for them in the North of Scotland.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that perhaps that would not be very acceptable to Scotland?
LORD REA: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, when the
634
authorities are banning the public from this area, they do not sing, as well as fly, the Red Flag?

INQUIRY INTO MULTILATERAL FORCE
2.41 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 the committee of military experts inquiring into the necessity and feasibility of the multilateral force has yet reported, and if so, how.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Working Group which is considering the proposed multilateral force, in Paris, has now received a report on military aspects of the proposal from its Military Sub-Group in Washington.
LORD KENNET: Can the Government tell the House anything about when the Working Group itself might report, and to whom? Will it report to the Governments represented upon it, and when will it do so?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I could not say when it will be. Of course, it will report to NATO and the Governments taking part in the discussions.
LORD KENNET: May I just confirm this point and clarify it: the Working Group will report to the NATO Council?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not quite sure, my Lords. I should not like to commit myself specifically. I wonder whether I might write to the noble Lord to let him know.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will preserve the right of veto in any of these proposals, should they be put into operation?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question.

SAFETY BARRIERS ON MOTORWAYS
2.43 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: 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 tests on crash barriers and anti-dazzle netting on trunk roads and motorways are complete, and if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to install these barriers on motorways.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): No, My Lords. Experiments with a metal mesh anti-dazzle screen are being carried out on M.1 and have been for some time. The evidence so far of its effect in reducing accidents is insufficient to warrant its extension or its installation on other motorways. To test the value of crash barriers in motorway central reserves, two 9-mile lengths of double steel rail safety fence are being installed on M.1.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that, as a result of Continental experience on this type of road, it is thought that possibly the best method of restraining cars that run off the road and for anti-dazzle purposes is the plantation of shrubs, in particular, I believe, certain rose trees.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, we were aware of that. Experiments have been going on, using hessian sacking to simulate planting, to find out what is the most effective height and density of the planting. Unfortunately, Rosa Multiflora Japonica, which is much used, is not known to have the necessary resistance to diesel fumes, salt spray and root interference with the central drains. We hope to find something in due course; but meanwhile it is not a case of "roses, roses all the way".
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, how about brambles, brambles, brambles?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, has the noble Lord taken into
636
account American experience in this matter, where, I understand, a type of rose tree has been utilised which not only is extremely effective in providing a screen against dazzle but also does not cause anybody who unfortunately is flung into it to be filled with rose thorns?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; we certainly have availed ourselves of that experience. The point is that they have much more space in America; they build their roads much wider than ours; but in this country it does not seem that there is room for rose hedges sufficiently thick to provide an adequate barrier into which to run.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when we may hope that some plantation will take place?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I cannot put any time on it. Experiment and research is going on to find a suitable shrub that has the resistant properties I have mentioned.
LORD REA: My Lords, if it is not too wide of the Question, might I ask whether consideration has been given to the compulsory use of yellow headlamp bulbs, as on the Continent, which reduces dazzle?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have considered that point; I have mentioned it in this House several times. Furthermore, it is too wide of the Question.

CYPRUS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that the Leader of the House will make a statement on Cyprus at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Price stability of imported products
1.—(1) 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, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, acting jointly 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; and for the purposes of this section "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.
(2) In relation to any specified commodity the Ministers aforesaid may by order prescribe a minimum price level for imports into the United Kingdom; and with a view to maintaining the level so prescribed for any commodity or to allowing for the effect for that or other specified commodities of its maintenance, they may by order direct that on any specified commodity imported into the United Kingdom there shall be charged for the use of Her Majesty such levy as may be prescribed by or determined in accordance with the order.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit "or any of its related products or both". The noble Lord said: My Lords, beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and I hope that it will meet with the convenience of the Committee if we take with it Amendment No. 2. With these two Amendments we seek to remove from the scope of the Bill products "related to"
638
agriculture and horticultural produce. As subsection (10) of Clause 1 makes clear, "related products" has the widest possible meaning. Produce is there defined as
"anything (whether live or dead) produced in the course of agriculture":
and "related product" means—and I quote:

"(a) any product of a description which is obtained from that produce or from any related product, with or without any process of manufacture, or is obtained by the use of that produce or by that of any related product as a material, component or ingredient; and

(b) any substance or article of a like nature or use to the produce or to any related product ".

That definition is as wide as a barn door. It could include almost anything which is remotely related to agriculture or horticulture, or which could, in effect, in any conceivable way be used as a substitute for products related to agriculture. It means that the Minister of Agriculture, if this Bill is not amended, will be taking power to fix minimum import prices for an enormous range of manufactured goods. In my submission, it is useless for the Government to argue that this is merely an enabling Bill; that they intend, as the Minister has said, to apply it only to cereals and cannot put a minimum import price on any commodity unless they lay an Order before the House. That is no real safeguard. If the Government do not intend to use these enormously wide powers, equivalent to a blank cheque, to control the flow of a substantial part of our total imports, why put the powers in the Bill?
In Committee in another place the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture could give only two reasons, which I regard as singularly unconvincing, for this, and both of them refer to cereals. He said (and I think this was a fair point) that cereal products bought from abroad—and he instanced maize and sorghum—might be imported at such low prices as to wreck the market. This could be easily overcome by specifying in the Schedules a list of primary and horticultural products to which Clause 1 should apply, and maize could be included. Later, I shall be submitting a Schedule of this kind for your Lordships' approval.
As regards secondary products, flour is a related product and Mr. Soames suggested that it was conceivable that flour could be imported at such low prices as to wreck the market for wheat. Even if one accepts that contention as a possibility, again there is no reason at all why that product should not be included in the Schedule. These are the only two instances given in justification for taking these enormous powers over an immeasurably wide range of goods. It is not merely for directly related products, like flour, but for any "substance or article of a like nature or use". I submit that that means fixing a price and levying import taxes not merely on directly related products, such as wool, hide, skins and leather, but on cotton, rayon and other man-made fibres, which are substitutes for wool, or on plastic, which is a substitute for leather. Even if we consider only the Minister's example of cereals, the range of related products is very wide. It includes primary products like rice and millet, and also biscuits and cakes, animal feeding stuffs and oilcake.
We on this side of the House are wholly in favour of the sensible regulation of imports of beef, mutton and pigmeat, but why must we also include, as this Bill would, corned beef, tinned ham, Oxo, Bovril and other meat extracts, which are all directly related? Imported poultry is in competition with the meat trade and therefore a related product, and fish is related to meat because it is an alternative food. I would ask: why take powers in this Bill to put import taxes on fish? If the noble Lord says, as I have no doubt he will—and I hope he will—that this is not the intention, then he should accept the Amendment and come back at Report stage with a new subsection (10), giving only those powers which it is intended to exercise either immediately or potentially.
Under the Bill as it now stands, it would be perfectly possible for the Minister to ask for approval of an Order not only specifying a minimum for new primary products but also levying tax on a wide range of related products. We on this side would no doubt favour that part of the Order dealing with primary products but I am sure that we should be opposed to those for any related products. But we could not amend the Order; we
640
could only accept it in its entirety or reject it. I do not want to go into a dissertation about delegated legislation, but I submit that this is the most unsatisfactory way of legislating. It is impossible to give adequate consideration to important and detailed Statutory Orders in the time we are permitted in this House.
For example, only last Thursday the Select Orders Committee issued a Report on the Order transferring the functions of the Minister of Education and the Minister for Science, in which they said that the Order should not be passed without the special consideration of your Lordships' House. But we were obliged to pass the Order that same afternoon. What sort of position should we be in if we were required, at two or three hours' notice, to consider a detailed Order under this Bill of import taxes over a wide range of semi-manufactured and wholly manufactured goods? Frankly, we do not think it right. We do not think that certainly this Government can possibly be trusted with powers of this kind. Once they are on the Statute Book and people realise the position, they will make demands for their use. All sorts of pressure groups will spring up, demanding minimum import prices and taxes on imports if they are below the minimum. What about the soft drinks and cider makers, perhaps even the brewers, demanding protection against imported beverages? Milk producers would be demanding import taxes on milk products, margarine and butter. There is virtually no limit to the application of the words "of like nature and use" and "any related product". It does not seem to me that the Government have begun to think of the meaning of the words they use or of the far-reaching effect they would have.
I have been reminded that the Special Orders Committee met on Wednesday afternoon, but I think I am right in saying that the Report was in the hands of your Lordships on Thursday morning. As a member of the Committee, I happen to know that in that case the position was unavoidable, but that is the kind of thing that could happen again, and with a complicated Order it would not allow time for it to be properly considered. The Board of Trade already have powers—no doubt the noble Lord will refer to the fact—to prohibit imports under the Import of Goods

641
(Control) Order 1954; therefore we do not need in this Bill different powers to do much the same thing in a different and, I think, less satisfactory way. It seems to me to be taking away from the Board of Trade powers which Parliament decided ten years ago they should have.
We have had a recent example in the Resale Prices Bill of how Ministers in the present Government apparently do not take their colleagues fully into their confidence before they decide to launch into legislation. It seems to me that here is another example. It will be interesting to know whether the Board of Trade have been fully consulted about this, and if they think it is the right way to handle the matter. We on these Benches feel that the Minister of Agriculture should not have the power which these words would give him, and we insist that the words referred to in the Amendment should be deleted from the Bill. If the Government then decide to come back with a new subsection which will enable them to achieve what they have said in another place, and, indeed, what the noble Lord said last week on Second Reading, they want to achieve, then we shall do our best to help them. We do not agree that we should sail into these limited uncharted seas to which the Government now ask us to agree. I therefore urge the noble Lord to accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("description") to ("as").—(Lord Stonham.)
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for discussing the first two Amendments together, and I agree with him that this is a convenient way of doing it. But I should perhaps go further and mention that a certain amount of what I shall say will, I think, of necessity relate also to the first part of Amendment No. 4. I shall try not to repeat myself at too great length when we come to that Amendment.
Dealing with the first two Amendments, as the noble Lord has said, they have the effect of removing the power to specify "related products", which
642
would, in view of the function of the word "produce" in subsection (10), limit the powers to the primary agricultural and horticultural commodities. The noble Lord has, I think, made it clear that this is the purpose he has in mind. In order to apply an effective minimum import price system, it is essential that it should be possible to cover by the arrangements not only the primary agricultural or horticultural produce, but certain related commodities which these Amendments would have the effect of excluding from the powers contained in the clause. I think the noble Lord is in some doubt as to whether they would be inevitably excluded—at least I thought his argument was leading that way—but, after long consideration, we think that they would.
Taking the cereal arrangements, which, as noble Lords know, the Government wish to introduce under this legislation, it would not be practicable to apply the minimum import price system in the interests of maintaining a stable market for the main United Kingdom cereals without being able to apply the arrangements also to sector commodities which are derived from the primary cereals. Flour, as the noble Lord said, is an obvious case in point. If minimum import prices were applied and enforced on wheat, but not on wheat flour, and levies were being charged on wheat imports in order to maintain the minimum import price, exporters and importers would naturally have an inducement to trade in wheat flour rather than in wheat. Clearly, this could seriously weaken the minimum import price arrangements on wheat as a means of maintaining market stability.
The scope of the definition of "related product" in subsection (10), which these Amendments would delete, was discussed in some detail in another place. I recognise that the definition is very widely drafted, but I can assure noble Lords that this was looked at most carefully before being discussed in another place, and has been looked at carefully again since. As noble Lords know, it has been considered right to draft this legislation in general enabling terms so that the Ministers concerned would be empowered to apply the minimum import price and levy arrangements to any agricultural or horticultural produce if circumstances requiring

643
this arose. In other words, although the Government have plans at present to apply the minimum import prices only in the cereals sector, it is considered, in view of the rapidly changing situation in the world markets for temperate foodstuffs, and the widespread interest in international agreements governing these commodities, that it is right not to confine the legislation to cereals, but to take general powers which could be implemented by order.
In drafting the definition of "related product", which is included in the clause, we came up against the problem that it was impossible to say precisely what range of related products it might be necessary in practice to prescribe. In the case of cereals, we propose to specify at the outset, in addition to the main cereal grains, the cereal flours, groats, meals and other types of worked cereals and cereal offals. We cannot rule out the possibility that it may be necessary, in the light of experience of operating the arrangements on cereals, to alter the list which we specify initially. What "related products" would need to be specified in sectors other than cereals. if it became necessary to apply minimum price arrangements to these, would also need to be considered in detail when the arrangements were being framed, and the powers in the clause, we think, must clearly allow for this. If a tight and limiting definition of "related products", were included in the clause, there would therefore be a real danger that it would be found, in practice, that some "related products" which it was necessary to include within the arrangements were excluded by the drafting.
This is why it was found necessary to include in the clause a wide definition of "related product". The Ministers' powers to specify commodities are, however, limited by the provisions laying down the purposes for which the powers may be exercised. This is a matter of importance which was, I think, overlooked by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, or at least was made light of by him.
LORD SHEPHERD: Which part of the Bill is this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The opening words of Part I of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: The words, "in the interests of maintaining …".
LORD ST. OSWALD: What it means is that the Ministers concerned would have to show that it was necessary to specify commodities in the interests of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural and horticultural produce of any description produced here. If the noble Lord wants the exact words, they are in the opening words of Part I of the Bill. This, I should have thought, would be a clear enough guide for Parliament to take into account. Clearly the more remote any "related product" was from the ordinary primary produce to which it related, the less likely it would he that the Ministers could make out a case for specifying it. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to contradict me on that, but I should have thought it was entirely logical.
In addition, the clause provides that any order specifying a commodity must be approved by Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. This would mean that Parliament would have the opportunity in debate of scrutinising and examining the Government's justification for specifying particular commodities included in the order. The initial step in introducing the arrangements in Clause 1 of any particular commodity would always require such an Affirmative Resolution of each House. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that these provisions were as wide as a barn door, but the point I would make to him is that Parliament has to give permission for the opening of the barn door.
LORD STONHAM: But only one side has the key.
LORD ST. OSWALD: One side or another at any given time may be able to exert greater leverage on the key, this is perfectly true, but that is so in any aspect of legislation. The noble Lord said that maize and flour were only two instances of where this may lead, but I think it would be unwise to choose to specify other commodities, because it might lead to the mistaken conclusion that there was a firm intention to do SO.
I think that perhaps his main argument in advance of what I am saying

