Lords Sitting of 21 March 1967

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

OCEANOGRAPHY AND UNDER-WATER TECHNOLOGY
2.36 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 what steps are being taken to regain the lead formerly held by the United Kingdom over the rest of the world in oceanography and under-water technology.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in the field of oceanography Great Britain and her oceanographers have been in the past, and are at present, held in high esteem throughout the world. The establishment of the Natural Environment Research Council has led to increased support for, and better co-ordination of, marine science in all its aspects. The development of under-water technology will be related to our particular needs on the basis of the best scientific advice available. The noble Lord may care to refer to the first annual report of the Natural Environment Research Council, published earlier this month, for a brief exposition of the Council's organisation, initial policy thinking and activities in relation to oceanography.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable anxiety that in this matter of oceanography and under-water technology the United Kingdom is falling behind certain other countries in the world? Is he further aware
658
that there is a great deal of enthusiasm and technical ability among quite a number of people in this country who are able to put the United Kingdom back into the lead? Could not the Government try to give greater support to oceanography and under-water technology in the various ways that are open to a Government?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am well aware of the great enthusiasm that exists, not least on the part of the noble Lord himself. I find it a little surprising, when the Government and the Natural Environment Research Council have given such a positive lead, and when such real improvement has taken place, that doubts should he expressed on this matter. I would add that this country is spending more than any other country, except the United States of America, in the field of the oceanographical sciences. While I share the noble Lord's enthusiasm, I am impressed by the real progress that has been achieved, and I would stress that the Government are extremely anxious to encourage all initiatives, including those in which the noble Lord is interested.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that further reply. Is he aware that, while there is no doubt about what the Government are doing in this matter, there is a great desire that they should do even more than they have been doing to further this extremely important work, in which great material and immediate advantages can be obtained for the United Kingdom?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the immediacy of the matter is, of course, a field for argument. What is essential is that there should be a continual drive, particularly in the wider scientific fields. One example which I might give of a new initiative is that of the Atomic Energy Authority's Conference on the Technology of the Sea and the Sea-bed, which is being held early next month, under the auspices of the Ministry of Technology. This is an example of the drive and the interest that is to be found in Government circles, as no doubt also in industry.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken, or will take, special

659
steps to investigate the effect of surface oil on the growth of seaweed? I have been concerned with this matter in the past and should like to know that something is being done in regard to it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord's question is prompted by the disaster that is happening at the moment. I cannot say whether research is being done into this specific subject. A great deal of work is going on in regard to oil pollution, and the many scientific bodies involved will no doubt consider this, but if not I will look into it further and let the noble Lord know.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, while acknowledging the noble Lord's own personal interest in this matter, and the progress that has been made, I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, would the noble Lord agree that one of the most important areas for research is the interface between the oceans and the atmosphere from the point of view of meteorological climatic forecasting? Can he assure us that research into this area is being actively promoted, in conjunction with the facilities which the Royal Navy can make available? Secondly, with reference to the noble Lord's supplementary reply, can he assure us that the resources of the Atomic Energy Authority will be available to help us regain the lead which we have lost in under-water technology?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hesitate to accept all the implications of the noble Earl's remarks about the loss of lead. The Atomic Energy Authority will no doubt play whatever part it is appropriate for it to play, but I do not personally wish to rely purely on the Atomic Energy Authority to regain a lead which I am not conscious of our having lost. None the less, I accept that the Authority has a part to play.
With regard to the noble Earl's first question, I would draw his attention to the Report of the Natural Environment Research Council, which states at page 33:
"Currents and water movements generally have a far-reaching influence on both the biological productivity on the oceans and atmospheric events."
660
That shows that in this respect great minds think alike, and that research is going on in this field. Also, I happen to know that the Director of the Meteorological Office is personally interested. There is great scope for activity, and those who heard Professor Lighthill (as I think the noble Lord did) the other day will appreciate the great importance that is attached in scientific circles to the study of this question of interface.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend press particularly upon his Government colleagues the importance of this subject, in view of the fact that two-thirds of the globe is covered by oceans and any nation which is master of the riches of this enormous area possesses an empire far more valuable than any ever seen before?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I prefer to approach this matter initially in general scientific terms and in the terms of the needs of the world. Two-thirds of the earth is covered by ocean, and wholly covered by atmosphere, which also is an area for research. Nevertheless, I accept the implication of the noble Viscount's question that this is a matter of great importance.

