Lords Sitting of 19 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham
The Viscount Dunrossil—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY THE EARL OF ARRAN
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I express my deep regret for remarks made by me which appeared in a national newspaper yesterday? Although the report was substantially correct—and I must emphasise this—it quoted me as saying certain things which are not true. My remarks were not intended for publication; nevertheless, they were printed and I must take full personal responsibility for them. I ask your Lordships' indulgence for this breach of good manners, and I am most sorry.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for making the apology in the House. We are not oversensitive on the Opposition Front Bench. We had been talking about sleepiness in the House. I think I ought to pay tribute to the Lord Great Chamberlain who everyday sends to me and, I believe, to the Leader of the House a report on the state of the temperature of the House so that any corrections we want may be made. I have not myself noticed that there was any more sleepiness on the Opposition Front Bench than we sometimes see—with great sympathy for the individual—elsewhere when a noble Lord, who has been really studying some question and following the debate closely, "drops off." I do not think this is confined to one part of the House.

ABANDONED MOTOR CARS
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: 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 their plans for dealing with the growing number of abandoned motor cars which are menacing the roads and the countryside.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, SO far as roads are concerned, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport made Regulations in 1961 empowering both the police and local authorities to remove and dispose of abandoned vehicles. On the question of abandoned vehicles in general, a meeting was held in January between representatives of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport, on the one hand, and of the local authority associations and the London County Council, on the other hand. Comments and suggestions which were then put forward are under consideration, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government hopes as a result that he will soon be able to give local authorities useful advice.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his helpful Answer, may I ask whether the Government are aware that over 6,000 motor cars were found abandoned in the Metropolitan Area last year by the authorities, and there is evidence that this rate of dumping is increasing each month; that this is taking place all over the country, and these abandoned cars are not only despoiling farms, woods and roadsides of the country, but proving so dangerous in town that they have caused injury and even the death of children? Would Her Majesty's Government not agree that the matter has now reached such proportions as to require handling at national rather than local level?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the number of these abandoned vehicles, though

949
I am not aware of any incidents of death. If the noble Earl knows of these I shall he glad to have the information. It is certainly a matter requiring urgent treatment, and it is receiving that. But certainly it will be possible to deal with this through the local authorities. That will, in fact, be the only way of efficiently dealing with it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am surprised that the, noble Lord did not see the B.B.C. television programme which showed a case where a child had been killed in one of these old vehicles. Is it not a fact that a motor car owner registers his car and that his name is with the registration authorities? Surely there must be some way, when an owner discards his car and, obviously, does not re-register it, for the authorities to try to ascertain whether the owner has either sold the car or dumped it. There must be some check on this matter. It is an increasing problem not only in regard to the countryside, but in regard to the increasing danger to children, and I think this is sufficiently important for the Government to act quickly.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this matter was, of course, referred to in a debate on an Unstarred Question on January 23, and perhaps the noble Lord will refer to my remarks on that occasion. It is being dealt with through consultation, and we hope to take action soon.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it may be being dealt with through consultations—but not in fact. The statement of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is correct. With reference to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, talking about accidents, I had a case of a constituent—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord aware that a child was killed, and when the police investigated they found three other cars in the street had no engines? May I ask the noble Lord why, if I leave my car in the West End in the wrong place the police tow it away and I get fined, yet if I leave a car in the street without an engine nobody has the power to do anything about it? It is hopelessly wrong, and it is about time that something was done about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to give consideration also to the depositing of other forms of litter and muck along the roads? This is a much larger problem than that of motor cars and it is becoming a national scandal. When these instructions are given to the local authorities, may not a statement be made in your Lordships' House as to the nature of the instructions so that we can perhaps have a debate on the matter?
Loan HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend said he hoped the Government would be able to give advice to local authorities, but what the local authorities need is not so much advice as some more equitable placing of the financial burden. At the moment the mess and muck of the urban authorities is dumped, to be cleared at the expense of the rural authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think I can answer so many questions without this discussion becoming a debate. I would rather accept the invitation of the noble Marquess that, in due course when the Government have taken decisions on this matter, we should inform the House and perhaps have a short debate on the subject.

MARKING OF THREE-LANE ROADS
3.13 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 when it is proposed to make compulsory the marking of three-lane traffic roads with continuous alternate white and broken lines, on each near side, in order to reduce accidents and head-on collisions, and generally to make it safer for vehicles to overtake.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, trials of alternately offset double white lines on three-lane winding roads are already in progress. A trial of the same system

951
on a straight road is now being planned. I cannot anticipate the outcome of these trials.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I would ask if he can tell the House whether the Government have any experience of these matters in Europe or elsewhere in the world and, if so, would this experience be of any help in coming to a decision on this matter as early as possible?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. There has been experience of this, particularly in Italy, and we have availed ourselves of their co-operation in telling us about their experience. As we had thought, it has proved not an entirely unmixed blessing, but we should like to adapt the system, if possible, to our own circumstances.

SIMULATOR EQUIPMENT FOR TRAINING DRIVERS
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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, in the interests of road safety, are being taken for learner drivers and others to obtain practice and instruction in equipment able to simulate difficult or dangerous road conditions and darkness, in the same way that air crew can obtain practice and be tested in flight simulators on the ground instead of in the air.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider on present evidence that the provision of simulators, as a requirement for driver training for the purpose which the noble Lord has in mind, would be justified.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it would not be a good idea for those drivers who have been convicted of dangerous or careless driving to have to go on to a simulator, at an appropriate
952
fee, to show that they are able to behave themselves on the road? In this connection, might it not be a good idea to have this kind of simulator provided for this purpose, and maybe extended to learner drivers and others at a later time?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it sounds as if my noble friend wishes to use the simulator as a form of stocks. But the difficulty about simulators on the road is that the situation of those simulated is quite different from the real effects of driving on the road, where it seems to me that the requirements are flexibility of approach and readiness for anything to happen, and this is very different from simulated circumstances.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that we have aircraft simulators which can introduce a high degree of realism, including unexpected circumstances being presented to the pilot, which takes him to a high degree of pilotage without having to use petrol for one hour's flying? I cannot understand why it is not possible to adopt a similar practice in the much simpler medium of the motor car. It would take a large number of learner drivers off the road at a time when they are dangerous to themselves and to the general public, and would give a degree of instruction up to a point at which they can go on the road without too much danger.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend, from his experience, knows as well as I do the essential difference between the motor car and the aeroplane in this respect, in that major use of the simulator is for teaching precise and well-laid-down training procedures for blind flying and approaches, and I do not think one could hope to get the same kind of successful results when the simulator is applied to the ever-changing circumstances on the roads.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write him on the subject.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should be delighted.

ARMED FORCES AND BOXING CONTESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 any orders are given to men in the Armed Services to witness boxing contests and, if so, what are the penalties if they refuse.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I believe that some units—especially boys' or training units—sometimes send organised parties to support their representative teams, which no doubt include boxing teams. In some circumstances a refusal to join such a party might be treated as a breach of discipline. But any person who convinced his commanding officer that he had genuine conscientious objection to watching a boxing contest would be excused.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have had a number of complaints about this matter. Would the noble Earl not agree that it does not implant the finest qualities in a man to compel him to watch two other men deliberately inflicting pain on each other?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lady—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we first have an answer from the Minister please?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I could just tiptoe back into the discussion, I know the noble Lady's views on this matter, and that they are shared by a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House. But I would suggest to her that there is a great deal of difference between boxing, as run and organised in the Services, which is a clean, healthy activity, conducted under the rules of the Amateur Boxing Association, and professional boxing.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lady—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether he would agree that the proper term for boxing is "the noble art of self-defence"? I hope that the time will never come when the boys of this nation will never defend themselves in any rough house".
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can agree with both of the propositions that have just been advanced from behind me.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 o'clock my noble friend Lord Blakenham will be making a statement on trade union amalgamation.
STAFFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Easter.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD
ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Barry. The present situation under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, is that all election forms that are prescribed in that Act have to be in English. This is a most unsatisfactory situation, as your Lordships will appreciate, for Welsh speakers in Wales. It takes no account of the fact that Welsh is a living language; that it is spoken daily throughout Wales; that it is taught in the schools, and is, on the whole, used by many people for whom it is their first language. Already a number of forms used by Government Departments are in Welsh, and it seems to me only right that for electoral purposes translations of the prescribed forms should be available when required.
An anomalous situation also arises at the present time from the local election at Ammanford in Carmarthenshire in 1961. In this case a nomination form in Welsh was rejected by the deputy returning officer on the ground that it was invalid. An election petition was brought, and in May, 1962, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court ruled that this form in Welsh was valid in "the very special circumstances of the case." Those very special circumstances were that there is a high proportion of Welsh speakers in the urban district of Ammanford, and the returning officer had Welsh speaking officials on his staff. So we have the present anomalous position that in a national General Election any Welsh form is invalid and illegal, whereas at a local election a form in Welsh in similar very special circumstances as those that applied at Ammanford could be held to be valid.
The object of this short Bill is to remove all those doubts by giving the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulation Welsh translations of the form used under the Representation of the People Act, 1949. In particular, this will satisfy the demand that nomination papers should be legal in the Welsh lan-
956
guage. I understand that the Secretary of State will not prescribe Welsh versions of all the many forms connected with elections, but will in all important cases.
Clause 1(3) of the Bill ensures that, where the Secretary of State does not prescribe an official Welsh translation, the use of an unofficial translation will still be lawful in similar very special circumstances such as applied in the case of the Ammanford local election. This is a simple and short Bill, but it is an important one for Wales, and I would ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD
CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his explanation of this Bill, which I think adequately covers it, and for his undertaking to pilot the Bill through this House. I notice that the noble Lord is down for two Second Readings and one Third Reading to-day. I hope that his Parliamentary allowance will be suitably adjusted to cover his output, or throughput, whichever happens to be the right word.
From these Benches we welcome this Bill. It is not a concession to one of the nation's "tribal areas"—a term used by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein this week. He used it not in any derogatory sense, because he is himself a member of one of the tribes that go to make up a complete nation, and he is proud of it; and certainly I would not use the word in any derogatory sense; for if I did, I should not dare to go to my home in South Wales this week-end. This is a Bill which clears up an anomalous situation created by the Judge's decision referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I see very little controversial in the Bill, but I imagine that somebody might raise a point about Wales and Monmouthshire being coupled up in the same way as it is in this Bill; but that will be a matter for the Committee stage, rather than stirring up passionate feelings in this Second Reading debate. I can assure the noble Lord that we on this side of the House will, so far as it lies in our power, facilitate the passage of this Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, it is the case that in parts of Wales Welsh is still the first language, and in these circumstances I think it only right that a person for whom Welsh is the first language should have the various papers and forms that are delivered to him in a language that he understands. It is a very ancient language, and the original language of most of this country. In fact the first poem in that language extant at the moment is one which was written in the sixth century by a man called Taliesin, who was reporting to the King at Edinburgh (they spoke Welsh at Edinburgh then, although nowadays they speak Welsh in Edinburgh only on international match days) the result of an attack by the Welsh on the Saxon fortification of Catraeth. To-day we know the fortification as Catterick, and it is still a military fortification, now in the hands of the Royal Signals. What the English have they hold!
I mentioned in this House some years ago—to be exact, on November 26, 1958—when we discussed the compulsory teaching of Welsh in schools, a note of danger. I felt that if we were not careful the one-quarter of the Welsh people who spoke Welsh might be inclined to forcibly feed, so to speak, the three-quarters who did not speak Welsh. I gave it as my view that Welsh would continue for centuries, so long as it was not forcibly fed, and that there was a danger that through the medium of the British Broadcasting Corporation and other institutions this might prove to be the case. I regret to say that that seems to be the fact, and there is considerable feeling in West Wales that some of what they regard as the best programmes, such as Z Cars, Maigret and others, have to make way for programmes they do not understand. This is what I was afraid of. I am anxious for the survival of the Welsh language, but I feel that it will not survive if it is pressed too hard. I should feel strongly if some of my favourite programmes—Dr. Finlay's Casebook and others—were taken off. This is a matter to be considered carefully by Parliament when dealing with this sort of question.
As to Lord Champion's aniseed trail (it is foxhunting week, and I must not
958
put it in more bloodthirsty terms than that) about Monmouthshire, in my view, there is no doubt about this question. The question of Monmouthshire was settled by the English King Offa, who dug a dyke between England and Wales, and the English have accepted it ever since. Offa's Dyke went on the east side of Monmouthshire. I do not think it is for anybody to-day to interfere with an amicable arrangement—it was not amicable in the beginning, but it has been ever since—establishing the frontier between England and Wales. Apart from that, I have no further comments to make on this Bill. I wish it well, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing it.
3.30 p.m.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, while in principle I support this Bill, I have one or two reservations and queries about it because, to my mind, this small Bill could be regarded as a small brick in what is a rather more ambitious structure which is going on behind the scenes in Wales. I have very little to say about the latter, but I am not quite sure who is asking for this Bill. Is it intended to help those who speak Welsh only, or is it intended merely to help those who hope to preserve the language? In other words, will the translation be published in large numbers, or will it be available for distribution in areas where it is asked for?
I think the chief query I have is this: in which version of the Welsh language will the forms be printed?—because people who live in North Wales invariably say that they find it very difficult to understand people who speak in Welsh in South Wales. Therefore, there would appear to be some doubt as to whether there is really only one language which covers the whole of Wales. For instance, I have in mind the Highway Code. When that was translated into Welsh, I understand it was translated by an official who lived in North Wales. It then got into the hands of officials who live in Cardiff, and was corrected by them. When finally it was published, the original translator was reported as having said that he found it difficult to understand. Therefore, I hope that, if translation of these various orders and so on is made, they will be in a language which will not give rise to differences of