645
was that it was impossible to debate Orders in the time given in this House. I think this is not really a matter for me to comment upon. But he also said, if I understood him correctly, that he thought the occasion might arise where there was only two or three hours' notice for the House to study Orders. In fact, of course, these Orders will in the main be orders laid before the House and both Houses of Parliament will be given 40 days in which to pray against them.
I have tried to explain why it was felt necessary to draft the definition of "related product" in the broad terms which are included in the clause, and how other provisions in the clause as a whole would have the effect of circumscribing the freedom of the Ministers concerned to specify individual commodities. I can assure the Committee that this is a point of view which my right honourable friend has looked at most carefully. The clause, as it stands, is the most satisfactory way which has been found of providing the powers which are necessary in view of the generally enabling nature of the legislation, and I fear I cannot accept the Amendment.
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will again consider this Amendment. There may be difficulty in finding words of the right kind, but I do not think there is a great division of principle between the noble Lord opposite and my noble friend Lord Stonham. Undoubtedly, the Bill as drafted gives sweeping powers to the Minister. If he were to use some of these powers we might well find that, apart from the raw materials which are involved, there were many by-products which were major imports into this country from our Commonwealth friends. One would hope that before any power is used, whether it is for the basic material or for a by-product, there would be consultation with our Commonwealth friends, but so far as this House is concerned my noble friend was quite correct in suggesting that this House might find itself in extreme difficulties when orders were placed before it.
My noble friend drew our attention to the Special Orders Committee. The Chairman will correct me if I am wrong,
646
but I think it is not part of the duty of the Special Orders Committee to consider the principles behind an order. They are not called upon to consider the national aspects which might flow from it. Their duty is very narrow in the sense that they have to decide whether the order is a matter of principle and whether it raises a matter of public importance. The Committee can advise the House that it does, but it does not consider in detail the substance of the order. Therefore, the Special Orders Committee does not consider the facts that may be behind the order, or the implications of the order on this nation as a whole or on our Commonwealth and overseas trading friends. Therefore, I should not regard the Special Orders Committee in any way as a protection in this legislation.
We know that very often when we have an order before this House it covers a fairly wide range of subjects: they are related to the Bill, it is true, but they contain considerable detail. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that the House has no alternative but to accept an order or reject it completely. We may agree with 99 per cent. of the contents of the order but there may be difficulty over the remaining one per cent. On these orders we have no opportunity of moving an Amendment, and the House is therefore placed in the position that it may have to accept this one per cent. to which objection is taken simply in order to attain the 99 per cent. which it supports.
It may be that we could look at our methods of conducting our Business in future, but this is the situation to-day. The Government are taking these very wide powers, and they are able to use the present system to get an order through without Parliament being able to amend it. Therefore I hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the words of the Amendment, he will give a firm undertaking to your Lordships' House that, in the case of an order of considerable importance, covering a wide range of goods, at least a White Paper will be issued so that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that White Paper and perhaps, if necessary, have a Division upon it. As, the noble Lord knows, we have been extremely reluctant over the years to divide on Orders. I remember an undertaking

647
being given some years ago (I think it was by the Ministry of Transport) that, recognising our difficulties on orders, they would produce a White Paper so that the House could discuss it and perhaps move an Amendment to it. In other words, they would make it possible for the House to notify to the Government its feelings on the proposal.
I do not think that there is here any question of division in principle. We are particularly concerned at the wide sweeping powers which the Government are taking in this Bill, the difficulty that this House and the other place will have in carrying out any Amendment that they may feel necessary, and I should have thought it would not be beyond the powers of the Parliamentary draftsmen to find sufficient words to cover, in the first instance, the question of cereals, and other words which would at least give some limitation to these sweeping powers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before the noble Lord replies further, I think we must bear in mind what your Lordships are asked to do in Committee this afternoon and what has been the basis of this Amendment that is before us. We are asked to leave out the words, "related product". Both sides of the Committee, I believe, are agreed on the principle underlying this clause, that there should be this measure of import regulations or control to put a floor in the market. The question is, how does one do it practically? It can be done by fiscal measures, as is proposed now, or by physical measures of physical control. There is a parallel, surely, in the physical controls which are already on the Statute Book and which are operated by the Board of Trade. In these cases it has been found necessary, if Parliament is given a physical control over imports in that way, to include some form of words like "related product"; otherwise, the intention is stultified.
If you take out of this clause the words "or related product" or something which means that, you find yourself in this great difficulty: that when you are trying to control barley, you have no right to do anything about maize; or when you are dealing with wheat you have no right to deal with
648
flour. It is a pragmatic point. You obviously must have the right to deal with it in that way. I should have thought that these words, which have been most seriously looked at in another place, at all stages of the Bill, are the words of the Parliamentary draftsmen. I understand that they have been used before, in other legislation, and it seems to me that they must be the right words. We do not, I am sure, accuse noble Lords opposite of being tendentious here and trying to spoil this clause by taking out this phrase. What is before the Committee now is that we should take out the words "or related product". If we do that, surely this clause is spoiled, because any legislation must have the right to deal with flour at the same time as it deals with wheat.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl? He would be quite right if we merely took out the words and left it at that. But he will be aware, if he looks at the Order Paper, that there are other Amendments later on which will do the job in another and, as we think, better way.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: One begs leave to doubt whether they will do it in a better way. If we take this Amendment as it stands, I think the Committee would not be right to accept it and take out these words. I hope the Committee will do no such thing.
LORD HAWKE: It is rather a pity that the English language does not contain a substitute for the words "related product", because at first sight they seem extremely wide. I have no doubt that the Chinese have an ideograph which would be suitable for the purpose, if only we could find it. Having looked at the words, and pronounced them too wide you have to go back to the beginning of the clause, and before you can touch a related product you have to prove that it is in the interest of maintaining a stable market for United Kingdom agricultural or horticultural products. I do not know to whom you prove that, but I think it would be rather far-fetched to go to law or to Parliament or to anybody else, and to try to prove that it is necessary to restrict the imports of Terylene in order to preserve the price of British cross-bred wool, which I think is what

649
the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was suggesting. In default of any better words of the English language, I cannot conceive how it can be better signified than in these words. With the principle I am heartily in agreement, as most of your Lordships are. The greater the production, the higher the price for British agriculture, the better I am pleased.
LORD WALSTON: I think we all agree—and noble Lords who have spoken so far all agree—that we are at one with the objectives of this clause. Obviously, if we are trying to stabilise prices for home producers, we must have control, not only over the prices of the smaller imports but on other competitive imports. So far as that goes, there is no difference between us. But I agree with my noble friends that this drafting gives an extremely wide scope; and wider, I think, than Parliament should allow. Naturally, Parliamentary draftsmen wish to draw a Bill as wide as they can, because there is no "comeback" on them if, in the future, a Government wish to do something and it is not included in the Bill. If it is included —and the wider it is drafted, the more likely it is to be included—the better those who have to operate the Act are satisfied. I think it is our job here to see that this blanket does not cover too many bodies. At the moment I agree with my noble friends in thinking that it does cover far too many bodies. It covers as many bodies as you wish to put under it. Under the clause as it stands, it may be possible, in order to protect the consumption of English cabbages, to put restrictions on the importation of French asparagus, because if people can get cheap asparagus they are not going to buy cabbage. That is the width with which this Bill enables the Government to operate.
I hope that the Minister will not be adamant in this matter, accepting the fact that we all want the same thing, and will take it back and think again. The fact that this point has been discussed at length in another place, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, said, is surely no argument for not giving it further consideration. There are a good many other things discussed in another place which have been altered in this Chamber with
650
occasional somewhat far-reaching results, as in the case of the Peerage Bill. The fact that a clause has gone through another place must not be brought forward as an argument that we must accept it without any further discussion at all. I hope that when the Minister replies he will accept that there is a genuine problem here; that the Bill as now drafted errs on the side of being too widely drawn, and that he will use his undoubted ability and intelligence, and that of his helpers, to see that something rather closer to what we want emerges.
LORD STONHAM: I was delighted at the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave—a very reasonable intervention, I thought, particularly because he has, as it were, come back to the fold. I am even more delighted that we can welcome back on these Benches, after far too long an interval, our noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. It begins to shape itself like an old boys' reunion. But my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh is the daddy of us all, so far as this subject is concerned. I think the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, put the point of difference precisely and exactly, except that he said you cannot do without the words "related product". I hope to submit later on that we ought to be able to deal with it in another way.
I should like to reinforce the appeal made by my noble friend Lord Walston that the Minister should agree to look at this again. In so doing, let him take note of what his noble friend Lord Hawke said. We ought to find other words for "related" or "related product". If you look at the definition in the Bill of what "related product" means, in subsection (10) you will see that it says, leaving out the intervening words:
" and 'related products' … means 'any related product'
When you have to use the actual words to define what you are defining, then I think we have come to the outer edge; and it really is not good enough. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will not be satisfied by saying, as he did to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, that the safeguard is there because the Minister can only come for

651
ward with an Order and show that what he proposes is:
"in the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce."
Successive Ministers of Agriculture have come forward to show that for the last eleven or twelve years. We now come to this Bill, which proves beyond a peradventure that we have not got a stable market for agriculture; though every proposal they brought forward was said to be in the interests of agriculture, they now have to come with this Bill which admits that they have all failed. I feel very strongly that the Government should not come to us with a form of words which embraces so many things, and which they have not the slightest intention of doing. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will tell us they will take this back again and have another look at it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, have suggested that the interpretation of these provisions is in some way controlled by the initial words of subsection (1). But, of course, there is no control. This is not a case in which you could go to the courts and ask for a declaration that a regulation was ultra vires. There is nothing of that kind in it. So long as the Minister says that he thinks it is in the interests of maintaining a stable market, that is the end of it. There is no control beyond the opinion of the Minister other than such control as Parliament is able to exercise by voting against the regulation when it is made.
With regard to the scope of the powers which were asked for, let it be observed that "related products" means, in effect, every article of any kind whatsoever which is derived by any kind of process of manufacture, including admixture, with other articles in order to arrive at the ultimate result. Therefore, it includes, for example, not only flour, but starch; and because it is defined so as to include articles which may be used in substitution of any of these things, it will include a very wide range of other things. Starch, for example, is very widely used as an adhesive. This power would enable a prohibition or an import duty to be imposed upon some
652
other substance of a totally different origin which was used as an adhesive.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is he at the moment giving his own opinion, or are these words which have been used by a Government lawyer in another place as a definition of related produce?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am, of course, giving my own opinion upon what is contained in the Bill, and I am perfectly prepared to justify it by the definition of a "related product", which is given in subsection (10), because it is defined as
"any product of a description which is obtained from"
agricultural produce. But not only that; it is
"any product of a description which is obtained … from any related product".
Therefore, you can advance from stage to stage in the process of manufacture, no matter how many stages it goes through, and every one of the articles so produced is a "related product". In addition to that, something which is obtained by the use of an agricultural product is also a "related product". So the use, in fact, may be a quite minor part of the process, but if it is an essential one you still have a related product which is within the scope of this definition.
Also, it is provided that a related product is one in which either a previous related product or an agricultural product is a material, a component or ingredient, it matters not how small is the proportion. In addition to that, any substance or article of a like nature or like use is a related product. Therefore, as I said just now, starch is a derivative of flour; it is used as, among other things, an adhesive, and any other adhesive whatsoever, because it can be used for the same purpose, is a "related product".
You can bring within this definition an infinity of articles. Straw, which is an agricultural product, is used for the purpose of making building boards. So are a great many other things. Building boards of all kinds are manufactured. Every one of them will be a "related product" if straw is used for the purpose of making any kind of building board whatsoever. In fact,

653
what underlies this provision as it stands is a fundamental principle, to endeavour to obstruct any kind of technological or industrial progress which introduces a substitute for an article which is derived from an agricultural product. If that is the principle upon which this legislation is framed and is going to be operated, it is entirely against technological progress in any direction in which a related product within this extremely wide definition exists or can exist.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): I wonder whether it would be convenient at this moment if I moved that the House be resumed and we had the statement. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