RHODESIA: EDUCATION OF AFRICANS
2.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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:

(1) whether, since the Treaty between this country and Rhodesia in 1923, administration of the education of the African population of Rhodesia has ben entirely a matter for the Rhodesian and not for the United Kingdom Government;

(2) what are the latest figures previous to the imposition of sanctions, for the proportion of the African population receiving education in Rhodesia compared with the countries of Nigeria, Tanganyika, Sudan, and Ethiopia;

(3) what proportion of the cost of such education has been borne by the

661
white population of Rhodesia and what by the United Kingdom Government.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the Southern Rhodesia (Annexation) Order in Council and the Constitution contained in the Letters Patent of 1923. Under this Constitution education came within the competence of the Southern Rhodesia legislature. There are no directly comparable figures of the proportion of persons receiving education in Africa. Finance for education in Rhodesia comes from a number of sources, including direct and indirect taxation of the people as a whole, and from the missions and direct contributions by African people. The British Government made a loan of £355,000 in 1963 for African education; £2·6 million Commonwealth Development and Welfare grants were given to the Multiracial University College, Salisbury, between 1953 and the declaration of illegal independence, and we are at present contributing £250,000 per annum towards the recurrent costs of the College.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord t6 say that no comparable figures for the various States in Africa exist. Is he aware that, according to the 1964 UNESCO Report—it is not a Report of the Rhodesian Government, but of UNESCO—in Southern Rhodesia 91·5 per cent. of the children of school age, between 5 and 14, were at school; in Nigeria, 40·8 per cent.; in Tanganyika 29 per cent.; in the Sudan 15·9 per cent.; in Mali 7·7 per cent., and in Ethiopia 5 per cent.?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Marquess has quoted figures, and I can quote others. What I said at the beginning was that it was difficult to get comparable figures, and I was, in fact, quoting almost verbatim from a pamphlet published by the illegal régime in Salisbury, which the noble Marquess probably has studied. The pamphlet says:
"Accurate figures are difficult to obtain for other countries in Africa".
But since the noble Marquess requires figures, he will also bear in mind that in 1965, out of something like 643,000
662
Africans of school age in Rhodesia, only 56 were in the upper sixth forth; and that whereas the present régime is spending £6·6 million on the white population it is spending only the same amount for ten times the number of Africans in Rhodesia.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord has not really answered my question. What I asked was whether he was aware that 91·5 per cent of the children of school age were actually at school, and that the whole of the expense of African education in Rhodesia, with the exception of the one loan which he mentioned, is paid for by the Rhodesian Government; and that in fact in 1964, which is the last year for which I have a figure, 9 per cent. of the total budget of Rhodesia was spent upon African education.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, these figures are contained in propaganda which goes out from Salisbury, and I accept most of the figures there contained. It is true that the régime in Salisbury has done a lot for primary education in Rhodesia; and we accept that. I think that what has been done there compares more than favourably with other countries in Africa. At the same time, it is true that there is gross discrimination against Africans so far as secondary education is concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, do the Government really think that putting on sanctions, with the object of ruining the country, is going to help African education, either primary or secondary?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what we really think is that with sanctions we can prevail on the reasonable people in Rhodesia to adopt a political and educational system which gives equal opportunities to all deserving people, both black and white.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that as soon as you put on a forcible thing like sanctions even reasonable people cease to be reasonable? Is that not the experience of the Socialist Government with regard to strikes over a period of fifty years, and is it not true to-day of Rhodesia?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord had better look at the original Question, which asked me for statistics about education.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether there would have been this agitation if the Africans had taken power instead of the whites?