959
opinion between North Wales and South Wales.
There is only one other point on which I should ask your Lordships' indulgence, because although it goes slightly off the Bill, this seems to be an opportunity for mentioning it. I referred in my opening remarks to a small brick in the build-up of a more ambitious structure. I refer, of course, to the preservation of the Welsh language, which in turn is part of a desire by a small minority wanting Home Rule for Wales. I will not enlarge on that theme, but there are many influential Welshmen who would find it much easier to encourage all that is best in Wales, including the Welsh language, if a way could be found to separate these very understandable and desirable ideals from politics, including Home Rule. They do not wish to be associated with the extremists who find it necessary to blow up electric pylons, reservoirs, embankments, et cetera. There is a good case for preservation, but its furtherance can be made difficult by wrong tactics. Finally, I support the Bill, provided that it is not regarded as a small step towards some more ambitious plan.
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): My Lords, I would first of all say how delighted I am that my noble friend Lord Aberdare has introduced this Bill into the House. I am glad to be able to tell him that in my Office at Cardiff I have a Bardic Stick presented to his grandfather when the Royal Welsh National Eisteddfod was held in Aberdare in 1885. I am not quite sure how I came by it, but if he would like to have it back I should be pleased to give it to him at some time, because on that stick is carved a number of messages, not only in Welsh, but in English, Latin, German and Greek.
I am delighted to think that all noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed this Bill. I will reply in a few moments to the questions which my noble friend Lord Boston has asked me. It is important that this Bill should come at this time, because not only are we to have a General Election this year, but the triennial local elections will also be held this year. I believe and
960
hope that this will be a non-controversial Bill, and I am certain that it will be a very useful measure. I hope it is non-controversial, even between Wales and Monmouthshire, because I have a noble friend sitting behind me who has just sent me a note reminding me that, so far as Monmouthshire is concerned, they mostly play for Wales in the Rugby internationals and not for England, although they have supplied some jolly good English forwards to help Lord Wakefield of Kendal and other people who represented England on those occasions.
The measure, of course, is very welcome to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibilities in respect of legislation for elections and, of course, was at one time Minister for Welsh Affairs, and has a particular and very great interest in the principality. It is equally welcome to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in both his capacities, since it relates to local government as well as to Parliamentary elections. It will clear up a doubt which arose following an election at the last triennial elections.
The Representation of the People Act, 1949, consolidated the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and a number of other provisions relating to elections. It was a major and comprehensive piece of legislation, and it may not always be remembered that it brought up to date the law relating to the local government elections, too. But it is to an election petition after a local government election—a comparatively rare occurrence—that this Bill can trace its origins. The Ammanford decision, to which my noble friend has referred, underlined this difference in the law relating to Parliamentary elections from that relating to local government elections. As my noble friend has explained, the 1949 Act itself contains certain election forms, but other forms are prescribed by the Secretary of State in rules or regulations which the Act empowers him to make.
The nomination papers tendered at Ammanford for the Carmarthenshire County Council elections were required to be in the form prescribed in the County and Borough Council Election Forms Regulations. The decision of the

961
deputy returning officer on the validity of a nomination paper is final, subject only to an election petition in the High Court. He decided that the form was not valid, but as noble Lords will have heard, the Court held that it should not be held to be invalid in the very special circumstances which existed at Ammanford. Your Lordships have been told of these very special circumstances. They were not only that there was a high proportion of Welsh speakers in the population of Ammanford, but the returning officer had Welsh-speaking officials on his staff. In fact, it is interesting to know that in the Ammanford population of 6,040 people at the last Census, 4,853 speak Welsh, which is 60 per cent. I believe I am right in saying that the number, though not the proportion, of Welsh speakers in Aberdare, from where the noble Lord takes his title, is even higher than in Ammanford, and in fact out of a population there of about 37,000 about 12,700-odd are Welsh speaking,, which is 34 per cent. I am sorry to say that in my own town of Brecon it is only 11 per cent.
If this Bill becomes law it will remove the anomaly, which was highlighted by the Ammanford decision, about the law for national elections apparently being different from that for local government elections. The Bill goes beyond the immediate question of local nomination papers, because it gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe in regulations versions of any of the dozens of election forms required to be used by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, or the rules and regulations made thereunder, and makes lawful the use of such translations in Wales and Monmouthshire.
I am able to give an assurance that, if the Bill becomes law, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to exercise as quickly as possible the power to make regulations. These regulations are unlikely to be in force by the county council elections next month, but, of course, the Ammanford decision will have clarified the law. However, it is very much hoped that they will be in force for the local government elections in the following months. When the regulations have been made all doubt will be removed as to the use of the Welsh versions of the prescribed
962
forms, even in parts of Wales and Monmouthshire where the special circumstances, such as those at Ammanford, do not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked who has asked for the Bill and for this to be done. I can tell him that the Council for Wales made this request to the Government in its Report last year, and there are many people in Wales who want this and have asked for it. As regards the cost, I can tell the noble Lord that the expenditure on registration, including forms, is met in the first instance by local authorities, who are reimbursed in part by the Exchequer by means of the general grant; but the expenditure in respect of a Parliamentary election, including forms, is met by the Exchequer, and expenditure on local government elections, including forms, is met by the local authority concerned. So far as the local authorities are concerned, they, of course, get their general grant and their rate-deficiency grant as well.
As to the question of the Highway Code and whether it will be in North Wales Welsh or South Wales Welsh, I can tell the noble Lord that this question will be referred to the Board of Celtic Studies at the University of Wales, and I think that the majority of people in Wales will accept their decision on this matter. The preservation of the Welsh language is something that all people want, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that it is sad when this becomes a political issue. It would have been far better if all Welshmen, whether or not they speak the language, were to support it and keep it going, because I think it is one of great cultural beauty. I would add that last summer my right honourable friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs appointed a Committee
"to clarify the legal status of the Welsh language and to consider whether any changes should be made".
It might be thought that this measure should await the report of that Committee, but the Secretary of State sees no reason for delay, when the courts have pronounced in this particular sphere and an indefensible distinction has been seen to exist between national and local elections. This Bill stands, I think, outside the field of Party politics. It will remedy an anomaly and give pleasure

963
throughout Wales. In these circumstances, I hope that this small but useful measure will commend itself to your Lordships.

TRADE UNIONS, EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND THE LAW
3.45 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to read to the House a statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. It will be convenient, I think, if I use his exact words. Before I come to that statement, may I say that my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn has asked me to say that he was not accurate in referring to the subject-matter of the statement as "trade union amalgamations". In fact, the statement deals with the law affecting trade unions and employers' associations. The statement reads as follows:
"Recent decisions in the Courts have focused attention on the present state of the law affecting trade unions and employers' associations, which was last reviewed nearly sixty years ago. The Government are of the opinion that the law should again be reviewed. Such a review will be most effective if undertaken with the willing co-operation of both employers' associations and trade unions and free from the atmosphere of political controversy. I understand that the Trades Union Congress are themselves giving consideration to the effect of the recent judgments and they will be letting me have their views.
"The Government think that an inquiry such as they envisage should be undertaken early in the life of the next Parliament. They will seek the co-operation of the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation and will at the appropriate time discuss with them the form and scope of the inquiry."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving us the statement here, and I think the inquiry which is proposed is certainly called for.
964
I am rather doubtful about the suggestion that it should not be set up until the next Parliament. I do not know, of course, the date of the Election, to start with, but I agree entirely that this should be conducted, so far as possible, in a non-politically controversial atmosphere. I think the earlier the inquiry is set up—I take it, subject to the consultation which the Government are having with the Trades Union Congress—the more likely it would be that the General Election would not be interfered with in this way at all, because it would be sub judice, as being in the hands of a Government inquiry which had already been set up.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl agrees that this inquiry should be conducted in an atmosphere not politically controversial. I am as ignorant as he is of the actual date of the Election, but as each day goes by we obviously get nearer to it, and the atmosphere will be correspondingly highly charged. After deep consideration, the Government have thought it better that this should not take place in any pre-Election atmosphere.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is for that very reason that I should have thought it very much better to have the inquiry set up, so that it could be regarded as being largely sub judice until a Report has been made.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I think the Government have taken a different view, and I believe it to be the right view. I think there are great dangers that this subject might become involved in political controversy, and I think it better to wait until the next Parliament, when the Government of the day will be in a position to consider the scope and form of the inquiry.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition I am getting a little alarmed at the tendency of the Government to announce things to be done by the next Parliament. Are the present Government presuming to bind a future Government, the colour of which we do not yet know, although we all have hopes? It is rather doubtful constitutionally, this business of the Government chancing its arm and saying, "We think

965
something should be done but we shall leave it until after the Election". I submit to the noble Viscount that it is stretching our Parliamentary practice a bit far, and I do not like it, apart from the merits of the case.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, may I say that of course no Government can commit another Government, but in fact Her Majesty's Government are pretty certain that the Government which will take over after the next Election will feel in honour bound to carry out this undertaking. Supposing, by any mischance, a different Party were returned to power, of course that Party would be free to take another view if they so wished; but I think that eventuality is not likely to happen.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Viscount has confirmed my point. First of all he says that, whatever the next Government may be, he thinks it will feel in honour bound to carry out a proposal of this Government. It may be it will, but honour does not come into it. It is a question of what it is right for the next Government to do in the public interest, and I submit to the noble Viscount that this business of announcing in this Parliament something we intend to happen in the next Parliament is taking liberities with the electorate and the next Parliament, whatever sort of Government there may be. The noble Lord has no right to assume that the next Government, especially if, as I hope will be the case, it happens not to be the same colour as this one, is going slavishly to agree with this Government.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I made it quite clear in my answer that there is no question of asking any Government slavishly to agree with this. This seems to be an eminently sensible proposal; we do not want discussions about this taking place in an atmosphere of political controversy. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have seen good sense in that as well. I really think the noble Lord is making a mountain out of this molehill.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think at least it would be as well for the noble
966
Viscount's right honourable friend who is in charge of this matter to take fresh counsel on this. I think it would be much more likely that you would make this matter sub judice if you could, with the consent of the Trades Union Congress, have a committee set up as early as possible. I am sure that would be the best way to obtain what we all want absence of political controversy over the inquiry.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us, who have thought a good deal about this matter, are convinced that the decision to appoint a Royal Commission is right and can see that there may be a legitimate difference of opinion on whether that should be done now or after the Election? But is it not also a fact that setting it up now would not have the advantage that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition supposes? It would not make the discussion of trade union law a matter which was sub judice, and prevent discussion of it at the General Election. It could not possibly do so. Therefore, while I do not wish to intervene at all on the relative advantages of setting it up now or at a later date, I am suggesting that it would not, as the noble Earl who leads the Opposition supposes, make the matter sub judice if it were set up now.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: I think my noble friend is right. It was very much for the reasons that he has given that this decision has been taken. I think this is a right decision, and I hope that on reflection the noble Earl will agree. Of course, my right honourable friend is in touch with both the Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, and undoubtedly he will note what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount will state why it is thought necessary to have a Royal Commission of inquiry into the whole field of trade union law.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords,. what I said in the statement that my right honourable friend has made was that he will at the appropriate time, discuss the form and scope of the inquiry. Of course, this does not rule out a Royal

967
Commission, but it may be decided that some other form of inquiry may be suitable.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, to return to tribal matters, I should like to express my great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for giving this Bill their warm support; and I should also like to express my particular gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, for giving us the support of Her Majesty's Government. I hope and think that in the course of his remarks he satisfied my noble friend Lord Boston on his points. These forms are not going to be forced down anybody's throat. They will be available side by side with the forms in English and are not part of any deep-laid plot for Home Rule.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (HOSPITAL BOARDS) BILL
3.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Bill also is a Private Member's Bill which was piloted through another place by my right honourable friend the Member for Barry. It is quite a simple Bill and it has two objects. The first is to change the title of the "Welsh Regional Hospital Board" simply to "Welsh Hospital Board"; and because in Wales we are not selfish, it is also to allow other Regional Hospital Boards to do likewise if an appropriate order is made by the Minister.
The present position under Section 11(1) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, requires all Boards to be called "Regional Hospital Board". In the case of Wales it is not consistent, I feel, with the status of the Principality to be designated "Regional". It never has been known as a region and is certainly not entitled "Regional" in any
968
other connection—for example, the Welsh Tourist Board, Welsh Gas Board, South Wales Electricity Board and South-Western Division of the Coal Board. There is nothing regional in those titles. Clause 1(3), therefore, is to change the name from "Welsh Regional Hospital Board" to "Welsh Hospital Board".
At the same time, there may be others among the fourteen remaining Regional Hospital Boards where to drop the word "Regional" might have advantages and would certainly result in the title being less cumbersome. To take one particular case, the title "North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board" is very cumbersome; "North-West Metropolitan Hospital Board" would be much more satisfactory. Clause 1(1) enables the Minister to make an appropriate order to this effect. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if I show a special interest in the object of this little Bill it is no doubt attributable to the fact that I have a 50 per cent. interest because I am married to a Welshman.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think the Welsh are a very patient people because, as the noble Lord has said, they have since 1946, since the introduction of the National Health Service Act, felt understandably aggrieved because they have been categorised simply as an administrative region. Of course the original purpose was to distinguish the administrative regions in the National Health Service, not as the noble Lord has mentioned, from other boards, but from various other health boards which might exist or come into being. Therefore, the word "regional", which was used for the other areas in the country, was used by the officials at the time; I agree that a little more imagination might have been exercised.
Wales has her own national culture and her own language. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, that 60 per cent. of Welsh people speak the Welsh language to-day, and Wales has a Minister concerned with her own

969
affairs. The description "Regional" suggests that she is of no more historical or ethnical significance than a metropolitan area. Because I belong to a metropolitan area, I do not suggest I can equate my particular North-East area with the nation of Wales with its wonderful culture. Whoever was responsible for devising this title was, I think, a little more concerned for a tidy unity, which might be better in the filing system than for the national pride of Wales.
Of course, the Bill, as the noble Lord has mentioned, also provides that the other Regional Hospital Boards can have the opportunity to discard the word
"Regional" from their title, but this is only permissive, whereas in the first clause the change is mandatory. This no doubt will stimulate the imaginations of many members of those Boards. But, for the time being, I think that we should be content to remove a misnomer from which Wales has suffered for too long.
When we introduce Bills of this kind noble Lords and Members of the other place always wonder if a speaker can quote a precedent. Is there a precedent for this? I can only say that on my side of the House there is a most important precedent. The Labour Party decided to divide the whole country into administrative regions, but we recognised Welsh nationhood and we described the Welsh area as the Welsh Council of Labour. I feel the noble Lord did not know that; he looks quite surprised to hear this important precedent. So I hope that nobody will object to this little Bill, which I feel is rather overdue, and on behalf of my noble friends I say that we are only too ready to accept it.
4.0 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my interest in this small but useful Bill is entirely "non-tribal". It is worth remembering, I think, that the original National Health Service Bill which included the provision for the Welsh Regional Hospital Board was the work of a Welshman, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, but he apparently overlooked this slight error. I personally think it is a very good thing to get rid of the word "Regional" in the name of the Welsh Hospital Board, and, indeed, in every other case. These Hos-
970
pital Boards have extremely cumbersome names. There is a good deal of importance in giving an organisation a good name, both metaphorically and actually. I have spent a good deal of my time selecting names for public houses, in the New Town of Harlow for example. We decided we should go for something new, and we went for names of butterflies and moths; and your Lordships will he surprised how well they trip off the tongue; the Painted Lady, the Essex Skipper—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The Cabbage White.
LORD TAYLOR: We have no Cabbage White, but we have a Garden Tiger and a Small Copper. The number of appropriate butterfly and moth names is terrific. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should call Hospital Boards by similar names, but I get a little sad when I see hospitals which designate their wards by numbers rather than by calling them all by nice, historic names—Charity, Florence, Job, Lydia, Dorcas, Ann, William, Henry and Luke Ward—the last block at St. Thomas's. It was very pleasant because we could refer to the ward sister as Sister Charity or Sister Florence; but Sister Ward 10 does not sound so good.
These Hospital Boards have proved an administrative success, but they cannot be said to have awakened any great emotional enthusiasm. They are a convenience, whereas I think they ought to inspire loyalty and healthy competition between the regions. I attribute this largely to the extremely unimaginative names they have been given. I have long hoped we should see the end of those names, and now at last we have a convenient piece of machinery for getting rid of them.
It is interesting that when the Ministry decided a few years ago to have a new hospital region it invented or used an old but familiar and pleasant name, Wessex. But the four Boards which cover London and the surrounding counties are called the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and the Smith-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. Anything more cumbersome and stupid it would be hard to