CYPRUS
3.37 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will, with your Lordships' permission, repeat the statement which is being made by the Commonwealth Secretary in another place on Cyprus. The terms are as follows:
"I promised to keep the House informed of further developments in Cyprus. In the last few days the situation on the island has been much calmer, though there have continued to be minor incidents. A cease-fire was negotiated at Ktima, which has eased the position there. There is, of course, still widespread tension, particularly in Nicosia.
"Early on Friday, the Turkish Government issued a warning that unless the attacks upon the Turkish-Cypriot community ceased, they might have to exercise their right of intervention under the Treaty of Guarantee.
"That night, the Security Council, by a unanimous vote, reaffirmed its earlier resolution and once again called upon all concerned to refrain from action which would worsen the situation.
"At the same time, the Secretary-General announced that substantial progress had been made in the formation of the international force.
654
Contingents have been promised by four countries. Canada has undertaken to provide about 1,000 men, of which the advance party has already arrived in Cyprus. Sweden has agreed to send one battalion and an armoured car squadron. The Republic of Ireland and Finland have also offered to contribute a battalion each. We are most anxious that everything should be done to hasten the arrival of these contingents, so that the international force may be brought into effective operation at the earliest possible moment.
"We warmly welcome this helpful response and are in close touch with the Secretary-General and the other Governments concerned about this matter and about the choice of a mediator to whose early appointment we attach great importance."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House is very grateful to the Leader of the House for letting us have this statement. It is true that thereby the expert knowledge which is now put over the B.B.C. News—we have had a good deal of it before—has enabled us to make a judgment now on what statement is made; and I think that, however clever the leader of the Turkish nation has been in this matter, the result to date is encouraging. The thing that particularly strikes me is not only the anxiety of Canada to help, but the speed with which they are fulfilling the obligation they have so kindly undertaken. I am not sure from what has been broadcast from time to time whether anything like the same despatch will be present when it comes to the supply of the other contingents. Of course, we are very grateful, too, for the inducement given by the Government to go on paying part of the cost of these other contingents in company with the United States of America.
As the noble Lord says in this statement he has given to us, they are very anxious to speed things up, and it is not that we are trying to be unkind in asking about this speed; it is that we want the House to make it known to all those concerned that we are very anxious, seeing what all our men have gone through out there, that this release should come as early as possible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Government, of course, share the noble Earl's anxieties about the speed with which this force can be constituted. As I have said, we shall do all we can to speed it up. I would join with him in saying how grateful we are to all four countries for joining in this force, and also in expressing the admiration we all have for the speed with which the Canadians acted.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is happening about the military commander in Cyprus? I understand that at the moment the one originally selected is not in Cyprus but on leave.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the United Nations force is not yet constituted, so the British troops are under the command of Major-General Carver, but I understand that General Gyani will be back in Cyprus towards the end of the week, when the United Nations force is expected to be constituted.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while welcoming the speed with which the United Nations are carrying out this important task, would it come amiss to express gratitude for the exemplary courage and dignity with which the British troops are carrying out their task?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House shares my noble friend's view.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
3.42 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should first of all like to say what great delight it gives me to see my noble neighbour Lord Williams of Barnburgh in his seat from which he has been missing for so long, missed by both sides of the House. His noble colleagues said it felt like an old boys' gathering. It may be that on Wednesday week there will be a Yorkshire confrontation.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: A grave possibility.
LORD ST. OSWALD: So I suspected. I was also grateful to various noble Lords opposite for saying what I felt myself, that there was certainly no great chasm separating our principles. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, echoed by various other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hawke, said that there could not be too great difficulty, insuperable difficulty, in finding the right words for framing something more satisfactory to them than this term of "related products". I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hawke is right in thinking that a Chinese hieroglyph may do it, but if a Chinese hieroglyph would do it I think it would not be incorporated in our legislation.
LORD STONHAM: It would be a related product.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It might well be. I cannot really give noble Lords opposite a great deal of encouragement as regards looking into this again. The fact is, as I said in my first intervention, that this matter has been looked at very deeply, both before and since it was discussed in another place. Of course, the noble Lord is right in saying that, because it has passed through another place, that does not mean it is not open to discussion here; the very opposite is of course the case. But all I can tell him is that the searching and ingenious minds of the Parliamentary draftsmen have been applied to this particular problem and they have not found an answer.
Various references have been made to the sweeping powers of the Minister, but I think I must correct again this use of language. It seems to me wrong to call the powers the sweeping powers of the Minister; they are the sweeping powers and decisions (to such extent as they are sweeping) of Parliament, because they are submitted to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested that we should produce a White Paper on every occasion. I really cannot give an undertaking to produce a White Paper before laying these Orders. On cereals, for example, the Government's general intentions have been explained during the passage of the legislation itself. But what I can say—and perhaps I am to blame for not having stressed this sufficiently already—is that the initial Order laying down the range of commodities to be covered by the

657
arrangements will be laid for Affirmative Resolution; this will give a full opportunity for debate in both Houses of Parliament, and any misgivings which either House of Parliament may feel about the use of the powers can be fully brought out.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Walston, wishes me to comment on his rather fanciful description of cabbages and asparagus being related products, but I prefer to think he did not intend me to take that too seriously. I do not know whether I could strengthen my argument, which has already been greatly strengthened to my gratification by my noble friend and predecessor Lord Waldegrave, by giving another example of why we think the powers in this form are necessary. Apart from the need to be able to specify related products because of the direct effects of not doing so on the maintenance of a stable market in the primary products—that is to say, for example, flour—it is also necessary to be able to do so because of the possible repercussion on the minimum import price arrangements of processing industry in the United Kingdom. If, for example, the minimum import price arrangements were applied to maize and not to maize meal, a processor of maize meal in the United Kingdom would have to obtain his raw material, that is maize, at or about the minimum import price, whereas maize meal could come in at prices below the minimum import price for maize. This would, of course, jeopardise the position of our own processors.
I am grateful for the extremely reasoned and reasonable way in which the Opposition's objections have been argued. I hope they will not think it cavalier of me not to give them any undertaking, any promise, to look at it again; it is simply because I think I should be misleading them by suggesting that any further scrutiny would elicit anything closer to what they require. I think the fullest possible scrutiny has been applied already to this question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that if the Minister is not satisfied that the market import price for any
658
specified commodity is the actual market price in the country of origin plus reasonable insurance and freight charges, he may prohibit importation."
The noble Lord said: The Committee may recall that I made this point as strongly as I could during Second Reading when I referred to our very important, in fact almost dominating, position as a food importing country, and I then gave it as my opinion that in fixing a minimum British import price we were in effect fixing a minimum world export price. There would thus, as I reason, be an artificial raising of prices which would inevitably mean dearer foodstuffs for the farmer and dearer food for the housewife. If, for example, the market price of barley in France was £17 a ton and the Minister's minimum import price was £20 a ton, the importing merchants and dealers would get together, buy on the French market at £17 a ton and sell it to us at £20. They would not be such fools as to sell it at £17 and lose the chance of making this huge extra profit which a benevolent Conservative Government—benevolent to the dealers—had provided for them.
The memorandum issued by our own home millers and merchants confirms this up to the hilt. In effect, the trade says that once the Government declare a minimum price for a commodity no one will sell below that price. I think that is almost indisputable. There would thus be no levy collected because there would be no imports at below the minimum price. We should be simply making a present to the foreigner of the difference between their market price and our minimum. This Amendment would prevent that. It would enable the Minister to ascertain the market price in the country of origin, and if it is lower than the minimum import price, to say in effect to the importers, "You either import at the market price plus the charges mentioned in the Amendment, or you do not import at all."
When a similar Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place the Minister of Agriculture produced what I regard as the wholly fallacious argument that it was an anti-dumping Amendment which was in conflict with GATT. I have heard this argument about GATT produced many

659
times. I think it is much like "related products." Civil servants produce the GATT argument when they can think of no reasonable and convincing argument to a point. I think it is because almost no one outside Whitehall—or they think that almost no one outside Whitehall—understands GATT, and few people inside understand it.
But I do not think that it will work on this occasion. The provisions in Clause 1 are fiscal provisions, and this is a fiscal and not a quantitative Amendment. It has nothing to do with antidumping, which has already been provided for in other legislation, imperfect though it is. This Amendment is expressly designed to ensure that when prices overseas are lower than the minimum import price fixed by the Minister we should get some income from import taxes and the floor will still be there and the home market undamaged; but if the Bill remains unaltered the floor will be there all right but it will be littered with squatters, the squatters being sturdy foreign exporters seated comfortably on the floor we have provided for them and enjoying these extra, uncovenanted profits that we shall have showered on them.
I know that outside this Bill the Minister of Agriculture has reached agreement in principle with our four major overseas suppliers of cereals for their co-operation in the proposed minimum import prices. Just how they co-operate is apparently to be left to them. I must emphasise a fact that the Government constantly run away from. This Bill and the Amendment deal not not only with cereals but with all agricultural and horticultural produce and with related products. To talk about a partial agreement on cereals with four of our main suppliers as if it were the whole answer is, in my submission, nonsense. It is not a twentieth part of the whole answer. In any case, the four-country agreement on cereals is not in conflict with this Amendment, nor does it render it unnecessary, because if the agreement is in operation the market prices in those countries, in my submission, will not be below the international minimum. I do not see how they possibly can be.
In the agreement which he seeks on cereals, the Minister is not proposing quantitative limitations for the foreigners; he is proposing to impose standard quantities which are quantitative limitations only on British farmers. That is an essential part of the bargain which he eventually hopes to make with overseas suppliers. He will say to them, "You agree to a minimum import price into Britain, see that it is observed, and, in return, we will impose quantitative restrictions on the production of British farmers." It would be intolerable, while we ask our farmers to limit their output and their income—in other words, to make a sacrifice—as part of the price we think they should pay for a stable market, at the same time to present foreign farmers and dealers with an unearned extra profit. I think that would be quite fantastic.
Another fantastic effect of Clause 1 as it stands is the position of those countries—and there are some—which refuse to enter into quantitative agreements: the non-agreement countries. It is the Government's intention to impose a levy on imports from them. The levy will be the difference between the world market price and the British minimum price. But that means they will certainly be getting as extra profit the amount by which the world price exceeds their own market price, and we shall be paying that much extra. In fact, we shall be putting a premium on non-co-operation, and the non-agreeing countries will be making these extra profits.
When this Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place, it was carried against the Government; but during the Report stage the Amendment was defeated without, in my view, any kind of satisfactory explanation. I hope that, not for the first time, your Lordships will put the record straight by supporting this Amendment, accepting it, and thus ensuring that although the floor remains in British agriculture, we shall be buying overseas at the lowest possible price, and when the produce has emerged it will, whenever appropriate, be subjected to import levies. That, I would submit, is expressly following the first words in this Bill, in the interests of a stable British agriculture, and in the interest of the nation as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9 at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Stonham.)
3.59 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, recalled that when this Amendment, or a similar Amendment, was being debated in another place my right honourable friend on that occasion took it to refer to dumping. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made it clear that it does not refer to dumping; but I ought to point out—this is not a debating point—that in point of fact until he spoke the Amendment as worded by him and his noble friends was still open to that interpretation. However, he has made it clear that his Amendment is designed to enable the Minister to prohibit imports from being sold here at a price above the internal price of the exporting country, presumably allowance having been made for insurance and freight charges.
LORD WALSTON: Did the noble Lord say it is at a price above or at a price below?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Importing at a price above the internal price in the exporting country. I think that was the intention of his noble friend.
LORD STONHAM: That is quite right.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is a point which was also considered at great length in another place, once the interpretation had been made clear to my right honourable friend when fears were expressed about the possibility of traders making a "killing" by buying at low prices in exporting countries and making big profits by reselling to the United Kingdom at our minimum import price and so avoiding any levies. I think this fear still remains in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
The levy arrangements which the Government propose to introduce for cereals would, in fact, safeguard us against this sort of thing happening. In circumstances where levies were being applied, the individual trader could put up his price artificially to our minimum import price only if he could, in so doing, evade the levies. If he were unable to evade the levy, the effect of charging a higher price than the general
662
market level would be to price him out of the market. That is why it is proposed in the case of cereals to depend primarily on two types of flat rate levy: the general levy and the country levy, and not on levies related to the invoiced prices of individual consignments. As I explained on Second Reading, this will be charged if necessary, but only if necessary, on imports from non-co-operating countries and co-operating countries respectively.
In the case of those countries—I really am hopeful of setting the noble Lord's mind at rest on this—which are unwilling or unable to co-operate with us, there will in fact be no premium on non-co-operation, as the noble Lord thought. The general levy would be applied, if necessary, at a rate related to the difference between the minimum import price of the commodity and the lowest representative prices at which supplies of that commodity were available for import into the United Kingdom from all non-co-operating sources. I do not know whether the noble Lord had fully understood that.
LORD STONHAM: That is precisely what we are asking for in the Amendment. There is no reason, therefore, why it should not be accepted at once.
LORD ST. OSWALD: What the noble Lord has in effect said is that his Amendment is unnecessary. Am I right?
LORD STONHAM: I want the words written into the Bill. You have only told me what is the Minister's intention.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is in fact what will be carried out.
LORD WALSTON: This is a terribly important point. Could the noble Lord repeat what he has said so that we get it quite clear?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, willingly. I said, rightly as it turned out, that I should be setting the noble Lord's mind at rest. In the case of those countries which are unwilling or unable to cooperate with us, the general levy would be applied, if necessary, at a rate related to the difference between the minimum import price of the commodity concerned and the lowest representative prices at which supplies of that commodity were available for import into