HOUSING OF SERVICE FAMILIES
2.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 how many Service families, in addition to those already in the United Kingdom, it is anticipated will have to be housed in this country during the next three years, and what arrangements are now being made to buy or lease accommodation for them.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1967 (Cmnd. 3203), Chapter I of which states that 6,000 families will be brought back from overseas theatres, other than Germany, up to April 1, 1968, by which time withdrawals at present planned under the Defence Review will be substantially complete. These families will be provided with accommodation, as a result of the various measures described in paragraph 1 of Chapter X of the Statement, including purchase of houses in the private market which will yield, it is hoped, over 4,000 houses. No further withdrawals have yet been decided upon, although they are currently subject to consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government are refusing to accept offers of houses or flats for leasing? And is this not a misguided policy, in view of the fact that in all probability an even greater number than 6,000 families will have to be rehoused?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry: I did not hear the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what I asked was: Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have refused a number of flats for leasing for the purpose of housing and rehousing families; and in view of the fact that as a result of the Government's policy a larger number of families than is at present contemplated will have to be rehoused, is it not a foolish action to turn away offers of accommodation at this particular time?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the preference, and rightly so, of Her Majesty's Government is for permanent married quarters and for wholly owned houses. Most of those which are being negotiated upon at the moment are new houses, many of them in estates. It is much easier to buy them outright and to add them to the stock of new permanent married quarters, the numbers of which are being accelerated. It is difficult for me to give a definite answer as to how far the need will be met in relation to other possible withdrawals. I imagine that the noble Lord particularly had in mind Germany, on which no policy decision has yet been taken. But the position would appear to be that we hope to be able to meet this need. In so far as there is a shortfall, then of course we shall have to look at hirings, mobile homes and caravans. But I would assure the noble Lord that at the present time things are going extremely promisingly.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Answer he has given does not reinforce the fact that it would be much wiser to put a number of these surplus troops in Malta, where there is ample accommodation for the troops themselves and also ample accommodation for their wives and families. Would not that be a great economy for the Government and for the taxpayers of this country, and a great economic advantage to Malta?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl that there has been some extension—some postponement of the run-down—in Malta, but the general answer to his question is, No, my Lords.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many caravans and tents will be required for the surplus married families?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know that the noble Lord is asking his question in quite such a serious mood as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, No doubt the noble Lord has a special partiality for tents; but I do not think his question really warrants an answer.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, on the contrary. I think it has already been said by the Government that caravans will be required; and when I visualise the number of families coming home from beautiful married quarters that have cost the British taxpayer a great deal of money, we on this side would like to know how many of them are to be put into caravans, which they will not much like.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about tents, and that is why I did not take him seriously. If he will study the reply I have given, I think he will find that I have already answered his question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a short-sighted policy to turn away the possibility of extra housing for married families now? Is not one of the reasons why we cannot remove troops from Germany that we have no accommodation for families in this country? In other words, the lack of accommodation here is preventing the Government withdrawing troops from Germany in a greater number than they are now doing.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, clearly the question of availability of accommodation here is a factor. This relates particularly to families, and I have indicated that current plans meet our current planned withdrawals; and there is contingency planning well ahead to match any possible withdrawals which may or may not arise in relation to Germany. I can only say to the noble Lord that I have noted his point, and I will inquire further into it. But the view is that there is not the need to go for leasing such as he has suggested.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elaborate on the "No"
666
which he gave to my noble friend Lord Swinton? Can he explain what factors lie behind that calculation?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the answer to that is "No" also. If the noble Earl will rephrase his question I will try to answer it. The noble Earl asked me whether it would not be better, and in the interests of the taxpayer, to leave these families abroad where there are already married quarters, and I said that the answer is, No.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the suggestion is to spend as much as you can!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as I understood it, my noble friend asked whether it would be cheaper to move some of these families into existing barrack accommodation and married quarters in Malta, rather than build new married quarters in this country. I should like to ask the noble Lord why it would not be cheaper.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Earl does not know the answer. But I do not want to get into a discussion on balance of payments questions, and the whole question of our policy of maintaining troops overseas. This arises out of the considered policy of the Government to repatriate a number of our troops from overseas and to reduce commitments which at the moment are a heavy charge on our balance of payments. I think we are going a little wide on this. If the noble Earl would care to put down a Question particularly directed to this point, I will endeavour to answer it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, on the balance of payments point which the Minister has raised, would not this be but little adversely affected considering that Malta is in the sterling area, while many of these other places are not?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am surprised to discover how few noble Lords on that side of the House appear to be aware that sterling balances are a potential charge on our resources, and may affect the movements across the exchanges.