971
devise, except that they are fairly accurately descriptive of the areas covered, because for technical reasons London and the surrounding country is divided into four parts for hospital administrative purposes.
In the case of the other regions they are, with one or two exceptions, known by the name of the main town in the region. I have tried to think of rather better names to substitute for these main town names. For Newcastle I should like to see "Tyneland Hospital Board"; for Leeds, the "Ridings Hospital Board", for Sheffield, the "Shires Hospital Board"; for the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board the "Fenlands Hospital Board". And for London I should like to see for the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board the "Chiltern Hospital Board", for the North-East Metropolitan Region the "Anglian Hospital Board", for the South-East the "Southlands", and for the South-West the "Thames" or "Weald Hospital Board". For Oxford, I see no reason to change the name; it is perfectly reasonable; it is a very small region. For the South-Western I should like the "Severn" or the "Westland Hospital Board" and so one could go on. These are much better, shorter names. The names of these Boards are written an enormous number of times in the course of administration, and they are by no means clear. If we can use this little Bill as a means for stimulating the institutions of our National Health Service, it will be very useful indeed.
4.6 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY or HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I cannot claim any Welsh connection. Nevertheless, I am glad that your Lordships have given the welcome which you have to my noble friend's Bill, and I am glad to know that if your Lordships pass it it will give pleasure in the Principality. My noble friend has explained very clearly what the object of the Bill is. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the unimaginative names of most of the Boards as we have them to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out that the Act of 1946, and the Order made under the Act describing the titles
972
of the Board, was the responsibility of a Welshman. So it was. But it was also a responsibility not of this Government nor of my Party but of the Labour Party. It seems to me that is a very fair point to make. I would add this: there was one name of a Board which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, did praise, and that was the Wessex Regional Hospital Board. The Government I support was in fact responsible for that charming name. I am grateful to the noble Lord for paying such an unintended compliment to the literary skill of the Government.
If your Lordships pass this measure, as I hope you will, my right honourable friend proposes to consult with the Boards about their titles under two headings, so to speak: he will consult with them as to whether or not they wish to take up the option which is provided of dropping the word "Regional", and also about the descriptive titles—that is to say, whether the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board is happy about continuing to be called the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.
Perhaps I should explain that although, because of the wording of the 1946 Act, the words "Regional Hospital Board" cannot be changed without legislation, which is why my noble friend has rightly presented this Bill to-day, there is already power under Section 11 (1) of the Act to vary the descriptive titles by order. So the way is open, if it seems advisable to change these names after consultation with the Boards. I hope your Lordships will therefore give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.9 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the warmth of their support. It is nice to know the noble Baroness gave me 100 per cent. support although she is only 50 per cent. prejudiced—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is not prejudiced at all. I would also thank my noble friend Lord Newton for giving the support of Her Majesty's Government to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREWORKS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.10 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Uncertainty as to remoteness of vesting]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: I should like to raise a point on Clause 3. I am not sure whether it properly comes within Clause 3: it might suitably be raised on any clause of this Bill, at least so far as I am concerned, because they are all almost equally unintelligible. This is a matter which has been suggested to me by the Law Society, and it relates to a case which was decided in 1961—namely, Dunn v. Blackdown Properties Limited. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows about that case—I imagine he does. It was a case where a decision was given by Mr. Justice Cross that a grant of an easement to use sewers and drains, then passing, or thereafter to pass, under certain roads or any parts thereof, was void as infringing the rules against perpetuities, the offending words being "thereafter to pass". The grant was held not to be an immediate grant, because the easement was to arise at an uncertain time in the future, and it was therefore declared void. So far as I know, there has been no appeal against that decision, but it has caused a good deal of inconvenience and uncertainty. For one thing, a good many similar dispositions have been made, and it has
974
been assumed for many years that they are perfectly in order. This decision has now thrown doubts upon the validity of a great many similar dispositions and easements which have been granted.
Then again, perhaps less important, but still quite important, the standard form of granting these easements is contained in Butterworth's Encyclopœdia for Forms and Precedents, Third Edition, and the form is set out on the assumption that such easements are perfectly valid. If the law is as it is stated to be by Mr. Justice Cross, these forms will have to be altered. The Law Society are extremely anxious that the matter should be settled one way or the other. This Bill does not make it clear. While it may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not in a position to give a definitive reply on this point to-day, I would ask him whether he would kindly look into this matter and at least make it clear in the Bill, as it is not already clear, that either such easements are valid or they are not valid. At the moment, we are still in a state of uncertainty, because, so far as can be judged, the Bill throws no light on the matter at all. As I say, I have been asked to raise the matter, and I hope that we may be given some satisfaction on the point before the Bill is finally disposed of.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): I am aware of the decision of Mr. Justice Cross in Dunn v. Black-down Properties Limited. I know that it gave rise to a good deal of comment in the legal Press, but I think I am right in saying that only one commentator suggested that the decision might be wrong. I know, too, that the Law Society were at first most concerned about the effect which that decision might have on grants of this kind, as most of the common form precedents, in fact not having statutory authority like the ones that the noble Lord quoted, do not impose any limit on the period within which the easement may be exercised.
First of all, I would say that this Bill bites only on instruments which come into existence after the Bill is enacted, and there can be no question of making any change with retrospective effect with regard to existing instruments. They must—and I hope to carry the

975
noble Lord with me—stand or fall as to whether they are valid, under the existing law. One could not interfere with such instruments without affecting the rights of parties which have in fact been acquired or vested. The decision in Dunn v. Blackdown Properties Limited applies only where the parties to the original grant have each assigned their respective interests before any attempt is made to construct, or to connect up with, the sewers and drains. I think in the Blackdown Properties Limited case there were in fact no sewers or drains in existence.
We have considered this matter most carefully, and discussed it with the Law Society, and I think I am right in saying that we have now allayed the doubts which the Law Society felt. It is our view that there is no need for legislation on this point. We have been asked for an assurance that Clause 3(1) of the Bill will apply to any future grants of an easement such as fell to be considered in that case. I am able to give that assurance. The Bill refers throughout to "dispositions", and these are defined, in Clause (14)(2), as including
"any … disposition of an interest in or right over property".
And a little later I propose to move an Amendment to make it clear that it does so. As I have said, I do not think that we can do anything to validate existing grants, because there is really no reason, as I see it, for altering the law here with retrospective effect—no better reason for doing so than for doing the same in the case of a will or settlement which had been drawn in such a way as to offend against the rule. I hope that in saying that I carry the noble Lord with me. I do not know that I need say any more with regard to this, except that I think that in relation to grants made in future it is right, particularly in relation to grants of easements, that the ordinary law in relation to perpetuities should apply. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point, because it may help to draw to the attention of practitioners, and also of the editors of these publications which produce books showing common forms, the need to make a minor revision.
LORD SILKIN: If the Law Society's fears have been allayed then a fortiori,
976
mine also have been allayed. I was merely putting forward the fears that they had. May I take it, therefore, that in fact there will be no need to alter these forms at all, because in future the present Bill, if it becomes law, will operate, and such dispositions, easements and so on, will be valid? Is my understanding correct?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel rather hesitant about expressing a view upon a common form with which I cannot claim to have the slightest familiarity. I think the position is perfectly clear. If I may summarise it, the Bill, in our view (I think this is now accepted, but if not we will certainly reconsider the matter) gives all necessary protection to future grants of easements, including rights of drainage. I am not prepared to say whether or not it may not mean some minor alteration in the common forms in these books. I mention that because I think it is for those who publish such books to have regard to this question. I say that deliberately, so that they may look at it.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Options relating to land]:
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert instead:
"(2) In the case of a disposition consisting of the conferring of an option to acquire for valuable consideration any interest in land, the perpetuity period under the rule against perpetuities shall be twenty-one years, and section 1 of this Act shall not apply."
The noble and learned Lord said: I think it would be convenient to the Committee to take this Amendment with the next Amendment, which proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 9, because they are subjects which are linked. The purpose of these Amendments is to put it beyond doubt that an option in gross to purchase land which remains unexercised for more than 21 years is thereafter to be void as between the original parties to the grant of the option as well as between their successors in title. This is intended to be the effect of Clause 9(2) as it stands, but it has been suggested that it is doubtful

977
whether it achieves its object, because the subsection is expressed to operate
"where the rule against perpetuities applies"
and the rule does not at present apply to contracts, even those granting proprietary interests in land, so far as the contracting parties are concerned.
Under the present law, a contract granting an option to purchase land, the exercise of which is not expressly limited to the perpetuity period, can always be specifically enforced against the original grantor of the option (as long as he has the land), whether by the original grantee or by his successors in title, because of the grantor's personal obligation to perform his contract. But there is no personal obligation on the grantor's assignees, and as against them the option cannot be enforced because it is void for remoteness. However, if the option becomes unenforceable in this way, damages for breach of contract may be obtained from the grantor personally or his estate.
The first Amendment provides merely that the perpetuity period applicable to options to acquire an interest in land is to be 21 years and no other period. The contractual obligation of the grantor of the option is now left to be dealt with by the proposed new clause. This provides, in effect, that a disposition inter vivos which would be void for remoteness as against an assignee of the person making the disposition is also to be void in all respects as against the disponor himself, and is not to be enforceable by any remedy, contractual or otherwise. Thus, where there is a contract for the grant of an option, and the option remains unexercised for more than 21 years, there will be no remedy against the original grantor, whether by way of specific performance (if he still has the land) or by way of damages (if he has parted with it).
The new clause assumes, first, that the rights and duties created by the disposition are capable of assignment; and, secondly, that they have been so assigned. The first of these assumptions is necessary because the option may in fact be framed so as to be personal only to the actual grantor and grantee, and so be unassignable. The court must therefore be expressly permitted to say that if it was assignable, and if it was
978
in fact assigned, it would have become void for remoteness; therefore it is void as between the parties to it. The expression "no remedy shall lie in contract or otherwise" is intended to cover the case of a disposition made by covenant under seal where there is no consideration.
The new clause is framed in general terms, and is not specifically limited to options to purchase land, because there may be cases of contractual rights which ought to be treated as void for remoteness, but which do not answer to the description of options to acquire an interest in land. For example, instead of granting an option, the owner of land may agree to convey on the happening of some uncertain event. There seems no reason why the principle of the new clause should not apply to these cases and also to contracts relating to personal property as well as to land. I beg to move this Amendment, which I think not inappropriately follows on our discussion of the Fireworks Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 6 and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanation. I must admit that I followed the explanation quite well, which is more than I can say for the two Amendments as drawn. It is a great pity that these explanations cannot be incorporated in the Bill for the assistance of people who have to interpret them later on.
LORD CONESFORD: I think my noble and learned friend took these two Amendments together. My point arises simply on the second Amendment, the proposed new clause. I wonder whether possibly, as printed, it contains a misprint. In the fourth line ought not the word "had" to be "has"? I draw that to the attention of my noble and learned friend only because I am not quite clear about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to look at that. It has been carefully drawn, but there may have been an error in printing which has

979
escaped my attention. Perhaps I could have an opportunity, if in fact there is an error, of correcting it at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILSOE: Before the Committee agrees that Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill, I wish to ask the Government to give some consideration to a problem which affects the provision of churches in areas of comprehensive development. I speak to support the views of the Churches Main Committee, a Committee which represents all religious denominations, Christian and others, and is accepted as the authoritative body recognised by the Government to discuss secular matters relating to the churches as a whole. I should mention that I am myself a member of the Committee.
When an area to be developed or redeveloped is owned by a local authority or public authority, such as a New Town corporation, there is need to see to the proper siting of the churches of the various denominations. In regard to the housing and commercial development, it would be the normal practice for the local authority (except of course where they carry out the development themselves) to grant leases for approved sites to chosen developers. In the case of churches, however, it has for a long time past been the practice to build only on a freehold site. Indeed, where a church is to be consecrated, the site must be freehold. Accordingly, the Association of Municipal Corporations came to a very satisfactory arrangement with the church authorities, through the Churches Main Committee, ten years ago. The date is not unimportant, because ten of the twenty-one years have gone. In short, the Association recommended to its members, the local authorities, that they should sell church sites on a freehold basis in all cases where the church authority was prepared to grant to the selling authority a right of pre-emption if and when the church was no longer required for religious worship. There is a standard agreed clause between the churches and the municipal corporations, and in this the period for the option for the local authority to buy back is
980
for what I believe is called, in the terms of this Bill, "royal lives plus 20 years".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Twenty-one.
LORD SILSOE: Twenty-one. Actually, in this particular contract, for some reason which I do not know, it is 20. Should Clause 9(2) be passed in its present form, this option of pre-emption would be exercisable only for 21 years for all future cases. Also, in Clause 14(5), which is the clause which prevents retrospection, the option is in relation to the taking effect of the instrument. It seems at least possible, therefore, that the date relevant would be that of the exercise of the option rather than that of the creation of the document, and for that reason it might well bring in existing and past cases. Also, unfortunately, the standard clause refers not only to royal lives but also to any future changes in the law of perpetuities. All this makes it possible (I do not want to say that I have yet obtained legal advice, but it seems at least possible, and some people say probable) that this new clause would affect all existing documents.
May I, for a moment, quote a few of the words used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which explain the reason for Clause 9(2)? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 46), col. 240]:
"Other options, such as the ordinary option to purchase, are in a different category. For, as the Law Reform Committee pointed out, they tend to discourage rather than foster the maintenance and development of the land, because a landowner will be unwilling to spend money on his land if he is at risk of having the fruits of such expenditure taken from him by the exercise of the option."
In the case of church development, it is desired, both by the selling authority and the buying authority, that once the church has been built the option for preemption should remain open for the longest possible period allowed by law. The longer the period, the greater is the public interest served. The Churches Main Committee hope, therefore, that they can show a strong case, not put before the Law Reform Committee, for special treatment. The Churches Main Committee are sorry that they did not draw this point to the attention of the Law Reform Committee, or to the Government, at an earlier stage. It is quite