663
the United Kingdom from all non-cooperating sources. I am sure I do not need to spell that out to the noble Lord. But what this could mean is that there might be two non-co-operating countries, one selling, let us say, barley at £17 a ton, and another selling barley at £16 a ton. If the non-co-operating country, with an offering price of £17 a ton, sold at that price to Britain, the difference of the levy would be not as between £17 and, let us say, £19, but between £16 and £19. I think that perhaps I should not waste any further time of the Committee if I have satisfied the noble Lord on that aspect—although I have a great deal more to say, if required.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like to ask my noble friend one question. The noble Lord said "all the non-co-operating countries". Is that the same as "each of the non-co-operating countries"? I expected him to say "each"; and I was rather perplexed by "all".
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is a distinct difference. This is perhaps what was disturbing the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The world will be divided, as it were, into two parts: the co-operators (for whom there might be a country levy though we hope it will be unnecessary, because they are co-operating) and the non-co-operating countries, the rest of the world, for whom there will be a flat-rate levy based on the lowest representative price at which the particular commodity is available from those other countries.
LORD HAWKE: While the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, appears to me to be utterly impracticable, I must say that the system outlined by my noble friend seems to be equally impracticable. I do not know whether the grain trade has changed a great deal since I knew something about it, but I cannot see that the cargo brought to Falmouth for orders, for instance, will ever have any place in the world's markets again. The great grain merchants of the world, having brought forward their cargoes, would see that those cargoes would not be destined specially for this country, but destined for whichever port in Europe happened to be paying the best price when the ship was nearing the Channel approaches. How
664
one could make a special levy based on the price of the commodity in one particular country when one is probably having to buy it from another country, I just cannot understand. The full quantity which this market requires may not be available in the cheapest country. In fact, the cheapest country might be a small exporter. Yet apparently you are going to make a levy on the grain bought from perhaps your main source but based on the price current in a smaller market, and temporarily a cheaper market. I think that to have this levy varying according to the lowest price in any part of the world is a most extraordinary method of trying to conduct this operation. But, as I have already said, I think that Lord Stonham's Amendment is still equally impracticable.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Do I interpret the noble Lord aright when he refers to a co-operating exporter? Does he interpret a co-operating country as the one which, for example, is going to sell us barley at £17 a ton, and we think it is not enough, and very kindly agrees to charge us £20.
LORD STONHAM: That is cooperation!
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is the way in which I should have expected the noble Lord to put it.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Is it correct?
LORD WALSTON: I am most confused by this, and I hope that I shall not exhibit my ignorance too publicly by speaking now. As I understand it from what the noble Lord has said, there are the four co-operating countries, Canada, United States, Argentine and Australia, which have agreed to charge us rather more than they otherwise would for the produce which they are going to send us, and we are truly grateful for that. We then have the non-co-operating countries—say for argument's sake, Iraq, France, Chile and possibly Russia.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I wonder whether I could explain the situation at this point. There is no question of blackballing any countries who wish to co-operate with us on fair trading terms.
LORD WALSTON: No, certainly not. But let us try to see what happens in those countries. Suppose that Iraq has a big surplus of barley—very dry, very hard barley, rather sought after by some of our feeding-stuffs manufacturers—which they are prepared to sell to us at £12 a ton (that has not been unknown in the last few years); that Russia has a huge surplus of barley, or possibly they are short of barley but, for various other reasons, they are prepared to sell to us at £10 a ton; that France has a small surplus of barley which they will let us have at £18 a ton as opposed to the £30 a ton that their local producers are getting; and that merchants are prepared to buy from those different countries. They buy on different days and different months; at different times. They do not know how much they will have to pay in the form of levy for that barley when it eventually arrives at Hull, London or Liverpool—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, very often the ship receives instructions while at sea as to which port, or even which country, it is to go to.
Now at what stage does the noble Lord's Ministry draw the line and say, "The price to-day is the Iraqi price of £12 a ton. Therefore, the £18 a ton barley coming from France, which has been shipped from Brest and is about to to go to Liverpool, will have to pay a levy as if it were being bought at £12 a ton"? When does it say that? How does it work that out? Does it do it weekly, monthly or daily? I think these are very important points, because the whole working of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, depends on matters of that kind; and whether in fact it collapses entirely and becomes a complete shambles, whether it interferes entirely with the normal import processes, which I believe noble Lords opposite are very anxious to sustain, or whether it is going to result in the British compounder and the British farmer having to pay infinitely more than he otherwise would, are all very relevant considerations. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain to us just how this is going to work.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The minimum import price is fixed as an early move in the succession of Orders that this process entails; but, as regards the levy to be fixed for an individual country, the
666
arrangements for making or applying this levy will in fact be included in the Order required to specify this. I do not know whether the noble Lord was aware of that. This is to be specified, laid before Parliament and, if necessary, debated in Parliament; so I cannot possibly say at this stage what an individual Order will contain, or what would be proposed in an individual Order laid before Parliament.
LORD WALSTON: Does that mean, then, that an importer is free to buy his Iraqi barley at £12 a ton and bring it into this country without any levy being paid on it until such time as the Government have decided on a levy and it has been debated in Parliament, by which time the barley may have been not only landed but actually consumed?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I cannot help feeling that the grain producers in Iraq are not quite as naive as the noble Lord thinks they are. I think that, perhaps knowing and having studied the provisions as deeply as the noble Lord will have studied them by that time, they will have something to say about the price at which they sell, as will the grain producers in other countries.
I should say, perhaps, to my noble neighbour, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, who made this very fair point, that we are, it is true, if he wishes to look at it in that way, inviting these cooperating countries to sell us grain at prices higher than they normally might; that what we are trying to do and what we are succeeding in doing, we hope, by these measures is to cut out the deep and embarrassing troughs in price due to there being unloaded on our market low-priced cereals; which have been the bane of agricultural Ministers since his time.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask this question of my noble friend—we are beginning to get a little more light on this matter now. Apparently we are going to have an Order which the Minister will make saying that the levy on, say, barley—we are using barley as an example—is £3 a ton. That Order, presumably, has been based on information about the market some time before the Minister has made the Order. What happens when the market goes up again, and we find we cannot import and pay

667
a levy and, at the same time, satisfy the producers?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry. I cannot quite see at what point I misled my noble friend, but it is clear that I have misled him. The levy is not fixed rigidly. The levy fluctuates according to the representative price of offering. It fluctuates as between the minimum import price as an upper limit and the representative price in the country of origin, according (in the case of cooperating countries) to which country it may be and what that price may be.
LORD HAWKE: On the date the cargo arrives in this country the Ministry ascertains the market price in Argentina or Iraq, or anywhere else, and the levy on that cargo is based on that price. Is that it?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No. It is unlikely that it will fluctuate daily. I cannot say, until in fact the Orders are made, exactly what the method of making arrangements for the levy will be, but it is, on the whole, improbable that it will change, at any rate daily, although we do not exclude the possibility of needing a consignment levy if, in the course of practice, this proves necessary.
LORD WALSTON: Again, I must have misunderstood the noble Lord on one thing, either in his last remarks or in his earlier remarks. I thought he said earlier that the levy was going to be based, not on the individual country's price but on the lowest price at which it was being sold in the world, in all the exporting non-co-operating countries.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes.
LORD WALSTON: But in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, he has just said it is going to be based on the price in the country from which the export is being made.
LORD ST. OSWALD: So far as cooperating countries are concerned, it will be based on the individual country's price, but how often that price will be changed, or the way in which that price may move, I cannot foresee. The noble Lord is quite right in having followed me as saying that the representative price of the non-co-operating countries will
668
be, as it were, the lowest representative price among them, but I also cannot say that that price will remain fixed.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said just now that the discussion had shed more light on the subject. It certainly has not shed more wisdom. In fact, the light which has been shed has shown one thing beyond any kind of shadow of doubt: that these proposals with regard to the non-cooperating countries cannot possibly work at all. There is no possibility of their working.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My silence does not represent agreement.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord's silence represents the fact that he has run completely out of arguments, and I think that was the reason why he halted suddenly in his first speech when, as he said himself, he had a great deal more to say. I have listened with very great care, as indeed have all your Lordships, and I do not dispute that, with regard to the co-operating countries, the price of their co-operation will be a very substantial bonus that we shall give them merely for their kindness in charging us more than they otherwise would have charged. Well, if that is the way the Government want it, it is perfectly clear; but so far as the non-co-operating countries—
LORD ST. OSWALD: I wonder whether I might interrupt once more. I realise it is appalling to keep on doing so. But I am sure the noble Lord does not want to give the impression that we are getting absolutely nothing in exchange for what he describes as a "bonus" to the co-operating countries. The fact is that in this understanding, they have agreed with us, in principle, as the noble Lord himself said, to limit their imports through the medium of minimum prices.
LORD STONHAM: I was a member of the Standing Committee on the 1947 Agriculture Act; so I do not need convincing of the fact that a stable market is a first essential for British agriculture, and any steps which will assist in achieving that object will have our full support. It is the method that the Government have chosen to achieve that object with which we do not agree. We

669
do not agree that it is necessary with the co-operating countries, our friends, to raise the price and pay them more than they would otherwise have charged. In other words, we should achieve a stable method by other means; but I will not pursue that point at the moment. Leaving aside what I regard as folly—to pay millions and millions of pounds for nothing—let us come to the other side of the medal: the non-cooperating countries. The noble Lord said that we shall fix a levy which will be equal to the difference between the lowest market price operating in any one of the non-co-operating countries and the British minimum import price. If that is wrong I will certainly give way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This remains to be arranged in the Order applying to a given commodity. I was naming simply one possible arrangement. I do not like to keep repeating this; but these things remain to be worked out in the Orders.
LORD STONHAM: I appreciate that. I am trying to be absolutely fair and to give the picture accurately. Therefore, what I said was right, at least in relation to the one commodity—cereals—which the Government have for the moment considered, and we will confine ourselves for the time being to that.
Having accepted that as accurate, the noble Lord and, apparently, the Government—because the noble Lord is well briefed on this subject and has studied it deeply—have no answer to the position which must, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, obviously arise with prices because of fluctuating demands. In fact, prices can and do change while shipments are on the High Seas and can he diverted to other ports. It is useless to argue that the alterations are not as radical as that, because prices are altered every day. So what the noble Lord is saying in objecting to, or, if you like, rejecting, my Amendment, is, "We are proposing to do most of what the noble Lord wants"; but, in fact, you are not proposing to do anything of the kind. You are only proposing to make free gifts to one set of suppliers; and to the other set of suppliers you propose to make things completely unworkable so that at most times they will not export to us at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord is entitled to say he does not like this method; but he is not entitled to say, as he keeps on saying, that this system will not work. That is quite a different matter. What is envisaged in this system is that there should be an import price below which grains will not enter this country. That can work quite well, even though the noble Lord does not like it and even if he thinks it may give undue profits to international traders or, as the noble Lord said, a bonus to other countries. That may, or may not be so. I do not know that it is wrong that a trader should occasionally make a profit. But the system is workable.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl will know that I have read the Bill and I was aware that one of its sheet anchors was a British minimum import price. Of course I am aware of that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was asking the noble Lord why he said it would not work.
LORD STONHAM: I do not say that a British minimum import price will not work. In other words, you can prohibit the entry into this country of produce at less than a certain price. Of course you can. I have no doubt that the Bill will do that. Why I think it will not work is that a good many times in a year, in different circumstances, it will be virtually impossible for these non-cooperating countries, even if they want to, to export to us, because we shall have made it impossible or, if you like, unprofitable, for them to do so; and we shall not get the consignments. That is my belief; and I am entitled to give my opinion though the noble Earl is right in saying that I should not state it as a fact. I have been thinking deeply about this for the last few years, and again and again I gave it as my opinion that the Government will have to come to the Dispatch Box and put forward a managed market or a form of managed market and will have to advocate a form of import control. To-day, that is a fact. So; what I am now giving as my opinion may in due course come about.
The noble Lord thought in his first speech that he had satisfied me; and then he sat down. I regret to have to say that he has failed to satisfy me; because,

671
however good or bad they may be, or however workable or unworkable, a Minister's intentions are not law. We want to see a provision in the Statute. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that the proposal in the Amendment was completely impracticable. I do not agree; because it would be possible to ascertain the actual market price in the country of origin with in a few minutes. Therefore, this Amendment is practicable. But the other, and major, reason why I cannot accept the noble Lord's method, or his reply, as being satisfactory, is that, so far as I can see, the Government have up to now applied it only to cereals, or thought about cereals, in applying their method. But of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, it will cover a whole range of staple agricultural commodities, and almost certainly the review commodities.
4.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (10), after "horticulture" to insert:
"as specified in Schedule (Produce to which Part 1 of Act applies) to this Act"
The noble Lord said: I trust that nothing has gone wrong with the Government, and that there have been no resignations since our last debate. I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and I hope that it will meet the convenience
Therefore the Minister could not possibly conclude international agreements in respect of all review commodities and have some of the countries co-operating at a price and others non-co-operating, and also have this utterly absurd arrangement with all the non-co-operating countries, with perhaps a dozen different commodities. I do not believe there is a single member of the Committee who agrees that the Government reply is a satisfactory one, or that their proposal will work in a satisfactory way. Therefore we will press this Amendment to a Division, and I hope noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williamson, L.

Hobson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Allerton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenway, L.

Margesson, V.

Amory, V.

Grenfell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mersey, V.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

Mills, V.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Daventry, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Lothian, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of the Committee if I discuss with it Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 20, to the new Schedule. In discussing a previous Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, hoped that I would have dealt with one of these Amendments at the same time, and in his speech he had something to say about it, so perhaps this discussion will not take quite so long. As I hope I have made plain, we on this side of the Committee are willing and anxious to support control of imports of staple agricultural commodities and horticultural produce

673
under proper conditions. We think that these three Amendments provide a completely satisfactory way of doing all that the Government say they want to do, while excluding powers contained in the Bill, which the Government say they are not going to use. The Minister has made it clear that the quid pro quo for agreement on import prices by overseas suppliers is an agreement on standard quantities by British farmers. The only products for which we are likely to seek agreement with overseas supplies are the review commodities. The whole arrangement, therefore, is likely to be closely linked with the Annual Price Review. As your Lordships will have noticed, our Amendments have been framed to cover all these points.
We seek to continue in this Bill, with adaptation, the provisions of the 1947 Act, which have worked very well. The words of Amendment No. 5—
"The Minister may after consultation with such bodies or persons as appear to him to represent the appropriate interests by order direct that Schedule (Produce to which Part I of Act applies) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of all or any of the provisions of this part of this Act, with the addition thereto of any such produce as may be specified"—
are, in fact, taken straight from the 1947 Act. They provide means of adding, if necessary, to the list of major commodities specified in our proposed new Schedule. It can, and I am sure will, be said that the Schedule is not sufficiently comprehensive; but I would say that this presents no real difficulty. The Schedule that we are proposing is, in fact, the one to the 1947 Act, plus the addition of fresh horticultural produce and maize. Maize is added because, although it is an imported and not a home-grown cereal, the price and quantities of maize imports could affect the market for home-grown cereals.
I know that there are many other commodities—for instance, rice, sorghum and flour come to mind—which could be added. We are prepared, if the Government so wish, at a later stage in the Bill, to enlarge the list, if they come to the conclusion that a Schedule of this kind is a better way of achieving their object than the words "related products". But, in my view, it is not necessary to add to the Schedule now, because it already covers all the commodities
674
about which farmers and horticulturists are concerned. If minimum import prices, backed by levies, really provide a floor for all these commodities, the Schedule will be wide enough to ensure a prosperous British agriculture; and if at any time a related non-indigenous product threatens to endanger the floor of home-grown produce, then it can be added to the Schedule and brought within the orbit of minimum import price controls.
I submit that acceptance of these Amendments will give us an immeasurably improved Bill, because it will then do all the things the Minister wants to do and none of those things he does not want to do. It will also remove the very understandable anxiety of people who are perturbed because powers are to be taken which would have repercussions far beyond agriculture and horticulture, and who are not reassured by being told that the powers will never be used. They say: "If you do not want them, why take them?" We all know that this Bill springs from the urgent need to limit the cost to the Exchequer of deficiency payments; from the desire to save the taxpayer from having to pay so much in subsidy; and to stabilise the floor prices of the review commodities. In our submission, these Amendments will enable us to do all these things, and to be clearly seen to be doing them. I urge the Government to follow the only possible logical course and to accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("horticulture") to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The effect of these Amendments, as the noble Lord has made clear, would be to list the produce to which the powers in the clause may be applied and give the Minister power to specify any other produce to which he may wish to apply any of the provisions. There were two alternatives open to the Government when preparing this legislation. We could have brought forward a clause drafted in terms of cereals alone as the sector for which the powers are required immediately. The alternative was to draft the clause in terms of general enabling powers, applying to agricultural and horticultural commodities generally, and to provide for these to

675
be exercised by statutory instrument. The Government decided that it was right, in the circumstances of to-day, to take the second of these courses and to put before Parliament general enabling legislation on minimum import prices and levies. There is, it seems to us, no logically defensible halfway house between these two alternative approaches.
If some products are covered and others omitted from the scope of the powers, there must be, it seems to me, some reason and basis for distinguishing in this way. The noble Lord's new Schedule lists, in what appears to be a rather arbitrary way (I am not saying that it is more arbitrary than it need be, but, of course, any list of this kind is bound to be arbitrary), certain products and omits others. Maize is included, though in terms of the definitions in the clause this would be a "related product" of a like nature. Nevertheless, if maize is to be included in this new Schedule it seems equally important to include grain sorghums, which also compete with home-produced feeding grains, and which will need to be covered by the import price arrangements. I know that the noble Lord said he would have no objection to adding to the list if the Government thought it advisable. Moreover, the list in the Schedule also covers certain products of United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture while omitting others. Yet there appears to be no justification for this distinction in the context of this general enabling legislation.
I realise that in the noble Lord's mind there are certain criteria, but we do not find them satisfactory. As I understand the position, it is not the wish of noble Lords opposite to limit the powers to the produce listed in the Schedule, since the second Amendment we are considering gives the power to specify any products other than those listed. The effect of these Amendments taken together would, therefore, enable the Minister to specify any produce. This, of course, is precisely what the clause as drafted achieves. I must therefore confess that I find it difficult to see how the total result of these Amendments alters the range of produce to which the Minister would be empowered to apply the provisions in Clause 1. Indeed, as I have explained, the Government can see no justification for including in the
676
scope of these general enabling powers certain products of agriculture and horticulture and excluding others.
I suggest to noble Lords opposite that the clause as drafted achieves the same objectives as the Amendments, and in a rather more straightforward and satisfactory way. In these circumstances, I hope—though with rather less confidence since the last Amendment—that noble Lords opposite will be ready to accept the clause as drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of people being perturbed by the idea that anything could be covered; but I should have thought that, in so far as they are liable to perturbation, they would be more specifically perturbed by reading the list put down by the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: I just cannot understand how people will be more perturbed when they read a limited list than they would be if they realised that the list of commodities was all-embracing. The way the noble Lord wants it, everything is in; everything is subject to this machinery. The way we have it in our Schedule, the only commodities put down would be those thought necessary and helpful, and in the interests of the stability and prosperity of British agriculture. Surely no member of the N.F.U. would be alarmed if he saw in the 1964 Agriculture and Horticulture Act the same commodities with which he has lived under the 1947 Act for the last seventeen years. I cannot see anything in that argument, and I am sorry that the Minister should use it. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his valiant attempt to do the impossible and give a satisfactory answer to our Amendment other than accepting it. I have to tell him that we are completely unconvinced.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This clause is such an important one, and there are so many important matters which it is not possible to discuss in the form of Amendments, that I should be grateful if the noble Lord could deal with one or two of them, and perhaps in the course of his reply he may be able to give us some information. The first point I want to put to him is that the

677
clause deals with conditions which will arise from over-supply. I think he will agree with that. It deals with avoiding the unfortunate consequences to the British farmer of over-supply on the world market. But its defect is that it does not ensure supplies. It is proposed to make an agreement with the countries that are co-operating for minimum prices. But there is no certainty that they will supply given quantities. Indeed, so far as meat is concerned, it has been impossible to come to any agreement about quantities and I should like to know what the Government intend to do about this, if anything.
For example, on Saturday the Daily Express editorial said that beef was up a shilling. The editorial went on:
"You must not blame the butcher or the Government, but the Argentinian suppliers who have decided to send their beef to more profitable markets."
I went to my butcher to check, and found that Scotch sirloin was 7s. per lb. and topside was 6s. 6d.; so that on this occasion, at least, the Daily Express was right. Import levies may raise the prices in glut condition, but they will not ensure supplies, and price agreements with foreign countries are not agreements to supply. They are no sort of substitute for the long-term bulk purchase agreement which Labour Governments have made in the past in order to ensure supplies at fair, stable prices. All this Bill will do is to put prices up to the housewife while giving no certainty that the supplies will come.
The second point I want to put to the noble Lord is that the Minister's hoped-for bargain with the National Farmers' Union is to fix with foreign suppliers, on the one hand, minimum import prices and to agree with our own farmers standard quantities. That, I submit, is one of the main reasons for Clause 1. Where will the standard quantities start and what arrangement is it intended to make for growth to meet the natural increase in home demand? In other words, what arrangements will be built into these standard agreements so that home farmers will be able to benefit from an increase in demand at home?
I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance on this point, otherwise it seems that Clause 1 presages a policy
678
of restriction of home production—a semi-managed market based on scarcity and much higher prices to the consumer. In fact, it seems that the Government are bartering a saving to the taxpayer of deficiency payments with a vastly increased food bill to the taxpayer as a consumer. This semi-managed market will depend on price control administered by a machine which does not yet exist.
Finally, what machinery have the Government in mind to keep home suppliers and overseas suppliers under control? What machinery do they envisage to phase supplies, and what machinery will there be to secure information? I feel there must be a separate, highly placed organisation, under, of course, the control of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep these matters under constant review. I do not think it can be done by a sub-department of the Ministry, and I think he will agree that we—that is, the farmers and the public—are entitled to know how it will be done.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put three questions to me. I do not think he would expect me to answer them at great length, since they were very straightforward basic questions. He says that the Bill deals with a condition of over-supply, I thought he was going on to visualise a near-famine, but this was not so: he was not being as imaginative as that. However, I think he would agree that in fact one can foresee a general level of world prices a year ahead: not, as we know, from month to month, but likely world prices, as commodities are made available to this country; and of course the minimum import price is not rigidly fixed. It can be altered again by another Order laid before Parliament. Therefore, this is not a level of import prices fixed for ever and unalterable, whatever the market conditions in the rest of the world.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that minimum import prices and standard quantities went together, and this, of course, is quite true. This is the conception of the new policy. He asked me when the standard quantities would start and what he knew I was going to say was that this, as has been made known, will emerge in the Agricultural Price Review, so that I cannot tell him that to-day. When the Review is pub

679
lished it will include references to that. The noble Lord foresaw a vastly increased bill to the consumer. We cannot see this vastly increased bill to the consumer. We do not think it will work like that. The fact is that the bonus, as he and his noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh like to think of it, to foreign suppliers will be to some extent compensated because the supplies will not be made available as fast at a time of low prices and they will, conversely, be made available more freely at a time of high prices. The thing should therefore balance to some extent.
LORD STONHAM: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain that again. I am not clear what he meant.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The fact that there will be a mimimum import price means that the foreign exporter to this country will not be able to take advantage of our market as he has done in the past, and will not be able to drive down the internal prices. This will affect, we think, the general level of prices and also the general level of supplies. Then the noble Lord asked about the arrangements made with foreign suppliers regarding the phasing of supplies. Of course, in the agreement on import prices—the agreement in principle on import prices—the importance of phasing our market was comprehended as well, and this assurance I can give the noble Lord.
LORD WALSTON: I will not go over the arguments which we have had on Second Reading, and which my noble friend Lord Stonham has put forward to-day, though I think one can legitimately say at this stage that, so far as the actual mechanism conceived for bringing about this regulation of the markets is concerned, there is, to put it at its lowest, a certain amount of doubt about how it is going to work. It is also quite clear, I think, that, while the Government have made a bargain with foreign producers and suppliers of our food, getting them to restrict their imports to us (which in some ways we consider is a reasonable thing to do) they have at the same time given away a very strong bargaining position. While, if there were going to be con
680
tinuous gluts and low prices there might not be anything more than an academic argument against that, if we are, as some of us believe, entering on a period of shortages in certain commodities, the Government have let the consumers of this country in for far higher prices in years to come than we might otherwise have obtained by having something much more clear-cut in the way of long-term contracts for certain commodities.
There is only one other point that I should like to put to noble Lords, and it is with regard to the future. How is it envisaged that new arrangements are going to be made? Is this negotiation with our co-operators or non-cooperators of foreign providers to be an annual process? Are we to find every year, at the same time as the Price Review, that there has to be a renegotiation with the exporting countries? As the noble Lord himself said on Second Reading (I do not think I am misquoting him), the actual level of the import prices will depend to some extent upon the level of price we offer in the Price Review to our own farmers. In other words, we are going to have an annual haggling, not only between the Government and the National Farmers' Union, but between Government and foreign suppliers, too, which will be based, not on any sound economic criteria, but solely on the bargaining strength, the political requirements, and so on, between the two countries. It seems to us that this is how it is going to work out. There, I think, the Government are possibly even more vulnerable than on other counts.
It is curious for a Government of the political complexion which our present Government say they are, that they do not base the future negotiations, or even the present negotiations, on economic criteria. They do not say, "If in years to come you importing countries, cooperators"—as we might call Canada and Australia—"are able to provide us with wheat at a lower price, you therefore get a larger share of the market". It is not in any way tied up with the price at which they are prepared to offer us our food. It is based on something entirely different—on back-room negotiations into which all sorts of other factors come. Surely, it would have been far better if this