981
clear from the discussion on Second Reading and at this stage of the Bill that this Bill is very technical. I can only say that the Churches Main Committee did not see this point until late last week. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this problem, small in compass but extremely important to all Churches, and that possibly a solution can be reached at a later stage of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One of the objects of the Committee stage of a Bill is that it enables Members of your Lordships' Committee to raise points such as that which my noble and learned friend Lord Silsoe has brought to our attention to-day. I do not wish to qualify or withdraw any of the words I said about this particular provision in the course of my Second Reading speech. I think that, as a general policy, those words were right. At the same time, I feel that my noble and learned friend has brought to our notice a case for which special provision does, in fact, require to be made. It is obviously a convenient practice that it should be possible for bargains of this sort to be made between local authorities and the churches, ensuring that the land is used for church purposes and that, if it ceases to be so used, the local authorities have the right of repurchase. I make no complaint that the operations of the Law Reform Committee escaped the notice of the Churches. I am only glad that, before it was too late, the Churches observed this point and took steps to bring it to your Lordships' attention. I think I carry your Lordships with me—at least, I hope I shall carry your Lordships with me—when I say that I am prepared to put down an Amendment at a later stage to give effect, and I hope satisfactory effect, to the point raised by my noble and learned friend.
LORD SILSOE: May I express great satisfaction with that answer? I came here with hope. I hope that I am going away with a promise.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the Amendment in my name to insert the new clause after Clause 9.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Avoidance of contractual and other rights in cases of remoteness
("—Where a disposition inter vivos would fall to be treated as void for remoteness if the rights and duties thereunder were capable of transmission to persons other than the original parties and had been so transmitted, it shall be treated as void as between the person by whom it was made and the person to whom or in whose favour it was made or any successor of his, and no remedy shall lie in contract or otherwise for giving effect to it or making restitution for its lack of effect.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment makes it clear that the Bill is to apply to interests created by way of exception or reservation from a grant, as well as in other ways. A disposition of property can, of course, be made by way of exception or reservation, as is commonly done in the case of easements, and it is as well to make it explicit that the expression "disposition" includes exceptions and reservations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, at end insert ("and shall apply to the exception or reservation of any interest or right as it applies to a disposition").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it will be convenient to speak to this Amendment together with the next, which is to page 7, line 42, and is consequential. These Amendments are necessary to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to enact similar legislation binding the Crown if it so desires. It can, under its general powers granted by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, independently enact legislation similar to this Bill, save for the provision that the Act shall bind the Crown. This is because the 1920 Act does not allow the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws in respect of the Crown. Express authorisation is therefore necessary. I beg to move.
Amentment moved—
Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
("(8) Except in so far as the contrary intention appears, any enactment of the Parliament

983
of Northern Ireland passed for purposes similar to the purposes of this Act shall bind the Crown.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after ("or") insert ("(apart from subsection (8) above to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point to my noble and learned friend an the drafting of subsection (5)? It may be in order as it stands, but this afternoon the point was put to me by a solicitor and I think I ought to pass it to my noble and learned friend for consideration. I am sure that the intention behind subsection (5) is right, but the point that has been put to me is this: is it clear that an instrument takes effect once only?—because if one turns to Clause 5 of the Bill it is clear that a disposition may take effect at various times. If it were possible for an instrument to take effect more than once, the subsection as drafted might lead to some confusion; and it has been suggested to me that possibly what is wanted is that the word "first" should be inserted so that the wording would run,
"in relation to instruments first taking effect after the commencement of this Act".
The addition of this word may not be required, but I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would look into it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly look into it, but I should be most reluctant to give any expression of opinion on these particular points without careful consideration. I should like to apologise to the Committee. I ought to have said when I was moving the last Amendment that there was a printing error on the Order Paper. There ought to be a closing of brackets after the word "above" and before the word "to". I hope that can be dealt with.
LORD SILSOE: Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also look at the words "taking effect"? We are not very clear. Does an agreement such as the one I spoke of earlier take
984
effect when it is signed, or take effect when the option is exercised, or both, or either? I am not asking for an answer at once, unless the noble and learned Lord has one ready.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The agreement takes effect from the moment it is made. I will certainly look at it.
LORD SILSOE: And the option can go on any time?
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with Amendments: Report received.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
4.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in 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 2:
Grants for improving efficiency of small production businesses
(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

985
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.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (6), the first being after "Provided" to insert (a), and the second to add to the proviso:
("(b) 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 in connection with the programme as aforesaid, and
(c) that where two or more businesses have combined to submit a single programme, which has been allowed by the appropriate Minister, these businesses shall be treated as one business, which shall not cease to be regarded as a small horticultural business by reason of being conducted on land exceeding in total extent the area specified in that behalf in the scheme.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and I hope that it will have the agreement of the Committee if discuss with it Amendment No. 8, which is the substantive Amendment. It will be recalled that when we adjourned the Committee stage on Monday evening there was some little confusion, which appears to have translated itself on to the Order Paper to-day. In fact, with respect to Amendment No. 8, I wish to move only the second paragraph as printed on the Marshalled List, because the first paragraph was the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wise on Monday. I hope that that will be in order; and I trust, also, that the purpose of the Amendment will be crystal clear and its merit immediately apparent. If the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, should feel the urge to get up and accept it immediately, without development of the case, I shall be only too happy. Apparently, the noble Lord is not going to accept that very generous offer, so I will state the case for the Amendment.
The Amendment is expressly designed to assist and encourage co-operative production. Thee are many production projects which are highly desirable but which would be beyond the resources of the average farmer, although they would be of a kind which would qualify for a grant and for which the Minister would be anxious to give a grant. In such cases a number of farmers joined
986
together in co-operative effort could, with the appropriate grants, manage the job. Treated as one business, however, as the Bill now stands, they would have a combined acreage which would put them outside the scheme, beyond the upper limit of the scheme, as I understand it. We seek to rectify what is in our view an obvious defect and omission. This is a new point which has not, so far as I am aware, been raised in any previous stage of the Bill, and apparently was not thought of by the Government.
What we are asking the Government to do is to recognise and legislate for the fact that the family farm, whether an agricultural or a horticultural holding—and many are both—faces a threat to its existence which during the next ten years will either have to be contained or submitted to. We believe that these family farms must not be allowed to go under, because they are the backbone of British farming and the countryside. Under the present system there is nothing to stop large firms, with main interests hitherto lying outside agriculture, from using their resources and experience to substitute agricultural mass production and horticultural mass production for the custom built agriculture and horticulture that we have known hitherto. Technological skills are already available and resources are unlimited; there are all the economies of scale and range that are possible be, cause so many operations are brought under the same control. There is nothing lacking—not even, apparently, AMDEC grant—to speed the new development on its way. The Farmers Weekly on February 7 recorded the fact that an AMDEC grant was to be made available to the £80 million international meat company, Union International, which had been awarded a grant from the £1½ million fund created by the Minister of Agriculture to improve marketing. Apparently, if you are big enough and wealthy enough you have no difficulty in getting a grant from public money; but if you are small and want to get bigger you will probably be told to manage without it.
It is generally accepted that the best hope for the survival of the family farmer as an economic unit is in many cases by some voluntary surrender of a measure of independence in co-operative systems of various kinds. Only in this way too,

987
can the family farmer achieve the necessary economies and exercise real buying or selling power. The Horticulture Act of 1960 offered some incentives, which have fully justified the description which was made in your Lordships' House of "the one imaginative conception of the Bill". I have in my hand a report on horticultural development under the 1960 Act up to October of last year, and more than twenty major projects have either come into being or are planned and will soon be functioning. For example, in the West Midlands, some nine months ago 21 growers formed themselves into an organisation known as the Wye Fruit Limited, for the storage, grading, packaging and marketing of the members' apples and pears. They estimate that their output will be 240,000 bushels and the capital cost about £167,000. Thirty growers in Bedfordshire have a marketing project and their initial turnover is to be £400,000 a year on a capital outlay of £88,000. In South Devon sixteen small growers have got together to improve the local market. At Blackpool and district there is a small project, and at Hemel Hempstead another with a turnover of some £35,000. These are the kind of schemes which enable small people to get together and actually have an efficient and viable marketing unit.
This is the outcome of the 1960 Act, under which so far we have provided assistance and encouragement for co-operative buying and selling and, to some extent, co-operative service. Now this Amendment asks the Government to look to, and cater for, the need for co-operative production—that is to say, the integration of a number of perhaps adjacent, but not necessarily adjacent, holdings for the purpose of adopting one production programme, involving agreement on materials to be used, on varieties, on methods of husbandry, on equipment and so on, with a view to lowering all-over production costs and raising overall efficiency.
These experiments in co-operative production ought to be preceded by a thorough examination of the legal, managerial and economic difficulties which they are likely to encounter. Such an investigation has already been proposed, as the noble Lord is probably aware, and I understand that it has been favourably commented on by the
988
Development Commission. In my view, this sort of development of a number of comparatively small or medium-sized horticulturists and farmers getting together in a common productive effort is going to be one of the most important developments in this country in the near future, and we ought to be providing for it and helping it in this Bill.
On Monday my noble friend Lord Wise spoke to an Amendment at the bottom end of the scale, as it were, to bring within the orbit of the Bill people who are just under the four acres limit but whose holdings could be viable. This Amendment is at the other end of the limit. It proposes to bring together in a productive effort a number of people whose aims are wholly in accordance with what the Minister wants to do, but who, if taken together as one business with one object, even though ownership or tenancy of their separate farms will continue separate and individual, will have a combined acreage beyond the upper limit of this scheme. This Amendment proposes that, notwithstanding that, they should still come within the orbit of the Bill and their scheme should qualify, if approved, for grant. I think that this is a wholly desirable objective and I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("Provided") insert ("(a)")—(Lord Stonham.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): I hope that the noble Lord has made his intention crystal clear, because, if he has, I can make it crystal clear to him that it is not necessary. It all hinges on what exactly the noble Lord means by "one business". By the way in which the noble Lord has explained this Amendment, I understand that he assumes that two or more growers with separate businesses may put forward a plan jointly for purposes of grant, while continuing to be separate for all other purposes, and that these businesses as a whole shall not cease to be regarded as small horticultural businesses because they are above the maximum limit for a small business that may be prescribed in the scheme.

989
I cannot see that such an arrangement would be of any advantage to growers eligible under the scheme, for they would be perfectly free, without this Amendment, to put forward proposals for joint co-operation with any other growers as part of their business plan and, provided these proposals were approved, they would each be entitled to the business grant. I think that I can underline this for the noble Lord by saying that, if in the separate plans they put forward there were an element of co-operation with another grower, this would not exclude them. I think that this is the point that is worrying the noble Lord.
On the other hand—and I hope this is not what the noble Lord means—if two or more growers combine their holdings and run them as one business, in the sense of being a single business and not merely coming under one business plan, providing the holding is within the limits laid down in the scheme, any approved programme will enable grant to be given; but I do not think that we can justify such a business being entitled to grant if its eligible acreage was above the maximum to be laid down, when we have to refuse grant to other partnerships formed before. I am sure that it is unnecessary to repeat to the noble Lord that, if he wants these people to be qualified for their business plan, by remaining separate they would be entitled to grant even though this element of co-operation enters into each of their business plans.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord is thinking that there is in this Amendment any attempt to create a device whereby the upper limit could be evaded simply by two or more farmers coming together in actual partnership by capital and everything else, I can assure him that the Amendment is not intended to cover that. I think that he has answered the point by saying twice that, if I am thinking of an organisation where there is an element of co-operation—and I am thinking of a growers' co-operative—this would not be precluded, just as they have joined together in common patent schemes and things like that. If so, I should find his answer wholly satisfactory. But I would now ask the noble Lord if he would mention
990
whether the provision comes in under Clause 2, and under which subsection.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord and I have understood each other. It is what I took him to mean, and what he took me to mean. If I could give a happy example, supposing he and I had holdings reasonably near to each other and we did not want to form an actual business partnership but wanted to use certain useful elements in a horticultural business together, we should, without forming an actual partnership, each be eligible for grant. It comes under Clause 2.
LORD PEDDLE: Frankly, I am completely at a loss to understand the reply that has been given to my noble friend. Do I take it from the reply that there are two growers and each independently would be entitled to the grant if they were operating independently, but that should they join together and sacrifice a measure of independence on the productive plain their total acreage would be such as to deprive them of their joint claim to that support?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes; the noble Lord is quite right. If they remain operating separately as independent growers, in co-operation with each other putting forward the business plan—a separate business plan—which would be needed to qualify for this grant but which they could not, either of them, afford without an element of co-operation, this would qualify.
LORD PEDDIE: But the whole point of this Amendment is to secure full cooperation on the productive plane. My noble friend made a strong plea and indicated the extension of co-operatives in marketing and the like. He felt, quite rightly, that there is need for this grant, in the face of increasing competition by people who would be operating in this field to the detriment of the small grower, and this Amendment is intended to give support to the small grower. It is felt that it is in keeping with the whole principle of the Bill to give assistance to the small man. I take it we are being told now that if we have two growers who, in their own combined interests and obviously in the combined interests of the nation, get together in order to develop their land more

991
economically and effectively, and in so doing naturally sacrifice some element of individual control, they would not be entitled to the grant. This Amendment clearly states a case strongly and with justification, in my opinion, that in such circumstances the grant should be made.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In all justice, if these two growers, or more growers, formed a single company, and the total land was above fifteen acres, they would no longer be small growers. This seems to make sense.
LORD STONHAM: It may well be that I have misunderstood the noble Lord. I clearly put it, when he mentioned the element of co-operation, that if the members of a growers' co-operative decided to go in for a common production programme—it might be for the marketing and production of a particular type of crop, and eventually they would see it right through to grading, prepacking, marketing and so on—they should be eligible for grant. All the other things they need for distribution are already eligible for grant under the 1960 Act, but not grant for production schemes to co-operatives. What I am expressly asking for in this Amendment is that where members of co-operatives wish to go in for production schemes like that, they shall not be precluded from grant by reason of the fact that collectively their holding exceeds fifteen acres. That is what the Amendment means, and that is what I understood the noble Lord to say in the first instance was already covered by Clause 2 and would be in order.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Perhaps we have not understood each other as well as I hoped. The form of business created would have to be judged on its merits, and such elements as whether there were common accounts and interchange of labour would, among other things, have to be taken into account. What I thought and hoped the noble Lord had in mind was, for example, two neighbours saying: "By ourselves we cannot afford a business plan under this Act without helping each other. We want to remain independent, but shall we be able, by clubbing together in this way, to present two separate business plans with an element of co-operation between us?" The answer is "Yes".
LORD STONHAM: I am afraid I have misunderstood the noble Lord. When he used the expression "an element of co-operation", I read more into his first words than was obviously there. The point is not being conceded. The Amendment is certainly not covered by Clause 2. I say again to the noble Lord that I should have thought this principle, which has now been fully expounded and explained, would have commended itself to the Government. It seems to me to be entirely in line with what was done in the 1960 Act, except that it just extends it from marketing, distribution and other things into the field of production. Surely that is wholly desirable. I do not think there is anything much in winning Lobby victories, but everything in achieving your objective, and I am always out to get results in that way. I hope, now that the matter has been explained, that the noble Lord may say to us that he will take this back and have a look at it, so that we can return to it on the Report stage, as undoubtedly we will.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know whether the noble Lord will see it in my way, but it seems to me that what he is asking us to do is to enable a large horticultural business to be described for the purpose of grant as a small horticultural business, in order to qualify for the small business plan, whereas in fact it is not a small business. This I think we could not do.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I interrupt to ask the noble Lord how the grant will be fairly divided between two growers who have a loose system and there is no partnership?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I hesitate to give examples, because if I give examples it may be taken that in the event they would qualify. But there must be, and indeed there are, many ways in which two neighbouring small horticultural growers can help each other by acquiring facilities and vehicles which they could not use fully themselves individually, but which, by co-operating with each other, they could use to the full.
LORD WISE: I do not know whether the point has been dealt with during the course of the afternoon, but might I ask the Minister this question? What is the position of a father and two sons, none

993
of them eligible for the grant by reason of their smallness, and they do not qualify? If they come together and their eligibility does not override the 20 acres, or whatever it is, are they entitled to a grant or not?
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is what the noble Lord described as being the other end of the scheme This is the opposite end.
LORD WISE: But it is a partnership.
LORD ST. OSWALD: As I said on Second Reading, we are discussing with the National Farmers' Union whether, in spite of the very formidable difficulties, any way can be found of allowing a viable business of less than four acres to qualify in its own right. If, in spite of our joint efforts, we are unable to find a solution, there is still the alternative of small growers going into partnership. This, to my mind, would be a very satisfactory solution.
LORD STONHAM: But it is a solution which is only possible if you have another small grower with whom you can go into partnership. That really is the essence of the case that I put—to have a lot of people in a co-operative, some quite small, some larger, but getting together with a common production objective. I feel that in the beginning there was certainly not complete understanding on either side. I think we are much closer to it now. I believe we should study carefully what has been said on both sides, and perhaps the noble Lord will give a limited undertaking that he will look at it again in the hope that the Government may be able to come forward with their own Amendment to cover the point. Failing that, we shall have an opportunity to return to the charge on the Report stage, when we shall both have a clearer picture of what we wish to do.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know whether I made it clear to the noble Lord. In point of fact, given this degree of co-operation each grower would receive the grant in his own right. I do not mean that the grant would have to be divided among them. The thought I would leave with the noble Lord is this. How can we explain, under his plan, that what has become a large horticultural business within the qualifications
994
of this clause is not a large horticultural business—that because two or three people have joined together into one business, it is really still three small businesses? This is very difficult to explain.
LORD STONHAM: I do not think there is any difficulty at all. If Brown, Smith, Jones, Harrison and Robinson, all tenant farmers, still paying their rents and running their farms, join together in a co-operative enterprise for a specific purpose, and the only sovereignty they surrender is in relation to that productive enterprise, they are still small businesses and still qualify for grant; but, for the matter of administrative and financial convenience, helpful to the Ministry and helpful in every other way, they make one application through a co-operative. I should have thought that was perfectly clear and more desirable. That is what I want the Government to accept. If they cannot do it now, I hope they will come to it by the Report stage.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I say that nothing would please me more than to assist the noble Lord? But the fact is that unless we are talking about the same thing—and it does not seem to me that we are—I cannot promise him that we shall be able to help very much on Report stage. On the other hand, what I should like to do is to talk to him and let him know exactly what we mean by this form of co-operation, find out from him what he means, and then conceivably we shall find that we are as close as we thought we were when we started, and closer than we think we are at this point.
LORD STONHAM: I should not think that we shall find ourselves very close, but it is conceivable that by the end of the day we shall find we are. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Grants for improvement or initial operation of co-operative marketing businesses]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STONHAM: There is one point I should like to put to the noble Lord arising out of this clause. It concerns the investments in a co-operative society, which, as the noble Lord is aware, are constantly revolving. For example, one member retires and is refunded his share in the society, and another takes his place with a new share. It would be nonsense if, in a scheme for helping growers through a co-operative, the Minister were to say that, because one member has retired and taken £500 out, his shareholding in the society, and the society has had ten new members with £50 each, these are not going to count towards grant because the society's total capital has remained unchanged. If, therefore, established co-operatives are not to be discriminated against, that is a point which has to be considered.
A further practical point which has to be taken care of in the regulations is that there are a great many people who are neither specialist farmers nor specialist horticulturists, but who have a mixed business and expect their cooperative society to cater for all sides of it. If, for example, a member in Worcestershire Farms Limited, which is a general purpose society with a strong horticultural marketing division, responded to an appeal from his society to increase his investment so that some new horticultural marketing division could be financed, it would be somewhat frustrating if the scheme were to say that part of his investment was to be eligible for consideration in respect of a Ministry grant, and part of it not. This is just the sort of thing that might happen unless great care is taken with the wording of the scheme to avoid that happening. I wanted to raise that with the Minister now, and I hope he will be able to say that the point is seized of and will be taken into account.
LORD ST. OSWALD: What the noble Lord is saying is that he wants us to take this into careful account when the scheme is formulated. This I will certainly undertake to do.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants for co-operative markets]:
5.19 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2)(b), after sub-paragraph (iii) to insert:
996
"(iv) A special grant of £20,000 shall be paid to the Gloucestershire Marketing Society, Cheltenham, being the sum which would have been paid towards the expenses of building and equipping a new market for the society, including provision of an experimental clock auction, if the references, in subsection (1) of this section, to section 1(2) of the Horticulture Act 1960 had been included in that Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an appeal for belated justice on behalf of the Gloucestershire Marketing Society, which is a society of growers founded in 1918 and which has some 600 members. It is therefore one of the oldest and largest of the societies, and it is currently suffering for having been one of the most enterprising. It went ahead with the building and equipment of a new market, covering some £120,000, of which £15,000 was for the provision of an experimental clock auction. They expected to get £32,000 in grants, but have received only about £12,000, and as a consequence they have had to borrow the shortfall of £20,000 on mortgage and are finding this is a crippling burden. There is no question but that they were encouraged by the Government to go ahead with the market and indeed with the clock auction. However, they have had a Government grant for only £3,000 through the now defunct Horticulture Improvements Scheme plus £8,800 from the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee, and the Government say this represents 80 per cent. of the cost of the clock auction and have washed their hands of the affair in this way and presumably absolved their troubled consciences—that is always assuming that Conservative Governments have consciences. The plain fact is that this society, in the midst of an important horticultural area, proceeded with this project not only on their own behalf but for the benefit of the whole country.
It is also a fact that the Minister has since admitted to an anomaly in the 1960 Act which was the omission from the Act of the words
"or for conducting a market for the sale of horticultural produce".
These words are now, of course, being added to the Bill and the anomaly will therefore be removed. The third indisputable fact is that if this society had waited another two or three years until this Bill became an Act, they would have had no difficulty in getting the full

997
£32,000. Another fact is that because they were enterprising and because they trusted the Government they have been fined, as it were, £20,000; and I think the only way to redress that is to accept this Amendment.
The Government naturally become very legally minded and say they cannot do it because it would be retrospective, and that if they agree to that then every farmer repairing a cottage or a greenhouse without grant would come forward with a claim. I suggest that is nonsense. We are merely suggesting that one case arising out of the anomaly should be corrected, and this is the only society in this precise position which has been caught by this anomaly. The Government say that the society's enterprise is highly commendable and that they are doing a service to their country. Therefore, surely the Government are bound to pay this debt of honour; indeed, I think they should pay a bonus because, judging by Continental experience, the establishment of a clock auction is likely to do more than any other single thing to redress the position. I think the case is a strong one, and f hope the noble Lord will accept it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: We have followed this argument with the greatest interest. As the noble Lord says, the whole project was estimated to cost about £120,000, of which £15,000 was for the clock auction facilities. As he has said, the Horticultural Marketing Council made a grant of £3,000 and the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee promised another grant estimated to be about £8,800. In addition, the society will have received a grant which is expected to amount to about £14,000 in respect of that part of the work which is eligible for one-third grant under the Horticultural Improvements Scheme. I think the noble Lord left that out.
However, because the terms of Section 1(2) of the Horticulture Act, 1960, limit the amount which may be paid under the Horticulture improvements Scheme to facilities for storage of horticultural produce, this grant is confined only to part of the whole cost. That part which has regard to facilities for conducting the market, as distinct from preparing produce for market, is ineligible for grant under the terms of the Act.
998
The Amendment refers to the provision of an experimental clock auction and grants estimated to he between £14,000 and £15,000, as has been said in another place, have been made. What the Society has missed is something up to about £20,000 which they might have expected if this Bill had been passed and they had made a scheme covering the whole of the rest of the Society's proposals before they applied for the grant. I think they received a grant of about 80 per cent. for that part of the project concerned with clock auction facilities.
The Society believes that it is the only co-operative which has missed in this way a grant for which it would have been eligible if it had been less enterprising and had waited a few years. Whether or not this is so there are others, if not in precisely the same circumstances, both co-operatives and individual growers, who are in a similar position and I think they would have had something to say in this matter.
We have announced our intention of widening the scope of the existing improvement scheme as soon as legislation has been enacted. For instance, we have said that the replacement of an existing glasshouse will be eligible for grant.
The noble Lord says that they are in different circumstances. That does not mean that they would consider themselves less hard-done by but they regret that grants were not available for the purpose at the time.
LORD STONHAM: I think it only fair to both the noble Lord and myself to make it quite clear that I did not read his speech before I made mine.
LORD ST. OSWALD: And I certainly did not read the noble Lord's speech before making mine! However, to revert to the point under discussion, this sort of thing is bound to happen whenever the Government introduce a scheme for grant. There will always be someone who would be just outside, and I cannot see that we should be justified in undermining what is a well-established principle; that is, that legislation of this kind should not be retrospective. The noble Lord has said that he is making an appeal for justice, but if

999
this were recognised as an appeal for justice there would be many other such appeals, even though he thinks this should be considered as a case entirely apart.
5.28 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: The noble Lord has said that he has no desire to undermine some principle. But I think his comment and his recital of the sequence of events since 1960 indicate an undermining of the basic principle of this Bill. I should have thought the Amendment would be welcomed by the Government: because, when all is said and done, there is the attempt, and I believe it is an honest attempt, to encourage self-help, whether it be in agriculture or anywhere else. The purpose of this assistance should be to aid and encourage people to do something for themselves; to stimulate enterprise; to stimulate effort among agriculturists and horticulturists, and here we have an actual case. In 1960, according to the statement of my noble friend, a co-operative embarked upon an enterprise of the type which this Bill is seeking to encourage. At that same time they expected (and I believe they were almost led to expect) that they would secure assistance for that particular effort under the 1960 Act. Unfortunately, they were mistaken, and this present Bill corrects one of the anomalies of the 1960 Act which precluded the Gloucestershire Marketing Society from securing the £20,000 mentioned by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend.
I need not reiterate the points which have already been made. It has been suggested—and it was the only argument mentioned by the noble Lord opposite—that it could encourage others to come along with a claim. But it has been categorically stated that there is no other co-operative or other enterprise that has embarked upon a scheme of this character which could legitimately make a claim for a similar amount. Even had there been more than one, I should have thought that, in keeping with the whole principle of this Bill, which is to encourage enterprise, a claim would have been granted; because in itself that would do a great deal of good. It would stimulate people, rather than cause them to wait year after year before embarking
1000
upon something in the hope that the Government might come along and give them some assistance. I know that there is always the question of creating precedents, and that retrospective activity, like retrospective legislation, is not in all cases good. But here is a case where having a good heart can mean good sense. I should hope that at least once in a while the noble Lord opposite, expressing the point of view of the Government, would combine that good heart with good sense and say: "Yes, we will accept the Amendment."
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hope that we shall not be led away by such—I almost said nonsense. These grants are controlled by Acts of Parliament, and the Horticulture Act lays down the terms under which growers may become eligible for grants for various works. The Gloucester Co-operative made an auction clock—
LORD PEDDIE: What I am expressing now is undoubtedly not nonsense, and I am sure the noble Earl opposite must realise that under the 1960 Act it was appreciated by the Gloucester Society that there would be no particular assistance in connection with the auction clock. The point which is being put forward from this side has no reference to the expense which was incurred in connection with the auction clock.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The point that is being made is that some thing, or some form of work, which admittedly did not qualify for grant under the 1960 Act would become eligible under a subsequent Act. This happened over and over again, and is bound to happen over and over again. In the general agricultural sphere, I well remember a great many people putting up silos, and they received no grant assistance. Later on, a special Act was brought in which enabled people to get assistance for silos. Are we to go back, merely because a subsequent Act provides for grants to be given in particular cases and, on the specious plea that they have been doing a good agricultural process, say that grants should also be given to all the other people who put up silos? There is surely no means by which we can deal with public funds except by Acts of Parliament and under the rules and regulations laid down. It would lead to

1001
the most terrible precedents if, because subsequently an Act makes something eligible which was not eligible at the time, we were to say: "This was very bad luck; we shall I make you a retrospective grant". Should we do that the other way round, with taxation?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses
6.—(1) A grant under section 4 of this Act or section 1(2) of the Horticulture Act 1960 (as amended by section 5 of this Act) shall not be made to an association whose business comprises the marketing of horticultural produce grown by its members unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the constitution of the association contains provision designed to secure that a sufficient proportion of the horticultural produce grown by a member is made available by him for marketing by the association.
5.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "is satisfied that the constitution of the association", and to substitute:
"having regard to the purposes of the association, is satisfied that its constitution".
The noble Lord said: Clause 6 was introduced into the Bill as a result of a proposal put forward in Standing Committee in another place. When the clause was originally drafted it set out to do two things: first, to safeguard the Government's investment, as it were, in a society which had received grant aid; and, second, to enable such a society to recover damages to its business through any failure of a member to honour his obligations in delivering produce. Actually, the real point at issue was the second point, which had aroused a great deal of interest during the 1960 Horticulture Bill discussions. Since, however, there could be no question of defaulting on an obligation unless there had been a prior agreement, it was necessary that the Minister should be given some power to require that provision for such agreements should be included in a society's rules. It was further considered that the Government investment in a society by way of grant was a sound justification for doing so.
The possibility of including in a society's rules any penalty for non-compliance with an agreement has already been examined in some detail by the Godber inter-departmental Committee which reported in 1961. This Committee concluded that there was insufficient case for altering the law in the particular instances of horticultural co-operatives to allow such a penalty to be imposed. Thus, this particular point, which was the real justification for originally moving the new clause, has since had to be abandoned. We are therefore left with the extraordinary position that a clause which was originally a means to an end has become an end in itself. The provision for contracts for societies and their members has become the main object in this clause, whereas in the earlier draft it had been merely a means whereby penal sanctions could be introduced.
I would say at once that the clause is not the less valuable for this change in intention, but there can be little doubt that in many branches of agriculture and horticulture contractual agreements between growers and their co-operatives will become an absolutely necessary counterpart of the contracts that these co-operatives are required to enter into between the bodies through which the produce is distributed. It is right that the Government should recognise this growing trend and encourage societies to make provision for it, quite apart from the necessity of securing its investment in societies to which it has given support.
But it is very important not to be carried away with the idea that contractual arrangements are in all cases a necessity. As was pointed out during a debate in Standing Committee in another place by the honourable member for King's Lynn, circumstances may well exist where, for example, a wide variety of produce is being grown and where insistence on hard and fast contracts between members and the society at a particular stage could very well slow down, rather than promote, the growth of co-operative marketing, because it would, in many cases, prevent the setting up of new co-operatives at all. There are difficulties where, for example, a society has a mixed agriculture and horticulture business or does