681
management of the market—and I repeat that we are in no way in disagreement with the management of the market—had been to some extent tied up with the actual prices at which over a long period, several years ahead, they would have been prepared to provide us with that food. Had that been the case, there would be a far stronger argument in favour of this whole concept than has been put forward in this new Bill. That, I believe, is one of the weakest parts of the whole theory—or lack of theory perhaps—which lies behind this Bill as it now stands.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I regret that I have given the noble Lord a completely wrong impression. The fact is that these are long-term policies. There is not the system of bargaining, still less yearly bargaining, which the noble Lord visualises. What has happened is that both sides—that is to say, our domestic agriculture and our suppliers—have agreed to play fair with each other. Of course, both will be watching to see how the scheme works. We believe—because the negotiators on both sides are composed of sensible men—that it will work well. But it is certainly a long-term policy, and it is not going to jib and change. This would certainly inhibit its success almost disastrously. This is to be seen in the light of the future, and of the two parties appreciating each other's difficulties and needs.
LORD WALSTON: May I interrupt to clarify this point? Let us leave out the British farmers for the moment. If the Danes are able, in the years to come, to provide us with butter at a lower price than the New Zealanders, does it mean that they will automatically, because their price is lower, get a higher share of the market? That is what I mean by using economic criteria. Or is the share of the market between the Danes and the New Zealanders to be haggled over year by year on a political basis, as opposed to an economic basis?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not think either. There will be no automatic changes in the sharing of the market, nor do I foresee haggling. The noble
682
Lord will remember that this is against the general background of the Kennedy Round that we look forward to. This will be a degree of international cooperation in trade, and a desire to assist rather than to compete, which will be to the benefit of both producers and consumers.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I do not like to intervene, even for one moment, in this debate on a highly complicated measure. I appreciate fully the desire of the Minister and the noble Lord to try to provide what we all call a stable market for a variety of imported commodities. What I should like to know from the noble Lord is this. So far as I understand it, there is only one exporting Government with whom our Government could make any bargain, or in respect of whom they could know anything about the export or import price—. namely, Russia.
Looking further afield to the U.S.A., South America, Canada, New Zealand, or wherever we may import from, I should like to know whether the noble Lord has any idea with whom our Government will negotiate when trying to ascertain what the prospective import price is going to be. Will Her Majesty's Government's representatives try to negotiate with individual exporters from Canada or British importers from Canada, or will they negotiate with the Canadian Government? If I judge aright from the noble Lord's assent to that question, they are going to ascertain what are the prospective export prices on which to base Her Majesty's Government's decision only from the various Governments of exporting countries. Am I right in that assumption?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes. Negotiations are with Governments, and it is supposed that Governments of exporting countries will have their means of ensuring that co-operation works. Of course, there are, as the noble Lord well knows, such bodies as the Argentine Grain Board and the Australian and Canadian Wheat Boards, which will assist their Governments to carry out their undertakings in this co-operative system.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
PART II
FURTHER GRANTS FOR HORTICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
Extension of system of grants under Part 1 of Horticulture Act 1960
Grants for improving efficiency of small production businesses
2.—
(6) In this section "small horticultural production business" means, in relation to any scheme, a horticultural production business which is conducted on land not exceeding in extent such area as is specified in that behalf in the scheme, and which satisfies such other requirements (whether as to minimum area or otherwise) as may be so specified:
Provided that a horticultural production business shall not, so far as concerns a programme relating to the business submitted at any time for approval under a scheme, be treated as ceasing to be a small horticultural production business by reason only of any increase after that time in the area of the land on which the business is conducted.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved to add to subsection (6):
"Provided that notwithstanding the inability of an applicant to comply with one or more conditions of the scheme the Minister if satisfied that in all the circumstances it is reasonable so to do may approve the payment of a grant to that applicant, and".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not nearly so contentious or intricate as the one which we have been discussing throughout the afternoon. We now come to Part II of the Bill which deals with further grants for horticultural improvements. It is an extension of the system of grants under Part I of the Horticulture Act, 1960. The Amendment which I am proposing refers primarily to Clause 2(6), which deals with the small horticultural production business. The Amendment seeks to remove the restriction which is imposed upon the Minister and enables the Minister greater freedom of action. We do not propose that the Minister should have the sweeping powers which have already been referred to this afternoon, but that he should be able to deal in a common sense way with problems that do arise in the course of the working of the new scheme.
I am aware of schemes which may already be in existence under previous Acts, but I take it that under this new
684
clause a new scheme will come into operation after the passing of the Bill, and that the Minister, under the new scheme, will have certain new powers. I do not seek to restrict these powers by a hard and fast rule in accordance with what the scheme may lay down literally, rather than that the Minister may be able to adapt himself to the working of the scheme and make revision or alterations if necessary. Noble Lords will notice from subsection (2) of Clause 2 that certain powers are given to the Minister to modify or supplement a scheme with other provisions. He can also amend a scheme and, by a later subsection, has the power of variation and revocation, if necessary. It would seem, therefore, from this that the Minister will have certain powers, which possibly he does not have at the present time, to deal with the scheme according to what may arise in its operation.
This particular Amendment which I am proposing will be of great benefit, I hope, to the small business operator. It seeks to give to the Minister the right to bring into operation something different from what is actually in the scheme if he has been so advised by his advisers, such as the National Agriculture Advisory Service or anything else. He can amend the scheme so that he brings into the operation the small man who otherwise would not be within the scheme. I think that is a very laudable matter for the Minister to consider. It would enable a small horticultural producer to obtain advantages which otherwise would not be open to him if the powers of the Minister were strictly limited to the wording of the Bill. I think it is important that we should try to ensure to the small man a fair livelihood and confidence in his future; and those are words which were used only a few days ago by the Prime Minister, who also said that our purpose is to keep a healthy and virile population on our soil. We undoubtedly and heartily agree with that from this side of your Lordships' House, and I believe that what we are now proposing by our Amendment would seek to do that.
I have referred to previous schemes, and it is interesting to notice some figures which were stated, I think, in another place in regard to what happened up to

685
the end of last year in connection with those particular schemes. Up to the end of December there were 444 schemes dealt with by producers with between 4 and 7 acres; 1,242 schemes for acreages between 7 and 20; 1,974 schemes for acreages between 20 and 100; and 1,058 schemes for over 100 acres. This means that over 5,000 schemes have been dealt with during the period of the operation of that particular Act, but only one-seventh had been granted to the small occupier. I suggest, therefore, that, whatever the acreage or the conditions may be in a new scheme, we should, in all fairness to the small occupier, deal with him in a considerate manner and make it possible for him to have a fair livelihood and an enjoyable future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Wise.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As noble Lords will be aware, this Amendment was debated at considerable length in another place. I can well understand and sympathise with many of the points that have been made, but I cannot see how the Amendment can be accepted. The intention of the Amendment is clear: it would enable the appropriate Minister to give a grant, under Clause 2, to a business which, although it does not fulfil the minimum conditions, is in his opinion viable. Therefore, under the Bill it is not grantworthy, but in the Minister's opinion it is. This would mean giving Ministers power to break the rules of the scheme, a scheme which has been approved by Resolutions of both Houses. In other words, there would be in practice no conditions of eligibility for the scheme as a whole. Even though Parliament had laid down the conditions there would be no limitations, because Ministers would in fact be free to ignore them. This would be very hard to justify, and I am forced to conclude that in the interests of the growers themselves and the efficient operation of the scheme some minimum conditions must be laid down in the scheme itself, and once laid down in the scheme must be kept to.
We are not deciding here what those minimum conditions should be; that is a matter for the scheme which will in due course be laid before the House and debated. But we are certain that mini
686
mum conditions there must be. My right honourable friends are responsible to Parliament for administering a scheme creating rules that Parliament approves. It is right that those rules should be approved by both Houses, as the clause provides, and it is right that Ministers should be bound by them; otherwise, Ministers would be free to do as they pleased. The question at issue is whether minimum conditions laid down in the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme are the right ones for the proposed business grants scheme. The horticulture scheme provides that the holding should consist of a minimum of four adjusted acres—and by that we mean that the area of glasshouses and mushroom and rhubarb sheds is multiplied by twenty and the area of other sorts of lights and watercress beds is multiplied by four. We fixed this minimum of four acres because we found that the vast majority of fundamentally economic businesses were above this size—not less than four adjusted acres—and I think that the experience of the scheme has shown this estimate was right. When we discussed the present proposals with the National Farmers' Union, they accepted that this was so.
Nevertheless, I can understand the concern of noble Lords who have in mind that some individual growers could reasonably claim to be viable even though the size of holding may be under the four acres limit. I am not arguing with the noble Lord in his submission that this could be so. Consequently, while it would be wrong to nullify Parliament's intentions by giving complete discretion to Ministers to ignore conditions laid down in the scheme, it is right we should do our best to find conditions which would bring those growers within the scheme whilst still excluding very many with less than four acres which would not be viable.
As I have indicated, anxiety was expressed in another place about the same issue. My honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consult with the National Farmers' Union to see whether any solution could be found. Those consultations started almost at once and they are continuing. I want to emphasise, however, that there are enormous difficulties. This is a problem which has been looked at very closely in the past and has proved to be

687
intractable. I am sure the noble Lord knows of the efforts which have been made, and the impossibility so far of overcoming the difficulties. But if a solution can be found—and we are trying very hard—without creating even greater problems, suitable provisions will be made in this section. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that his solution of enabling Ministers to overrule the provisions of the clause could be the right ones. We are, in fact, looking for another one.
LORD STONHAM: We find this reply extremely disappointing. The noble Lord has made very heavy weather of this point about the Minister, as it were, breaking the conditions. He swallowed the whale of Clause 1 and is now straining at this minnow. The noble Lord said that everyone has sympathy with the object of this Amendment, I am quite sure that is true. But sympathy will not help these chaps; they really want to qualify for the grant just as any other horticulturist or small farmer. We agree that there must be minimum conditions, but if the conditions are going to be hard and fast ones of acreage, minimum or maximum acreage, and there is going to be nothing else, obviously the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assurance in another place is quite worthless, and that is why we are persisting with this Amendment.
Surely the problem is not as great as the noble Lord makes out. Why could we not have an assurance from him that it will not be merely acreage limitation? Why could it not be considered that if the Minister finds that the holding would be viable, even though the acreage is less than the minimum, then the grant could be available? Surely that is the object we all have in mind. The Amendment moved by my noble friend proposes only to give the Minister discretion if he is satisfied in all the circumstances that it is reasonable to do this; and surely if Parliament agrees to give the Minister power in this Bill, then this is acceptable. I hope the noble Lord will say that he will look at the matter again before Report stage, so that we can return to it in this form or in an amended form; otherwise, we will have to press it, because we feel so strongly about it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It seems to me, with all possible respect, that it is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is making rather heavy weather. I really think that the terms of the actual Amendment must be unacceptable. To lay down in the Bill certain conditions and then in the same Bill give the Minister power to ignore those regulations seems to me to be something that this House could not consider for a moment. I should have thought the Minister had gone some way when he says that he has some sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, and discussions are going on at the present time to see whether some of the points which have been raised can be met in the spirit of the Amendment. I think noble Lords who have spoken should be satisfied with what 1 should have considered a rather forthcoming attitude on the part of the Minister.
LORD WISE: I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment. He said that negotiations were still going on with the National Farmers' Union in regard to this matter. I wonder whether he can give the House any information as to the nature of those negotiations or what they are likely to produce. If so, we could hold it over until the Report stage. If that is not possible, and if he is not prepared to reconsider it. I must withdraw the Amendment and possibly raise it again later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: I understood through the usual channels that we were to adjourn the Committee stage at 5.30 p.m. I wonder whether it would be convenient to my noble friend to postpone his next Amendment to the second day?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PHARMACY AND POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.31 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BURGH POLICE (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NUCLEAR PROPULSION OF SHIPS
5.32 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consent to set up an independent inquiry into the present situation with regard to nuclear propulsion of ships. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which seeks to get the consent of Her Majesty's Government to the holding of an independent inquiry into the question of nuclear propulsion for ships. On the last occasion when I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on this subject I confined my remarks entirely to the propulsion of merchant ships, but in view of the importance of the general issue I have put down my Question to-day so as to cover ships which may be either merchant or naval.
The one thing that I want to stress all the way through this debate is that this country at the present time has fallen far behind other countries in the search for a nuclear reactor for these nautical purposes. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and that in the long run, unless something is done to overtake that position, this great shipbuilding and shipping nation in all things maritime will be in a most difficult position. That is my view. I want to say, unless I should perhaps forget it later on, that I am reinforced largely in these views by recent announcements. I see that the "Savannah", the American nuclear-powered ship, is going on, or has already started, a further and most important trial. I
690
have been taking note, too, of what is going on in other countries.
Perhaps it is rather a reactor upon me, but my noble friend Lord Attlee and I did our best to attack and to destroy the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, in spite of our activities in that connection, I am glad to say that we continue to get the monthly publication of the Economic Community. The one I have here I received only two or three days ago, but it gives a picture of what I suppose is reckoned to be the legend of the first European nuclear ship. It gives details of how EURATOM, acting within the scope of the European Community, is engaged jointly in the production of a nuclear-powered merchant ship for trial. It is without much doubt that it is going to have a reactor which will be of a water pressure type—and no doubt it will cost a great deal to get it installed—from the United States of America. But, so far as I can gather, all the designers are being consulted with, from Italy and Holland as well as from Western Germany. In fact, a great joint effort is being made. The consultation concerns not only the reactor but also the design of the ship which they are to have as their first nuclear-powered merchant ship. They reckon that this ship will be afloat and operational for its trials in 1967. We are a long way away from being in a position to catch them up in that respect, if good results are obtained by this joint effort in Europe.
Then there is Japan. I rather gathered the other day from the noble Earl, who I understand is to reply again tonight, that Japan was not so certain as were the West Germans; but she is engaged in research, and so on, with regard to this matter. Judging from the way in which the Japanese have expanded their shipbuilding resources, their timed deliveries and their success with designs, I should have thought it was far more likely that I was right and that Japan is eager and active on these lines, rather than that Her Majesty's Government are right and that they are not keen on it.
Moreover, is it not perfectly obvious, when one thinks of the situation, that in the case of the United States of America, who have already spent a large sum—I know it has been expended —upon the experiment with the