1003
a large part of its business in horticultural requisites, and therefore cannot easily apply the rules to one part of its membership which do not also apply to another. On the other hand, everyone will agree that where there is a specialist society—for example, one dealing in top fruit—contractual arrangements of the kind I have referred to are virtually indispensable.
Clearly, there are a wide variety of different circumstances and there should be an equally wide variety of methods of dealing with them. I do not doubt that this is the intention of the clause as it is now drafted, but if that is the case there is considerable doubt whether the intention is as clearly expressed as it should be. To begin with, it refers to
"an association whose business comprises the marketing of horticultural produce grown by its members",
which clearly includes all co-operatives having even a small part of their total business concerned with horticultural marketing. The words, "that the constitution of the association contains provision" seem to imply that the rules themselves must contain such provision, whereas it is more normal practice for provision to be made by a separate marketing agreement and not in the rules at all. The words "designed to secure" could have alternative interpretations—either provisions of a sort to secure, unless it is not complied with (in which case the appropriate remedy would be applied), or merely provisions which could be called upon if necessary.
To appreciate this it has to be seen what it is to be secured, and the thing to be secured is
"that a sufficient proportion of the horticultural produce grown by a member is made available by him."
Leaving aside the question of any difficulties in ascertaining how much produce is grown by a member, without which it is impossible to say anything about the proportion, what is meant by "sufficient"—sufficient for whom? Sufficient in the eyes of the grower, his society, or sufficient in the view of the Minister of Agriculture?
The clause as it stands, I think noble Lords will agree, is loosely worded, and the looseness of its wording gives enormous discretion to the Minister and creates considerable doubts in the minds
1004
of actual and potential members of co-operatives. I may be reading too much into subsection (2) to infer that he intends to exercise this discretion with greater strictness than in the past, but even if this inference were correct I should not necessarily quarrel with it. But this Amendment seeks to ensure that where he does exercise his powers he will take all the circumstances into account, remembering that however desirable new practices may be, growers have to be persuaded, led, and cannot be driven into adopting them.
I believe this Amendment, with the words we propose to insert and to which we attach very great importance, will provide all the safeguards it is necessary to obtain, and will make it much more likely that existing and potential co-operatives will go ahead with marketing schemes. That is certainly a major objective on this side of your Lordships' House in considering this Bill; and it is an objective which I hope the Government will share. We feel quite strongly that this Amendment will contribute to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,
Page 7, line 44, leave out from ("Minister") to ("contains") in line 45 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of the Amendment, and indeed we do recognise that there are many differences between individual societies. This has indeed been recognised by the wording of the clause, which leaves quite open the scope of the required provision in the constitution of these marketing associations. The provision can thus he of the kind which best suits the particular circumstances of an individual association. The noble Lord asked, as an instance, I think, what "sufficient" might mean and who would decide what was sufficient. I think the answer is that the society itself would decide and would have to define it, and of course the definition would have to be approved by the Minister. But I do not think this is a very difficult achievement to imagine. The Minister has no intention of requiring all co-operatives to have the same kind of constitution.
Moreover, granted the constitution as a whole satisfies the Minister, he has no intention of insisting that any or all sanctions shall be applied in every case.

1005
I think the noble Lord visualised a stricter, more rigid application than is envisaged. It will remain open to the co-operative itself to waive them if the member's default has occurred for any excusable reason. The noble Lord had in mind that it might be inappropriate to require such a provision in the constitution of an association whose activities are mainly, or partly, concerned with matters other than the marketing of horticultural produce. I agree the provision might be awkward to frame, but it should not be by any means impossible to relate such provision solely to those activities with which the clause is concerned. I think we can both imagine such a provision.
I myself belong to a farmers' organisation which is mainly interested in agricultural produce, partly interested in horticultural produce. I do not think it would find it very difficult to frame words which would cover this question. It is, after all, not very unusual or difficult to amend the constitution of a co-operative; nor is it an expensive proceeding. It requires merely the agreement of a special meeting of the association. The Amendment, in fact, would require the Minister to have regard to the purposes of the association in considering the adequacy of any such provision.
With respect to the noble Lord, I cannot see any necessity to amend the clause if the Amendment is aiming at that. The purpose of the association must necessarily be taken into account when the Minister studies its constitution, which will at least implicitly disclose its purpose. The definition of a co-operative in Section 8(4) of the Horticulture Act, 1960, which the Minister must observe, is also a definition couched in terms of purposes. The noble Lord will remember that a co-operative must have the purpose of storing and preparing for marketing or marketing members' produce. Accordingly, I can assure the noble Lord that the purpose of the association must in any event be taken into full account; and I should hope that, with this explanation, he would agree to withdraw his Amendment as being unnecessary.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and I think he has certainly cleared up some
1006
points of doubt. We shall study the whole reply with very considerable interest, and with that I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: There are two points I want to raise. I think one is more appropriate to Clause 7, but these clauses come together. The first of the two points is the difference in treatment now that the amount of grant is to be increased under Clause 6 as compared with the 1960 Act—an increase which, of course, we warmly welcome and which under the 1960 Act had excellent results. In the 1960 Act Section 4 routed grants through a central body, but by Clause 4 of this Bill grants are to be made direct. I know that the two situations in the two measures are not quite parallel, but the difference has the unfortunate effect that, while central organisations could apply for, and have received, grants under the 1960 Act towards carrying on their promotion work, there is no similar possibility of their making application under Clause 4 here, although there would be just as much need by growers' organisations under this Bill as under the 1960 Act.
The Amendment to this clause which was introduced on the Report stage in another place is a recognition of the fact that, during the first months of the life of any new society, it will not be able to carry on any marketing business, and it may well be a year or so before it becomes a commercially viable institution. During all that period the society is bound to lean heavily on the A.C.C. for the aid and support that it will require, and of course the Agricultural Central Co-operative Society is doing a great deal for co-operation in all kinds of ways. It is largely due to its efforts that there is a new feeling and drive and imagination behind farm co-operative development which was quite unknown a few years ago.
The Ministry gives the A.C.C. and other central associations general support, quite apart from reimbursing them for services rendered. But we feel that

1007
the amount of this support is something which should be looked at in the light of the extension of responsibilities: for example, A.C.C. with its vastly greater responsibilities, receives a smaller grant towards the promotion and encouragement of agricultural and horticultural co-operation than do either the Welsh or Scottish agricultural and horticultural associations. Therefore, if we are serious in our belief in the fundamental importance of co-operative action, this is surely a matter which wants looking into, and I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that this will be considered.
The other question that I wish to raise concerns the eligibility for grants of pre-packaging machinery and equipment. In my submission, it is wholly desirable that producer co-operatives should be helped and encouraged to undertake pre-packaging. As we all know, horticultural pre-packaging has made a tremendous advance in recent years, and in many ways it is the chief hope of the industry. The present annual produce turnover of self-service stores and supermarkets alone is some £42 million, most of it in pre-packed goods. There is also an increasing tendency in chains of self-service stores to contract buying from growers. This is also a most desirable development, because it not only means that growers are sure of their markets, but that the cost of distribution from the grower to the consumer is reduced to the lowest possible amount.
Under the 1960 Act, as the noble Lord is aware, pre-packaging machinery and equipment is not eligible for grant, largely because the Government take the view that it is easily saleable. I would submit that that is not really a valid objection, because it would be quite simple to make a condition of grant that the equipment should not be sold for a specified period without the approval of the Minister. This is what the Ministry of Education do in making grants for equipment and furniture in my youth club. Indeed, they hold a proprietary interest in the equipment for several years. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be favourably considered, and that the noble Lord can assure us that for approved schemes
1008
pre-packaging machinery will be considered for grant.
LORD ST. OSWALD: We will certainly look most carefully at everything the noble Lord has said. In answer to the first question, I can tell him that the provisions of Section 4 of the 1960 Act continue in the Bill. He raised the question of pre-packaging equipment. Of course that is something that is in our minds, and naturally we shall look at it, I will not say with renewed interest, but certainly with even greater interest and concern. He himself named the problem that faces us, in that some of it is dual purpose equipment and could be transferred to another industry. This is the difficulty. What I will do is to undertake to bring his views to those who will be framing the schemes and see what we can do to meet his wishes.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for that undertaking. On the second question that I raised I do not expect a positive answer. On the first question I raised, if there is any point which is not clear I hope that the noble Lord will write to me about it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I thought the noble Lord actually asked me to look at it. Did he ask for a direct answer on anything?
LORD STONHAM: No. I wanted the noble Lord to look at the matter. I thought that it would be quite impossible to give a public answer on the second question. All I am really concerned with is that it will be considered in regard to the schemes. But on the first point, if there is anything that I said that was not clear, perhaps the noble Lord will write to me.
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, I do not think so.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Grants towards fulfilling guarantees of bank loans]:
5.57 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "make", down to the end of the subsection, and to insert:
"grants to the Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited, the Agricultural Finance Federation Limited, and any other institution properly

1009
constituted to provide credit facilities for agricultural and horticultural businesses, in respect of expenditure incurred by them in fulfilling guarantees given by them as securities for loans made in the course of banking transactions to persons requiring loans for the purpose of horticultural businesses carried on by them ".
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. It would appear at first glance that, following the comments that were made by the noble Lord on Second Reading, this is really pushing at an open door, and I feel quite confident that the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. It is based upon the noble Lord's comments on Second Reading, which I will quote. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 46), col. 257]:
"What we are now doing is to offer the Federation one-tenth of the sums to be made available under the clause, and the Federation, in employing this share, will have the same status in the eyes of the Ministry as the Corporation will have in employing their share. They will, in other words, be grant-aided bodies operating in parallel under the same conditions."
That we welcome, with certain reservations which were expressed on Second Reading.
However, there is the need to be precise about these things, because the conditions referred to do not require to be laid before Parliament at a later stage, and therefore we must deal with them now. It is right and proper that this should be incorporated in the Bill. The first point is that the grant towards fulfilling guarantees of bank loans is a novel form of financial support—and, incidentally, at no stage have we had any precise information as to how it would operate. I think it was obvious from the start that there was the apparent intention, whether conscious or not, that there should be only one administering body. Now, of course, for a variety of reasons, the Government have awakened to the fact that there are at least two bodies capable of securing assistance and doing good work in this particular field. I will not proceed any further on that point because, as I said at the beginning, this Amendment is based solely upon the welcome statement made which accepted the A.F.F. as being a body undertaking work parallel with that of the A.C.C. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, leave out from ("make") to end of subsection and insert the said words.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Did the noble Lord say that he wishes to take Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together?
LORD PEDDIE: Yes, and No. 13.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The effect of these Amendments, as I understand them, and as the noble Lord has indicated, is to make it obligatory for the Minister to use the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Agricultural Finance Federation as his instruments for implementing the grant-aided credit-backing facilities under Clause 9. It is only fair to say at the start that, despite the arguments put forward by the noble Lord and despite his optimism, I am not going to advise your Lordships to support these Amendments. Noble Lords will remember the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill a fortnight ago. I referred then to the discussion in another place regarding the Government's original intention to give grant aid, under this Clause, to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and to that Corporation alone. The Government had considered the arguments put forward in another place directed to the importance of making further provision for the needs of co-operatives as well as of individual growers. The Government's thinking on this subject at that time had been that as there was only one body, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, actually operating and possessing relevant experience in this field, it followed that this should be the body to receive grant aid under the clause.
An argument was then advanced, however, that a substantial proportion of the business to be done under these arrangements would be done by, or on behalf of, co-operatives. It was further pointed out that there was in existence a body, the Agricultural Finance Federation, catering particularly for the financial needs of the co-operatives. From this it was predicated that it would be right to allow the Federation funds under this clause. This reasoning the Government accepted, and consequently we now intend that out of the sum of up to £100,000 which may be made available annually under Clause 9, 10 per cent. should go to the Agricultural Finance Federation.

1011
This being so, I had hoped, overoptimistically as it proves, that the noble Lord would not think it necessary to move these Amendments, although his noble friend Lord Stonham had soliloquised upon their embryo existence. What I should like to impress on noble Lords is that, as the clause stands, the Minister has the power to grant-aid both bodies. Moreover, it has now been made clear that he intends to do so. This being so, I cannot see any advantage in amending the Bill in this way. To write in the name of the bodies affected would certainly be contrary to normal legislative practice, and could cause future difficulties. But, reiterating the promise I have given, I hope that the noble Lord opposite may be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD PEDDIE: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation: I appreciate the reiteration of the promise that the A.F.F. will be fully considered. He will recollect that at the time of the Second Reading I had some doubts about the division of those funds; but I do not propose to develop that argument now, as I recognise that the principle has been conceded. I recognise also that Her Majesty's Government were not fully informed as to the activities of A.F.F. It is perfectly obvious that there was some misunderstanding as to the volume of its business and its area of operation. But, in the light of the promise made quite specifically to this House, that the A.F.F. will be recognised as a body operating in that field and deserving of the fullest consideration, on a par with that of the A.C.C., I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Grants for wholesale markets of national importance.]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"and for this purpose the Minister shall prepare a plan for the regional organisation of markets which shall be laid before Parliament and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
The noble Lord said: This clause permits the Minister to make grants of up to one-third of the cost of starting, reconstructing, or extending national
1012
horticultural markets of major importance. We have been told that the yardstick of "major importance" will be an actual or potential turnover of not less than £5 million a year. The clause also stipulates that, to qualify for grant, the markets must be
"of major importance in the national system of distribution of horticultural produce".
By this Amendment we seek to ensure that the Minister will produce a plan for the regional organisation of markets, so that we shall be certain that all factors will be taken into consideration in a truly national system of distribution. For this purpose the Treasury have to provide the substantial sum of £25 million; and, personally, I would not grudge a penny of it. It is hoped that the wise expenditure of this money will bring our marketing system up to date. But efficient marketing does not begin and end with the technical and mechanical excellence of the marketplace. It depends just as much on the position of the market in relation to centres of population and to the main producing areas, and on the adequacy of transport facilities by road, rail and water. All these factors are major reasons for requiring the Minister to put forward a plan which, although considered and administered regionally, will be truly national in its application. Without this Amendment, there is no certainty that this will be the case, for these reasons.
The first is that only some 15 to 20 markets are likely to satisfy the £5 million requirement—that is, 15 to 20 main horticultural markets, in a population of 54 million people, fairly soon to be 70 million. That is not nearly enough to give us national coverage. It would indeed accentuate, rather than reduce, the volume of reconsigned produce, which is the main curse of the horticultural industry. We have at present first-hand, second-hand and even fourth-hand wholesalers—each taking a profit, and each adding handling and freight charges. So, for an efficient marketing system, it is essential to arrange the markets so that dealings with first-hand wholesalers become possible in the overwhelming majority of transactions.
The second point in regard to an efficient marketing system is that the

1013
present proposals leave development entirely to the initiative, and perhaps the local pride, of local authorities, and of the proprietors, if they be private proprietors, of existing markets. I do not deny their initiative or local pride, but individualistic methods cannot possibly provide national coverage or put the markets in the right places. It is seven years since the Runciman Committee urged local authorities to press on with the modernisation of markets, but only Sheffield and Coventry have done so. My third point is that present markets are mostly in the centre of cities dense with traffic, and they create major problems of traffic congestion. But the proprietors, understandably, have a deeply vested interest in staying where they are. They will fight tooth and nail against re-siting. No single proposal, I am sure, will come from them which will be in line with the national interests in land use or the Buchanan recommendations.
We really must get down to these important problems if we mean business about not having our cities choked to a standstill. We have only to think of Covent Garden and the shambles created by the Government's muddled thinking and palsied inaction, and the obstinacy of the wholesalers. This, after all, is a horticulture Bill to assist horticulturists: but their interests were not considered when Covent Garden was before your Lordships. To a man, the growers opposed the Seven Dials site, but the Government ignored them. If we had a regional plan for the Home Counties, London would undoubtedly have four perimeter markets, but we shall never get them if we rely on the initiative of the owners or wholesalers in the present markets. The same story can be told of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and the other existing main centres of distribution.
In the national sense, we shall waste our £25 million if we spend it without first making a comprehensive national plan. In my view, during his speech on Second Reading in another place the Minister, Mr. Soames, showed his complete ignorance of the most vital point about the distribution of horticultural produce when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 686 (No. 23), col. 591]:
1014
"… these should be local markets, … and not a national organisation, because they deal with local problems".
I was quoting the Minister. Birmingham market and the other big provincial markets are only local in the sense that most of the people who buy there come from the surrounding area, but in the horticultural sense they are national markets. They receive tomatoes from the Lea Valley and Las Palmas, broccoli from Cornwall and Roscoff, cherries from Kent, apples from Essex, strawberries from Wisbech and oranges from Israel—all of them.
These markets must be planned with an eye to availability and co-ordination of transport facilities. We need markets sited, not within big cities but in relation to population and geographical areas. For example, there must, in the interests of horticulturists, be a major market in the South-West of England, and there must be another in Scotland; but we shall never get them unless there is a regional plan within a national plan. Without it, the words in the Bill,
"a national system of horticultural distribution"
will remain useless words in a Bill, and will never become a reality.
Thirteen years ago my noble friend Lord Walston and I were members of a committee which produced a "Plan for Horticulture"—and, despite the lapse of time, it is still the only comprehensive plan in existence. Throughout that thirteen years we have suffered the misfortune, coincidentally, of having a series of Conservative Governments, and nothing—literally, nothing—has been done for horticultural marketing. Some parts of our plan—for example, a teleprinter information service and the development of the clock auction system—have been implemented with great success on the Continent. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us in his reply whether such projects as that—the teleprinter and clock auction—would qualify for grant under this clause in connection with markets. Another of our ideas, a common container service, is now belatedly enshrined in the present Bill.
In our view, all these functions should have been administered by a public marketing authority, whose prime function would have been the setting up and

1015
improvement of markets—which function is now to be performed, haphazardly, by we know not who, presumably another subsection of the Ministry. We feel that the regional planning and administration of markets envisaged in our Amendment should be conducted by a public authority acting as the agent of the Minister, and that it might well be that the Covent Garden Market Authority, with a different title and suitably enlarged powers, could be the instrument for this work. I mention that because the Government believe in public authorities for marketing, because it appointed the Covent Garden Market Authority.
What I am suggesting is not merely a local Seven Dials version, but something which will cover the whole country. I invite the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, knowing the eager enthusiasm with which he always approaches the subject of Covent Garden, to let us know what he thinks of that suggestion. Also, will he let us know whether the Covent Garden Marketing Authority would qualify for a share of the £25 million; and, if so, would he be prepared to forecast how much will then be left of the £25 million for the rest of the whole country?
Finally, I would invite him to tell us how we are to have, in the words of the Bill,
"a national system of distribution of horticultural produce"
unless we have some person or organisation to decide where the markets are to be re-sited or built. And if, as I suspect, he tells us that that person is the Minister and the organisation the Ministry of Agriculture, I feel that the case for the Amendment will have been made, because, obviously, the Minister will have to prepare a plan which he will then lay before Parliament; and, equally obviously, since Governments and Ministries change, these provisions must be written into the Bill. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord must accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to support my noble friend briefly. The
1016
noble Lord the Minister, and I am quite sure the House, is aware that a very important Government document has been issued to-day dealing with the South-East of England. This is a plan, in the Government's view, to take account of what one might call the explosion of population in South-East England. It envisages, I think, two big new cities and a number of big new towns. This will make a tremendous impact on South-East England. It may well bring about a further attraction of persons to the area. We well know that the marketing arrangements for agriculture and horticulture are, in the main, based on London and Covent Garden. It is questionable, even if Covent Garden were to be rebuilt, whether this would be sufficient to take into account the explosion of population and the increasing needs of the public since, with rising standards, the consumption of vegetables and horticulture continues to rise—and it is right that it should.
If we are to reduce the cost of living, then obviously, I think, unless it is done at the expense of the farmers—and I cannot see Parliament ever agreeing to that—it must arise from increased efficiency; and I should have thought it would be generally accepted that increased efficiency can come only from the new systems of distribution, upon which these markets very much depend. Now the Minister is taking power to make grants. We have seen grants made available in the past, and I have very much in mind that which was given to the cotton industry. There, the manner in which these grants were to be used was left entirely to the industry, and we saw a great deal of unnecessary machinery go out of commission and be destroyed. But nobody in the cotton industry to-day would say that that industry is a great deal better off than it was before the Government made their grant. I will not say the grant was wasted; but it has not created the type of organisation within the cotton industry that I think the Government themselves would wish to see. This stems from the fact that the Government were not prepared to take the power to see that the proper reorganisation should take place.
My noble friend is moving this Amendment which lays a responsibility

1017
upon the Minister to ensure proper regional organisation of markets. I am sure that my noble friend does not wish the Minister to be a dictator in any sense; he would wish to see the Minister have consultations with various local authorities. But let us recognise that at the present moment we do not have regional government in the sense of an assembly of local authorities responsible for the type of areas for which these markets themselves would be responsible.
I can see that the Minister will have difficulty at present in finding the right authority to consult. But this could be overcome. At least we should have some organisation for discussion and decision as to where these markets should be placed in the interests of the general community. I do not think there is any rigidity in this Amendment. If there is, I am sure that my noble friend will be the first to say, "Let us have some flexibility". But we must ensure—and I think the Government would agree with this—that where we are making quite considerable grants in this connection (and money is not as freely available as some would like it to be, or seem to think it is) this money is used to the best advantage. Therefore, there must be some co-ordinating body, some planners, behind it. The Government have to-day accepted the mantle of planning, so here is their opportunity. If they accept this Amendment there will be responsibility on the Minister to have consultations and then to take decisions. We should then see a proper step forward in the new and efficient distribution of agriculture and horticulture. I hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment.
LORD PEDDIE: In rising to support this Amendment, I would express the personal view that it deals with one of the most difficult sections of the Bill: that is, the question of developing wholesale markets. I expressed the view on the Second Reading that we all appreciate the need for developing markets, and I recognise how little has been done over the years; but I think it is also essential to keep in mind that the mere spending of £20 million or £25 million by the Government will not solve this problem of marketing. I think it will need a measure of encouragement by the
1018
Government, and will also need the really practical encouragement and preparation of planning for regional organisation of markets which this Amendment requires. The situation at the moment is that very few local authorities feel a spontaneous urge towards developing markets. They are carrying on; and there is very little inducement towards development even in the offer of some grant. It has to be brought home to the local authorities by and through the presentation and operation of regional planning for developing markets by the Minister.
Another point of importance, which has already been made to the Committee, is that in another place there was an indication by the Minister that this was a local problem. He could not have been more wrong. It is not a local problem at all. Quite frankly, I think this Amendment would save the Government in the next few years from what could be a deplorable mistake. I doubt whether any single local authority is in a position, or is equipped, to give full consideration to all the factors that are being brought to bear, or are likely to be brought to bear, on this question of marketing.
It is not merely a question of physical transportation of goods, the distances they are carried, and all the appalling problems with regard to the siting of the markets. We all know they bad enough. But, in addition, there are great changes taking place in grading, which this Bill encourages in some measure. Development in the different presentation of goods, the tendency to streamline wholesaling and retailing—all these influences which are brought to bear on the marketing of goods, both wholesale and retail, are bound to have their repercussions on marketing. I fear that there is the possibility of local authorities, with the best will in the world and with encouragement through this grant, embarking on the building of markets which could become hopelessly out-dated during the passing of a single decade.
The acceptance of this Amendment would at least give the power and authority for the Government to make certain, whatever developments of marketing there might be in the future, that there would be some prior thought not merely related to one locality but taking into consideration all the trends and influences likely to have some bearing on this question

1019
of marketing. Therefore, I would commend this Amendment to the Committee as a practical and sensible one, and one which, in my opinion, greatly strengthens Clause 10.
6.27 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put down this Amendment. By those words I do not want to excite any optimism in his heart. I am pleased because, by putting it down, he has given me the chance of explaining rather more fully than I have been able to do so far something of the thinking which underlies this deceptively short subsection. Noble Lords opposite have stressed the great importance we must give to this question. Therefore, I am going to allow myself to speak at rather greater length—but not at too great a length, I hope—than I normally would have done.
I detected, or tried to sort out, certain trends in the arguments of noble Lords. I should like to take what I think I have sorted out in some sort of sequence. I think the basic point of criticism was that, by simply grant-aiding existing major markets indiscriminately, we might be freezing the pattern of distribution. I agree that we must ask ourselves the question: Are the major markets in the right places and is trade appropriately distributed between them? I think, if we ask ourselves that question, we find ourselves in imagination drawing up a regional plan for major markets, as the noble Lord suggests, and asking ourselves where we would locate them. I suggest that in this country, unlike in some Continental countries where conditions are very different, there can be only one answer at this point of time—I shall come to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised about the South-East in a moment; I am not ignoring that point, nor am I forgetting it. We should locate them in or near the centres of consumption and distribution. We should put the markets near the people and conveniently close for the retailers who serve those people and who rely on the markets for their produce. This means that we should put them where they are already.
As I said on Second Reading, since our markets system has been allowed to
1020
develop freely and naturally, it could hardly be otherwise. Where there has been a need for a growing wholesale trade in horticultural produce to serve a growing population, then that need has been automatically satisfied. The existing market has expanded or overflowed into adjoining streets, or a new concentration of wholesalers has sprung up. The system has been self-adjusting, and the result is that if you plot the main markets on a population map, you will find that the main centres of population are served by major markets of concentrations of wholesalers.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord said that there could be no change of location of markets, and that they should be re-sited. But that could mean a major geographical change—for example, Covent Garden might not be at Seven Dials, but at Beckton or Nine Elms.
LORD ST. OSWALD: If the noble Lord is after that, I think that I am going to satisfy him more than, even in my optimistic mood, I expected. As I have already stressed—and there is nothing between us here—many of our major markets are badly sited. They are too near the centres of cities to have adequate space or ease of access. But I think that their faults are topographical rather than geographical. What I am saying is that they are not badly located, in the sense that they need moving to a different city altogether. We are in harmony over this, as the noble Lord has just mentioned the point about Covent Garden moving to another part of the London area. As the Runciman Committee found, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with our marketing system. It simply needs improving and bringing up to date by the provision of good modern facilities. That is precisely what this clause is intended to bring about. I should perhaps add that, even if one wanted to reorganise the pattern of distribution and divert trade from one market to another, I do not see that the present Amendment would provide one with the means of doing so. Not even discriminatory grants at one-third of cost would enable a market chosen under some arbitrary regional plan to attract all the trade away from existing markets which adequately satisfied a real

1021
demand. Again, I am not using "arbitrary" in any pejorative sense. To reorganise the pattern of distribution, you would need much stronger powers than this Amendment would give. You would indeed need to take control of all the markets of this country away from those who have run them up to now and who have, broadly speaking, run them very well—though I gather that the noble Lord would not be particularly opposed to doing that.
I think that underlying the noble Lord's argument, was the feeling that by basing our selection of the markets to be eligible for grant aid simply on their throughput, we might be too generous to some parts of the country and not generous enough to others. This question of the choice of markets to be eligible for aid is undoubtedly a very difficult one. I think that we are not divided on the fact that there must be a choice. No one has challenged the view—which is, indeed, explicit in this subsection—that only markets of major importance should be eligible for aid. These are the markets which handle the great bulk of the horticultural produce marketed in this country, which because of the volume of produce passing through them are the most congested, and which will cost most to redevelop. How, then, were we to draw a line distinguishing between these major markets and the less important ones? It seemed to us that we must find a fair, open and objective criterion. We concluded that the only fair criterion was throughput. The markets which handle the most produce, and so, ipso facto, serve the greatest number of people, are, almost by definition, the most important.
A limiting factor is that the most recent and precise information we have about the value of throughput of individual markets dates back to the Census of Distribution of 1950. That is why we could not, even if we wished, draw up a list of eligible markets at this point in time, as we should be bound to do if this Amendment were accepted; and that is why we have not written a particular figure into the Bill. On the basis of the 1950 figures, and of a certain amount of estimation, we reckon that a potential annual turnover of about £5 million is the right dividing line. It will be for applicants for grant to satisfy us
1022
that their market satisfies this criterion, and we have been discussing with the local authority and trade associations concerned how this should be done. I think we shall find in practice that this criterion works out well, and that there is a pretty clear gap between the markets which qualify, and are unquestionably of major importance, and those which do not qualify and are unquestionably of less than major importance. But if we find, in practice, that we have pitched the figure a little high, then of course we shall be prepared to look at it again.
Then, finally, I thought I detected in the noble Lord's remarks a certain distrust or criticism of those who at present run this country's markets. In one of his typically colourful phrases, he said that he saw them "fighting tooth and nail" against re-siting. He seemed to want to take a measure of control out of the hands of the local authorities who run most of our markets. I cannot agree that this is in any way necessary or desirable. It is a most important part of the functions of even the biggest markets to serve a local demand for horticultural produce. We think this means that they can best be run locally, and in the light of an intimate knowledge of local needs and local conditions. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we do not intend to use our powers to impose conditions of grant in such a way as to interfere with the detailed day-to-day running of markets. We are content to leave this to the good sense of local authorities and the wholesale trade. And I am quite sure that we are right to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham (and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in one passage of his speech), asked me to say what sort of articles and equipment of the new markets would be included for grant. Of course, we want these markets to be as comprehensively and as modernly equipped as possible. If the noble Lord would like to send to me his suggestions for any useful systems or equipment, I can promise him that they will be carefully looked at. In fact, we should be grateful for any suggestions that he may make. The noble Lord asked whether Covent Garden Market would qualify for grant, and the answer is, Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked what provision would be made for the South