691
"Savannah", they are now engaged upon a widened and, if I may use the term, a deepened project with regard to merchant ships? When I was speaking to your Lordships last I took the step of suggesting that there was so much to be reckoned up in the economies to be effected ultimately in the nuclear propulsion of merchant ships, once you got a successful reactor, that it would be most important in relation to what, in the end, you would achieve in your spate of international maritime business.
Let us look at the timing of this matter. In conversations I have had to-day I have had to be reminded of what I ought to have remembered—namely, that this increased interest in providing reactors in connection with the propulsion of merchant ships goes back not to the time of the first research grant by the Government of £3 million in 1961, but at least to 1956. There have been consultations, discussions and negotiations; experiments have been put out to industry to engage in, for some of which they have perhaps since been paid, but on many of which they have been out of pocket—and with all the costs of research incurred by the Atomic Energy staff itself. Those costs have been going on the whole time since 1956 to 1957. The work that was actually done by auxiliary research in industry up until 1960 to 1961 was, after some pressure, paid for in part by grants from the Atomic Energy Authority.
In relation to what has been brought to my notice since, I wonder what their position now is with regard to the work they did and the ideas they put forward. It seems that the answer given in another place and that given last week by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in this House as to why information could not be given about a contract with Belgonucleaire, is that the Atomic Energy Authority is a commercial business. I do not understand at all how it can arise that private firms in this country who were brought into consultation to perform this, that or the other operation in relation to research should now be in the position that they have been paid up to a point, but not fully; and that anything which may be useful to the Atomic Energy Authority they have the power to control—or they can actually embody the discoveries of
692
the industry into future nuclear construction—and they can then claim the whole patent for it, however it is afterwards proceeded with, and it is subject to payment of royalties to the Authority themselves. This seems to be an extraordinary position.
With regard to one firm, Mitchell's, after the £3 million had been granted for research they were in the first instance left out from those firms who were asked to go on with the research. They were finally told that the Authority was sorry that they had been overlooked. Subsequently, having gone into the matter in detail, they submitted an actual proposal to quote a firm price to install a reactor in a ship, if the ship was provided, for £500,000. A good deal of scorn has been poured on this from certain directions, not least from the Atomic Energy Authority. But, even though some competitors might think this was a very low estimate to give, what is of concern is the manner in which information is sought by the Atomic Energy Authority, on the basis of its coming in as research work for the Authority—which is a national institution—in order for it possibly to be embodied into ultimate designs of the Authority, and then the firm concerned are charged royalties to the Authority upon their own work and their own ideas.
I told the noble Earl that since I last spoke in your Lordships' House on this matter that firm has received a letter about some information which was given to the Atomic Energy Authority. That information would never have been given to a body that was to be a competitor in business, having regard to the terms which they are now offered. They offered £2,000 for one small branch of information which was extracted without the full details being explained to the firm concerned. To be offered £2,000 for x information, which would involve them later on in paying royalties to the Atomic Energy Authority, presents an absolutely scandalous situation. If this is the sort of thing that is going on, it is about time there was an inquiry.
To look at the position in relation to the general progress of this reactor, what in fact has been the progress? The Atomic Energy Authority, who have an enormous staff from which to choose those to be engaged on such work, are

693
nevertheless no nearer a solution than they seem to have been when they started their first inquiries within the industry in 1956 or 1957. Of course people were thinking much more urgently about the situation than they had been on previous occasions. Perhaps the inquiries would not even have been started by the Atomic Energy Authority if it had not been for the international circumstances, for we had failed at Suez in a bad way. There was the danger to East and West trade, with talk of tankers of 65,000 tons with the speed and endurance to travel round the Cape. Everybody was seeking economies by getting, perhaps, a nuclear-powered ship eventually to solve their problems.
However, what emanated from it? What has been the net result? I have brought with me the Hansard for February 27, 1963, which contains the speech of the Minister for Science, the then Leader of the House. We have, of course, a certain regard for old colleagues, for this House is a very good-natured sort of Assembly. But to go back to the speech made in 1963, what do we find? First of all, that was the speech in which an attack was made on the standard of American education, and we were told that one was not likely to get a proper contribution to science in the United States until they reached our educational standard, and then we could have free trade, as it were, between the scientists in the two countries. That was bad enough, but let us examine what progress has emanated.
In that same speech the then noble Viscount the former Leader of this House, said he was quite sure that they were going along on the right lines by confining their research for the future to two proposals: one the integral boiler reactor and the other the Vulcain. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, told us that we were in sight of a solution through the Vulcain operation. Lord Hailsham (as he then was) said in the course of that speech some exceedingly unkind things, which I am sure the present Leader of the House, Lord Carrington, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty, must resent. He did have a little knowledge, but I do not for a moment think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would ever have made
694
such an attack as the then Lord Hailsham made upon Captain Atkins.
Here was a most distinguished naval officer. He was distinguished, first of all, by right of his own service. He was a brilliant naval engineering student at his college, receiving a special Admiralty award for passing out in such a way; and all the way through his naval career (I need not weary your Lordships by detailing it) the same thing followed. He was a student, and reached the top position of an advanced course at Greenwich, again receiving a special award. He later became an instructor in all these matters at the Royal Naval College.
Then he served with distinction afloat. He took his earlier certificates, as watch-keeper and then main watch-keeper, as a lieutenant. He afterwards served in the "Hood" and the "Queen Elizabeth", and then as chief engineer in ships that did valiant work at sea—not least of which was the "Orion". And, as a result of the particular engineering work that was done, by himself and his assistants, he earned, first, a D.S.C. at Matapan and then the D.S.O. for extraordinary work done in extricating his ship from the almost impossible situation it was in on the way back from Crete. Since then, he has undergone a special course in nuclear work as applied to engineering ever since 1947–48. Then, early in 1963, he made the suggestion that the integral boiler reactor, as it was known then, was quite unsuitable for putting into a merchant ship and for withstanding all the changing storms and difficulties—different seaways, powers of the sea and so on. And he gave reasons for his view. For having revealed what his thoughts were (and perhaps it might be said, from one Service point of view, that he ought to have done it through another channel, but he felt so strongly about it that he revealed it), he was dismissed.
What is the fact to-day? Here are the confident assurances to this House, given by Lord Hailsham on February 27 last year, that of this he was confident. This was after the dismissal of Captain Atkins; this was after the attack in this House upon Captain Atkins. The noble Viscount was quite certain that they were right in going ahead with further examination of this integral boiler reactor, and quite certain that the other one, the Vulcain, was in the same posi-

695
tion. It is only recently that we are told from the opposite Benches that the I.B.R.'s are scrapped. Whatever work has been done on them has gone; it is wasted. Taking decent naval advice on the matter earlier would have secured that much more of the expenditure made would not have been necessary. I take that as being a vastly important matter.
Now I come to the question of cost in this matter. As I go back and research into the Commons Hansard (I have looked through a whole lot of extracts very carefully indeed) we seem to have had—I will not say a conspiracy, but a collusion somewhere, to keep all possible information away from Parliament. There has been an evasion of the real issue, right the way through 1962, and again in 1963. There was an evasion as recently as last week, when the noble Earl took the line that the public authority, the Atomic Energy Authority, is a commercial concern and that, for reasons of commerce and commercial relations, no particulars could be given to the representatives of the taxpayers in another place, if not to this House (because it has been twice refused in the other place), of what is going to be the cost. That is an extraordinary situation to arise, and it is about time that an independent inquiry was granted in this particular matter.
The offer still stands from the Mitchell Company, at any rate, to put this design of theirs into production and to install it in a merchant ship for £500,000. What has been the total cost (no doubt the noble Earl will be able to tell me this to-night: he should be able to) of research from 1956–57 up to this day? And I am sure the noble Earl will not forget to see that proper allowance is made for what has been paid, not only to outside research but to the staffs, laboratories and other departments under the direct control of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Here is an offer. Why is it not followed up? When it was taken before the panel of the Atomic Energy Authority that deals with these matters, the scorn passed upon it, to which I referred just now, led the firm to be answering questions as to whether they had properly costed it, and whether the price ought to be doubled or have a million added to it. Whereas I am told that the
696
firm is still quite confident, if the offer is properly considered, to go ahead with this proposal if the Government will finance that, as they have financed so much more without any adequate result at all at this time.
In the meantime, I want to press hard for an inquiry, and I want to press hard in that direction because it is essential if we are to keep up with other nations. I do not need to go over all the points that I made last week about the economies that might be effected in the future of our merchant shipping, and I can say that, in the case of the United States of America, at any rate, from conversations which it has been my privilege to enjoy to-day with a very skilled representative of the United States, their view is that by 1966 the next merchant nuclear-powered ship will be afloat, and that by 1967, with perhaps some subsidy for the first two or three years, there will be other such ships afloat. They are confident that within ten years a great new era will burst upon the merchant shipping world, just as it did in the case of the steam turbine, which was supposed to be not likely to make any success at all in the early 1900's but which, by 1910 and 1911, was leading the world in ship propulsion. The same thing will apply if we put our backs into this with regard to the British position in merchant shipping and its future for us in this country.
Now I want to say a word about the naval position. Of course, you could be very critical about the amounts estimated to be spent, and very critical about the general naval plan. But I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has such modern and recent experience of the Admiralty, that I shall ask questions to-morrow, which I very much hope will be answered, in regard to nuclear propulsion in relation to the Royal Navy. I shall want to know, for example—and that is why I am giving notice to-night—what has been the whole cost up-to-date of the Dounreay proposition, from the time it was taken over from its original purposes and a part of it, at least, turned over to the Admiralty, and which has led practically to the building of a town and to all kinds of developments there. What has been the cost, and how far are we advanced in the matter? I want to give notice of that because I must

697
say, again, that I am very worried about the treatment of people who get into touch with the Government on these nuclear matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will note that it was announced only two or three weeks ago that, because of serious faults in materials, piping and the like, the whole of the project has been set back for months and months. A project which ought to have reached by 1962 what is called the critical stage before trial at sea is put back for redoing the work in 1964. I certainly do not believe—and this will be a matter for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give more details—that the submarine which is being developed at Dounreay will be available for sea this year nor perhaps even in 1965. Yet that project has been going on for years and years.
My Lords, there is something radically wrong with our research. We see this on every side. We have seen it with missiles, with aircraft, and with other things, until we seem to be practically engaged in gradually converting ourselves in these matters to becoming purchasers from the United States. This may, perhaps, bring us sometimes the satisfaction that we can manufacture some of their equipment on contract in this country; but we have this country now being put in that position. Yet the former Lord Hailsham was claiming here, in his speech of February 27, 1963, that our scientists were superior. That is what he said in effect; that they were going abroad to the United States because of our much better system of education here.
Instead, we are falling behind. This Government, after they lost Blue Streak and Skybolt, are buying American aircraft and engines. After thinking they would have at least some form of nuclear deterrent, they buy American—the whole lot, the hull and the rest. Now we have this setback in the arrangements for finding the reactor for the "Valiant". When do the Government think they are going to find a reactor for the "Warspite" and others? I want to know to-morrow, in the Defence debate, the exact cost, up to date, of this Dounreay project, and how soon we may expect the results of Government research and success in getting that engine into a British-built sub
698
marine. I have asked before for much of this information and I hope to get a great deal of it to-night. But what I can say is that it is quite certain that if the answers of the Government are not satisfactory, the only thing to do would be to take it up on the same basis, as we hope to do, and urgently, in another place.
6.5 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I rise to support my noble Leader on this Unstarred Question to ask for the inquiry as stated on the Order Paper. The main reason I am speaking this evening is because of the reply given by the noble Earl to a supplementary question I asked. He said that he could not state the amount of money or the terms of the contact with Belgonucleaire with regard to the Vulcain reactors. This seems to me to have been a most unusual reply, because, as I reminded the noble Lord, when the question of the Bloodhound was raised in another place the information was coming with regard to costs. For many years I was chairman of the Post Office Contracts Committee; and I was fairly frequently called upon to answer questions in another place with regard to Post Office contracts. I fail to see why the same principle cannot be applied to this particular contract with Belgonucleaire. After all, there is nothing at all secret in these matters. As I said in a previous debate, it is quite possible to go out and buy the statistical appreciation of a nuclear reactor for merchant ships as prepared by certain firms in the United States of America.
It seems to me that there has been a deliberate dodging in answering questions by the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Science in another place, and in your Lordships' House. Quite frankly, I do not believe this is good enough. After all, if we are not to get this information which we consider to be vital and of national, public importance, it seems the only thing to do is to demand a public inquiry into the whole matter.
I come back to the question to which I was given no answer and which, if I am in order, I will repeat: What was the report of the Technical Assessment Committee to the Minister of Transport with regard to nuclear reactors for

699
merchant ships? This inquiry was set up some years ago. It was set up under Professor Diamond of Manchester University, and its report was to be made to the Padmore Committee. That Committee must have reported. I suggest that the report is on the Minister's table. If that is so, surely we can be given the appraisal as to whether we should have a water-cooled reactor or not. There has been no answer given to that question.
The reason why we are pressing for information with regard to the Vulcain reactor is that this has a water system, and we do know from American experience of their nuclear submarines, and from our own experience, that water reactors are very heavy and if placed in a merchant ship would not be a viable, economic proposition. Therefore, another form of reactor must be considered, and we come to the question of whether there are other forms of reactor. What we know about the Vulcain reactor is that it is a water-cooled reactor, and it is the opinion of technicians who should know that, so far as technology is concerned, we are at the end of the road in water-cooled reactors. It is impossible to make them lighter than they are.
Yet the Authority are proceeding in this contract with Belgonucleaire for the Vulcain reactor which is a water-cooled reactor. These are very sensible, fully-qualified men and they have access to technical and scientific information. Why are they proceeding with this water reactor? This is a question that needs to be answered. I think it is incumbent on the noble Earl who is to reply to answer it. It would also be interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the progress in Holland, Italy and West Germany in their search for a viable reactor.
It is apparent that Western Germany has left that form of research and, I believe, are negotiating with Babcock and Wilcox for their type of reactor to be placed in their new merchant ships. The Germans, who these days are our rivals at sea, are considering having a nuclear-propelled merchant ship afloat in the very near future. We as the pre-eminent maritime nation, with a tradition of pioneering in these mat
700
ters, cannot be left out of this race. And it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that we are (to use a colloquialism) "put on the map."
The whole of this discussion arises not only from the delay and the equivocation of the two Ministers who have been responsible for this matter, but also because we want to know precisely what the position is today. Has it been decided, on the ground of cost or on the ground of inadequate knowledge, that we are not going to persist with a nuclear ship? Are we going to rule it out for the time being and wait to see whether another nation develops it, and then "cash in" on a more advanced type? That is a position I can understand. It is not the traditional approach of the British people to modern developments, but it is one which I am sure we can understand. Or is the whole scheme to be dropped? Are we not to have a nuclear-propelled ship in the new year? And if we are to have one—and this is the gravamen of my case—why are we persisting with this heavy-water reactor by Belgonucleaire? These are the questions we want answered. I agree with my noble Leader that if no reply is forthcoming, then it is incumbent upon us, as representatives of the public, to see that there is a public inquiry into the whole matter.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, may I speak for a few minutes, and strictly on the terms of the Question put by the noble Earl? Before I go any further, I must declare an interest—namely, that my company has in the past been and is at the moment interested in reactors, inasmuch as we have designed instrumentations for reactors that have already been built or are already commissioned, and for some that are coming along in the future. The noble Earl's question asked for an independent inquiry. I do not know what is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, but it is extremely difficult to get an independent inquiry. I think that this must be true. It would be difficult to find men among our own people in this country who are acceptable to the U.K.A.E.A. This body is in an unenviable position. They are not only the design authority, but also judge and jury of other designs. It is a highly invidious position to be in. With

701
the best will in the world, I am sure they try to do all they can, with the greatest integrity. You must always try to help your own brainchild and if you can get a little more time for it to grow up, it is a natural thing to try to gain that time.
May I make a suggestion that may appeal to my noble friend and to the noble Earl opposite? It is that in the Central Electricity Generating Board we have an authority who have great experience of the whole field of reactors and who have at Berkeley Power Station their own research laboratory. I would suggest that the head of the Berkeley Research Laboratory, or somebody like him, would be a fit and proper person to chair such an inquiry.
6.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I do not know whether I can say exactly that I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for raising this Question this afternoon and for providing us with another opportunity for discussing the matter, but I greatly appreciate the sincere concern which he has in this matter and will do my best to reply to him.
As your Lordships know, the Government are awaiting the Report from the Working Group on Marine Reactor Research. The Group has carried out a careful assessment of six reactor types which might be available for the purpose we have in mind. Of the six types, your Lordships have been principally discussing two, the Vulcain and the Mitchell design. As I have told your Lordships more than once, work on the Vulcain is proceeding satisfactorily—I may say, very satisfactorily. I fear it would be wrong for me at this stage to express an opinion on the merits of the other designs. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl any further information about them, but I know that it would be wrong for me to do so.
The Working Group, which is a most responsible one, includes representatives not only of the Atomic Energy Authority but also of the Ministry of Transport, the Office of the Minister for Science, the Admiralty, the Department of Scientific
702
and Industrial Research, the British Ship Research Association, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the Chamber of Shipping and Professor Diamond of Manchester University, who has been chairman of the Technical Advisory Panel set up by the Working Group. The full composition of the Group, with the names of its members, is given in the note on page 16 of the A.E.A. Ninth Annual Report which came out last year. It is, I repeat, a fully representative body and its Report should be in the hands of the Government very soon. In these circumstances I can see no merit in the suggestion that an independent inquiry should be set up to report on the situation when a very full assessment is being prepared by the Working Group. The Government will need time, of course, to consider the Report. Very difficult problems are involved. But I can assure your Lordships that every effort will be made to reach a conclusion with no avoidable delay.
A point that I should particularly like to emphasise to your Lordships is that in my view it is wrong to think of the present position in terms of a race between various countries, in which the United Kingdom is alleged to be lagging behind. On the contrary, far from there being a race, there are at present only two nuclear ships in the world—apart from warships—the Russian icebreaker "Lenin" and the United States passenger cargo ship "Savannah", which the noble Earl has mentioned. These two ships, it seems to me, are certainly not in the same race. As I have already told your Lordships, the "Lenin" is a specialised ship which is operated without regard to economics. In this country we have no present requirement for a ship of this kind. Perhaps the Canadians can do with an icebreaker—I do not know; but that is their own affair. The American ship, as I have said, is not economic, and I have recently heard that the United States Administration—this is highly significant—have recently decided that they will not spend further funds at present on civil marine reactor research, apart, of course from winding up existing commitments. I do not have to repeat the significance of that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Earl give me a quotation of that?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I will do so. As a matter of fact, I made a similiar remark in one of our previous exchanges on this subject, and I have certainly seen it reported in the American Press.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have just been talking to a very notable American industrialist who is highly interested in this subject. I was given the information—and I have given it to the House to-night on this basis—that the next nuclear propelled American ship will be operative in 1966; and with some help in administrative cost afterwards it can lead to a complete success economically.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I will certainly give the noble Earl chapter and verse of my own report of this. I think the information is good.
With regard to the Germans and the Japanese, I know that they have announced their decision to build a nuclear ship. I understand that the Germans will be doing so in conjunction with EURATOM, but in that case, without question, a foreign reactor will be installed. The Japanese have not yet made up their minds. In neither case, I understand, is there any expectation of economic operation. It seems, therefore, to be quite wrong to think in terms of a race between certain major Powers to build what the Evening Standard described in its leading article on March 9 as "exciting new fleets". Far from new fleets being built, the Americans have built only one ship, which is not economic, and there is no indication that the Germans, Japanese or indeed the Russians expect that their ships will be paying propositions.
It is therefore also wrong, in my view, to imagine that Her Majesty's Government have to come to a quick decision in this important matter: it is much more important that the decision when taken should be the right one, and it would be a great mistake to come to quick conclusions which turned out to be wrong. I feel, therefore, that we must wait and consider carefully the report of the Working Group before going into action.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot speak
704
again later, and I should like to ask a question. Is not that the sort of line which ought to have been adopted over twelve months ago when the Minister for Science got up in this House and said he was quite sure it was right to go on with the idea? There was a lot of money spent on it after that, after they had been actually warned that they could not proceed with it.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not think I can go further into the whole problem of the I.B.R. I should perhaps say in that connection what I said the other day: that the decision to give up the I.B.R. was in fact unconnected (and I repeat the word "unconnected", because I think I was misreported) with the views of Captain Atkins.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot let that go unchallenged. I must say at once that I am sure the noble Earl has been advised by the authorities that that is their view, but it certainly is not a true one. I know the record of this naval captain, and I know what is said, and I can attribute no other reason for abandoning the I.B.R. than the reason he has given. And there have been some others.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: It is not for me to comment further on what the noble Earl has said. What I have said is the truth, and I am going to stand by it.
The noble Earl reverted this afternoon to the question of publishing the agreement between the Atomic Energy Authority and Belgonucleaire, and he asked what financial contribution had already been made and what was the total commitment. As I informed your Lordships, the Atomic Energy Authority, in concluding an agreement with Belgonucleaire, were acting in a strictly commercial capacity. The object was the development of a reactor which would be both technically and economically successful. If this objective could be achieved there would be good prospects of successful commercial exploitation of the reactor system, and substantial royalty and licence income could accrue to the joint venture.
The Atomic Energy Authority, which, as your Lordships know, has a substantial trading income, is empowered to

705
act as a commercial organisation, and it would be severely handicapped in many of its transactions if it had to make public the terms of its commercial agreements. I do not think any of your Lordships would wish me to divulge this country's commercial secrets. This commercial status of the A.E.A. has, as I have said before, been recognised by the Public Accounts Committee, who accept certain commercial information on a confidential basis. Such information is not made public, however, and I cannot believe that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition would wish to place the Authority under disabilities which do not affect private industry.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what we want is that Parliament should not be placed under disability.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not want to suggest that the noble Earl is placing this House under a certain disability at this moment. The Authority's accounts are published annually together with a considerable amount of information about its research, development, production and trading activities. The Authority's Annual Report is in fact a mine of information on the full range of the Authority's activities. Information is denied in those areas, and only in those areas, where either military security is involved or where the Authority's commercial position needs to be safeguarded.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Earl's reference to the Atomic Energy Authority and private business, how does he account for the obvious disparity where Ferranti's were compelled to disclose the cost of the "Bloodhound"? That came through the Public Accounts Committee. What is the difference? Why are the Atomic Energy Authority in this privileged position in regard to something not affecting secrecy, as indeed "Bloodhound" could be argued to be?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The answer is that this is an agreement with a foreign organisation, Belgonucleaire, and under the terms of the agreement it is not possible to publish the information. They are joint owners of the patents. I
706
certainly could not lend my hand to asking for publication.
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked last Tuesday, and again to-day, for certain figures regarding the cost of the Atomic Energy Authority's work on reactors for marine propulsion over the past years. Only a part, but by no means a large part of this expenditure has been on the Vulcain. The bulk of the expenditure has gone on design studies and experimental work covering the whole field of marine reactor research. The noble Earl also asked last Tuesday [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 256 (No. 47), col. 324] whether the agreement with Belgonucleaire was on the basis of
"an order given for testing work to be done over there at cost plus profit".
May I repeat and re-emphasise that the United Kingdom's contribution to the joint programme has so far been in terms of work done and expenditure incurred in this country. When the time comes to test the fuel for this reactor system in the Belgian reactor, the B.R.3, the cost of these tests will be borne equally by the A.E.A. and Belgonucleaire. I cannot give details of these future charges as they are part of the commercial agreement which I have already mentioned.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But did I not understand that the noble Earl was inclined to agree with me previously that in fact the Belgonucleaire section of the research which was going on would be likely to cost altogether £3½ million to £4 million?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not go back on the figures I have already given, but I think I really ought to bring this discussion to a conclusion.
Before concluding, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said regarding a certain payment made by the A.E.A. to Mitchell's recently. I understand that this firm did some important work for the Technical Advisory Panel, and they subsequently asked that they should be paid for it. This was agreed, and they have been paid. They have been paid what they asked for and the payment has been, or will be, made by the A.E.A. I must protest that there is nothing in the least sinister about this. That is all there is to it.
EARL ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Earl, but it is essential to get this matter straight. On that basis we come back to the question of the Atomic Energy Authority being a commercial authority. What I say is that when you have people before you with a proposition about which you are asking questions, and you accept their proposals, you should say, "We should like to use your proposals; we will give you so much money for them"—not, "We shall charge you with royalties on anything you produce from them". I think that is scandalous, because if it were not done in the way I suggest, the firm would never give the information. It is completely unreasonable to adopt this line.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not think that over the Floor of this House we can very well go into the working of this Advisory Panel, but I will certainly look further into the remarks which the noble Earl has made to-night.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And let us have the inquiry.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred to a comparison which he thought was an analogy with G.P.O. contracts. I think I have already explained the point here, that this is, in fact, a commercial agreement with an organisation in another country. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, also asked, last Tuesday, whether the amount of money paid to Belgonucleaire would be published in the accounts of the A.E.A. My reply is that the Authority's accounts reflect all their activities, though commercial transactions are not,
708
of course, set out in detail. In regard to the building of nuclear-propelled ships as naval auxiliaries, this matter has not, of course, been within the terms of reference of the Working Group, but the Government certainly will not lose sight of this possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, made some references to an independent inquiry, and he said that the A.E.A. should not be both judge and jury in this matter. I do not think it can be said that the A.E.A. is judge and jury in the matter, because the Working Group is an independent body composed of the very distinguished representatives whom I have mentioned, and who are named in the Report. However, I will certainly consider his suggestion and refer the matter to my right honourable friend.
My Lords, I have tried to be as reasonable as I can in this matter. I know that the noble Earl has this question very much at heart, and I have gone as far as I can to answer it; but I fear that that is all I can say for the present.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can only say, "Thank you very much". I am not allowed to speak again. I will ask my own Party to raise the matter again in the other place.

BARONY OF SOUTHAMPTON
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That he had received from Charles FitzRoy, Esquire, an Instrument of Disclaimer of the Barony of Southampton, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act, 1963.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.