1023
Eastern area, on which the new Report has just been published. This is a forward-looking Report, which visualises conditions lying ahead. The clause, as noble Lords well know, allows for the provision of new markets and not simply for the enlargement of existing markets. I do not think any difficulty should be found, and the Secretary of State for Regional Development has this, among other things, in mind in the plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked me to say something about the special case of the London markets. I think that until we know where the new Covent Garden is to be located (I probably want to know as much as the noble Lord does, though nobody could want to know more) it is simply not practicable to consider whether another new market is necessary or desirable. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by discussing this further to-day. I would, however, make it clear that it is for any applicant for grant first to convince the appropriate Minister that the market has a potential annual throughput of £5 million; and this is pretty big turnover.
I have done my best to say why I think this Amendment is unnecessary in practice and somewhat mistaken in principle. Now that I have been able to explain more fully our intentions under this subsection, I hope the noble Lord will feel prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WALSTON: There was one remark, in particular, in the speech of the noble Lord that made me very unhappy and I think showed up the weakness of his whole contention. In referring to The South East Study, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord said: "This is a forward looking report". By what he said afterwards, he seemed to imply that it therefore had no connection with the Horticulture Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head. But surely the whole essence of what he has been saying is that, as opposed to the forward looking report on The South East Study, this is something which is not looking forward, which is not trying to develop our marketing systems in the best possible way, but simply going on what happened
1024
before, taking any existing markets, wherever they might happen to be, which have complied with the criterion of throughput of £5 million, and saying that because in the past they have had a large amount of business coming to them, therefore they must be worthy of support.
If to-day they have a throughput of only £5 million, whereas ten years ago it was £10 million, the implication is that it is on a declining scale and in another five years' time it may be only £3 million. Yet, according to what the noble Lord says, they will be able to gain from this money in order to bolster up what is, and should be, a dying market. There is nothing to stop that from happening, according to what the noble Lord has said. The grant will simply be made according to whether they have enough throughput or not.
That is the essence of this whole problem. What we want the Government to do is not simply to take the figures and say that anything which comes up to these figures is good enough but anything which does not is not, unless it can be proved that it is expanding itself—the noble Lord gave us that concession on Second Reading. We want the Government to say: "We have a limited amount to spend, and it will not be enough to go all round our markets"—of course it will not. "Therefore we, the Government, will undertake our responsibility to see that this money goes to those areas where the greatest benefit will accrue."
We ask them to make a plan overall. We do not ask for a binding plan or one that is going to interfere with the running of the market by the existing authorities, but we want to make quite certain that the markets which are going to benefit from this injection of capital are those which, in the national plan (and gradually we are coming more and more to having these national plans) will be the ones which give the greatest benefit.
It is not a great thing to ask, and I think it is something which the noble Lord would like to see. We say that as the Bill is drafted there is no assurance that this will happen. Some of the things the noble Lord has said to-day give us a little hope, but others give us a great deal of despondency. By accepting this Amendment, the noble Lord would at least show—if he agrees with it, as I think he does—that he is willing,

1025
and his colleagues are willing, to write into this Bill a paragraph to make it clear that this is the objective of the Government and this is how that sum of money is going to be spent.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think the noble Lord, for the first time in my recollection, has done me a small injustice, although certainly not enough to cause me any resentment: I think anything as large as that is something of which he is incapable. However, I said in my closing remarks to his noble friend that the Minister was unable to approve grant both for the provision of markets and for markets, either proposed or existing, with a potential throughput of £5 million. That potential can, of course, work both ways. If it can be shown that there is a future potential of £5 million or above, then it will qualify. If it can be shown that, even though it has a throughput of £5 million to-day, there is no possibility of its having £5 million in the future, then, by the same token, it will of course be disqualified.
LORD STONHAM: I, too, am grateful for the words of comfort which the noble Lord gave us in explanation, although I regret the more glaring omissions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for his kind invitation to me to write to him about these items of equipment, which I think should be considered, and I will certainly respond to that invitation.
With regard to the Amendment, I think the debate clearly shows that the case has been overwhelmingly made and we could not possibly withdraw it. Indeed, I am sure that in one way or another this proposal must be implemented, because it is unthinkable that we should spend all this money without any kind of plan or direction. We have now nearly finished two days Committee stage on the Bill, and the noble Lord has said "No" to everything. One consolation is that he says "No" more charmingly and less woundingly than anybody I know. But an even greater consolation to me is the certainty, as I see it, that before many months have passed we shall be sitting over there and shall be able to deal with this Bill and with marketing in the way we have wanted to for the last thirteen years.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Duties as to grading of produce
12.—(1) Except in such circumstances as are mentioned in subsection (2) below, a person shall not sell any fresh horticultural produce of a description in relation to which grades of quality are designated and defined under section 11(1) above (in this Part of this Act referred to as "regulated produce") unless the produce falls within a prescribed grade and is packed in a container to which is affixed a label in the form prescribed for that or any lower grade or, if not packed in a container, has affixed to it such a label.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are as follows:—
(a) a sale of the produce by retail
6.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a) and substitute:
"(a) the exposure for sale by retail of produce bearing a show ticket to which is affixed the label referred to in subsection (1) of this section and is clearly visible to intending purchasers, and sales of such produce which in the presence of the purchaser was exposed for sale bearing such a show ticket;".
The noble Lord said: I trust that I shall not encounter any too strong resistance if I take with this Amendment Nos. 16, 17 and 18, because these four Amendments are essential parts of a single proposal. We warmly welcome the Government's decision to implement yet another provision in the Labour Party's horticulture policy—namely, the designation of grades of quality of horticultural produce and to ensure their enforcement.
We regard it, however, as most unfortunate, and even disastrous, that they have decided that the prescribed quality grades should not be enforceable for resale sales. It is essential to the well-being of the horticulture industry to keep sub-standard produce off the market, and fully organised marketing cannot be developed until growers can sell their produce over a wide field by recognised grading and quality. They must be able to compete successfully with imported stuff which, I understand, is all graded—the rubbish never comes here. But they cannot compete successfully if, having gone to all the trouble

1027
and expense of grading compulsorily, as it will be, at wholesale level, their market is ruined by a flood of substandard produce coming into retail shops by the back door.
The Government appear to think that the proportion of direct sales from grower to retailer is comparatively small; but, to quote one example, the survey conducted in 1957 by Dr. Bennett, of Reading University, showed that in Bedford, one of our most important growing areas, 24 per cent.—that is, nearly one-quarter—of all sales were direct from grower to retailer. That is far more than enough to wreck the market completely and, with it, the attempt to help the industry by grading to a high standard. It must be remembered that growers will be taking a big risk. They know that graded produce must cost more, because grading is a cost in itself, and the selected produce has to carry the cost of the produce that is discarded or thrown away, or sent for processing. In fact, the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association are firmly of opinion that, unless these Amendments are accepted, and grading is enforceable at retail level, there will be unfortunate consequences. First, there will be a big increase both in direct sales from growers to retailers and in the number of grower-retailer businesses; and, as the Bill is now framed, none of this produce need be graded.
The second point is that co-operative marketing businesses will suffer, and, indeed, could, be ruined by losses incurred on graded produce. This is because, since grading adds to the cost, it can be justified only by higher prices, and these prices will not be realised if the market is ruined by half the stuff being sold in the shops ungraded. I know that the Government place reliance on the reserve power in subsection (3) of the clause, which will enable the Minister by order to direct that produce sold direct by grower-retailers must be graded. But the procedure for invoking this power is obviously so framed that it can be used to hold up action indefinitely. It is no good locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, and it would be wrong to insist that growers and co-operatives must grade their produce if, under the terms
1028
of the Bill, they stand a fair chance of losing not only the one-third grant they will get from the Ministry, but their own two-thirds capital as well.
There is not a single grower, selling through the market, with whom I have discussed this matter, who is not absolutely convinced that, if we are to have compulsory grading—as most of them think we should—it must apply to sales at retail levels. The grades would then be advertised, the housewife would ask for them, and both she and the grower would benefit. The growers are convinced that, without control at the retail end, the shops would be flooded with rubbish, the market would be destroyed, and the value of this Bill would be destroyed with it. I just cannot understand why, in a Bill designed to help the growers, the Government should act in a manner directly contrary to their interests and advice.
May I briefly explain how my four Amendments would work to avoid this? Amendment No. 15 deletes the exemption for retail sales, and provides for a prescribed indication of grade by a show ticket, prominently displayed. The retailer could then sell from the marked container, and would not be required to put a label on every individual sale, as I understand he is required to do to-day, under the clause as it stands. I should have thought that, for practical reasons that provision would have to be altered at the Report stage. The fact is that under the clause as it stands every individual sale of produce has to be labelled. That would not be required under the terms of the Amendment we are proposing: the duty would apply only to the main container. This is a more practical way of achieving the objective than the present subsection (1).
Amendment No. 16 would exempt from grading requirements grower-retailers selling their own produce in their own shop or store. There are many of these little men, and I see no reason why they should be compelled to grade. Amendment No. 17 calls for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4), and they must be deleted because they will be superfluous if the Government accept our Amendments to subsection (2). Amendment No. 18 places on the Weights and Measures Inspectorate the duty of enforcement at the retail end. It would be

1029
their job to make sure that graded produce is sold by its recognised grades in the shop. As I recently accepted appointment as President of the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration, I have to declare a sort of interest; but, frankly, I do not know of any other body of officers with the necessary experience who could undertake this work. It is idle to pretend that it would be appropriate to, or could be undertaken under, the Foods and Drugs Act. Weights and measures inspectors have acted as enforcement officers under the Agricultural Produce and Marketing Acts, and under the Merchandise Marks Acts, in respect of imported horticultural produce.
The Molony Committee on Consumer Protection endorsed the view that, when goods were sold by grading and quality marking, the task of enforcement should fall on weights and measures inspectors. Similar views were expressed by the President of the Board of Trade during discussions on the Weights and Measures Bill of happy memory. They have the knowledge and the necessary national network, and I trust your Lordships will agree that they should be appointed to this important task in this Bill. But, irrespective of the agents of enforcement, the case is surely unanswerable—it is in my view absolutely unanswerable—that if grading is to bring the hoped-for increase in the efficiency and prosperity of the horticultural industry, it must apply not only at the wholesale level but also at the retail level. I trust that the Government will accept that view and this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, leave out line 8, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.56 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The objectives of the noble Lord are identical with those put forward in Amendments in another place, and I have listened very carefully, without, I am afraid, being convinced that it is desirable or practicable that grading should be taken through to the retail stage. As I said during the Second Reading debate, what we want to do is to enable the horticultural industry to compete on equal terms with overseas suppliers. This can be achieved, so far as grading is concerned, by ensuring that home-grown produce is properly graded before it
1030
reaches the retailer. That is all that happens with imported produce, and it is not necessary to have compulsory grading in the shops to put our own growers' produce on an equal footing with imported produce.
Here I should like to make it clear beyond all doubt that we will not allow the concept of compulsory grading to be undermined in the marketing of any considerable volume of ungraded homegrown produce outside the wholesale channels of trade. The noble Lord mentioned one example of 24 per cent. of produce being retailed in a certain area. This sounds a little wrong—or perhaps I am not understanding it. I do not know how large an area it was.
LORD STONHAM: It was in Bedfordshire, which is one of the largest vegetable concentrations in the country.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Paragraph (e) of Clause 12 exempts from grading and labelling requirements direct sales of produce to retail outlets from which it is sold, but the Minister has already said in another place that he will not allow this direct delivery, if it grows to a dangerous level, to undermine the general objectives. Under the Bill as it stands the ungraded produce has to be delivered by the grower to the particular shop from which it will be sold and this in itself, we think, should provide an effective limitation. This is a limitation which, of course, does not exist at the moment in Bedfordshire or anywhere else. But should this exemption prove to be a loophole in the grading arrangements, Ministers will have the power—and they will not hesitate to use it—under subsection (3) to make an order restricting these sales. I should like to comfort the noble Lord with that reminder. There will therefore be no more than an insignificant quantity of produce not properly graded arriving in the shops.
Perhaps at this point I might appropriately reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on an incidental point which he did not raise to-day but which my noble friend Lord Falmouth raised in our Second Reading debate. There will indeed be a minimum quality grade—and this includes size—below which produce may not be sold. This is one of the key features of a grading system. The bottom grade standard would be relaxed

1031
only if there were an exceptional shortage of produce such as happened, for example, in the severe weather conditions in the early months of 1963.
Granted that produce has been properly graded before it reaches the shop, let us examine the need for compulsory grading at this stage. The Bill deals, as its Long Title says, with horticultural produce in bulk, which is a very different thing from retail sales. One of the main advantages to retailers of being able to buy by grade is that, where they cannot subject a consignment to a detailed examination, they will nevertheless be sure that it reaches a minimum standard of quality; but, even when buying graded produce, retailers find it pays to look at it whenever possible so as to be able to select that which is nearer to the maximum than to the minimum requirements of a grade, or to select the best packed and therefore the least damaged produce. The consumer is in a different position; she can freely and carefully examine fruit and vegetables in the shop before buying. The appearance and the feel of fresh fruit and vegetables is an excellent guide to quality. There is not anything like the same need for the consumer to be protected against being misled.
The grading carried on prior to produce reaching the shops will ensure a greater uniformity of quality, and I cannot see what the consumer would stand to gain from compelling retailers to sell only according to grade. If, after grades for various commodities have been designated, there is a public demand for produce to be sold by these grades, or if retailers find they are useful selling points, then they will be used in the shops. Both greengrocers and housewives will have the free choice, and the grades will be used at the retail stage to the extent that they are found to be useful. This seems to me to be just as it should be.
Of course, if retailers used the grades incorrectly they would be committing an offence under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. Section 6(1) of that Act
1032
makes it an offence to display a label calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of goods so labelled. It would be open to the Food and Drug authorities to proceed against anyone in breach of this Act: their authorised officers already have the requisite powers of inspection and sampling, and there is no need to confer a new power upon weights and measures inspectors.
Even if it were accepted that there might be some marginal benefit to the consumer in having compulsory grading at the retail stage, it would, we think, be outweighed by the very considerable burden placed upon the retailer. I have enunciated, as clearly as I can, the reasons why I would urge that these Amendments be not accepted. My reasons are, in brief, that no case has been made out for extending compulsory grading to retail sales, and that the retailers themselves would find it unworkable, and that enforcement could not be effective.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, which I shall study with considerable interest. I shall not comment further at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported without amendment.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Reported, without amendment.