BETTERMENT LEAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LAND PURCHASES
2.57 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 local authorities who are negotiating land purchases are being pressed by the Government's district valuers to speed up these negotiations and complete them by April 6, so that betterment levy will not have to be paid by the vendor.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I presume that my noble friend has in mind cases where the local authority is negotiating for the purchase of land by agreement and has not exercised its compulsory powers. If compulsory powers had been exercised and a notice to treat had been served, or a contract for sale had been made, before April 6, 1967, no liability to betterment levy would arise. It is clearly right, therefore, that a landowner should not be prejudiced because he has agreed to enter into negotiations and has not required the local authority to exercise its compulsory powers.
District valuers are drawing the attention of purchasing authorities to cases of this sort, and are inviting the authorities to consider whether they should offer to serve a notice to treat on the vendor (where a compulsory purchase order is in existence) or should suggest that he should enter into a memorandum of agreement for sale as though notice to treat had been served, which would be equivalent to a contract for sale for this purpose.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it understood by him that my Question does not concern compulsory purchase orders, but negotiations that have been going on freely between one party and another? And does he not think that this acceleration may embarrass local authorities, by preventing them from "playing a waiting game" when they are negotiating, and thus compelling them to pay a higher price for land than would
668
be the case if they were able to conduct their negotiations in the way they thought best? Furthermore, is it the duty of Government officials to encourage the avoidance of tax?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the latter, I think I should rightly say that it is contrary to the duty of all to encourage people to avoid the payment of tax which they are required to pay. I think that I answered the noble Lord's question quite accurately. I was seeking to point out that we do not believe that a landowner who is seeking to enter into negotiations with the local authority should be put in a worse position than a landowner who is subject to compulsory purchase. In regard to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I do not believe that it will affect the price of land at all.

INVESTMENT GRANTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Walston will be making a Statement on investment grants.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 16), Bill read 3a, and passed.

GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 16), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I do not propose to move that this Bill be considered on Report, as at

669
a late stage an Amendment to the Bill has been found necessary. It is therefore proposed to take the Bill after Easter.

TEACHERS OF NURSING BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 16), Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURE BILL
3.6 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 14:
Levy: registration, returns and records
14.—
(3) Any person who—
(a) in furnishing any information for the purposes of a levy scheme, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, or
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, or on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, this is a technical drafting Amendment to achieve conformity with similar provisions in the Acts of 1937, 1947 and 1957. The sense of the wording is not in any way affected. There is a corresponding Amendment to bring Clause 68 into line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, leave out from ("scheme") to ("or") in line 15 and insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Inquiries by Commission]:
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:
670
"( ) The Chairman at any such inquiry shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing and shall be assisted by such members of the Commission as the Commission may nominate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was a point which we discussed on the Committee stage. The effect of the Amendment would be to require that, when the Meat and Livestock Commission to be set up under this Bill wish to hold an inquiry, instead of the Chairman of the Commission taking the inquiry, as the Bill now provides, the Chairman should be a qualified and experienced lawyer. Since we discussed this matter in some detail during the Committee stage, I shall not take much time over it now, except to say that, having studied Lord Walston's reply with great care during the interval since we were in Committee, I nevertheless feel that he was not convincing in telling us that the Chairman of the Commission would never find himself in the position of being both plaintiff and judge in his own cause.
The noble Lord told us that in fact at these inquiries the Chairman of the Commission would be concerned only to gather the facts in some particular situation. Certainly I accept that that would he his purpose. But, in the event of the Commission proposing a scheme of rationalisation which would later involve the closing down of businesses in some section of the industry, which of course they could do under the powers of Clause 9 of the Bill, the Chairman of the Commission would be very much involved as a party, and it would certainly not be true to say that he would not be in the position of a plaintiff. As he sits there conducting the inquiry, he would indeed be in the position of judge.
Clause 21 gives the Chairman very great powers in this respect. The inquiry has the powers of the High Court in summoning witnesses, sending for papers, requiring evidence on oath—these are formidable powers. While I understand that they are needed for the High Court in dispensing justice, I should have thought that, if they are necessary for an inquiry of this kind, the very minimum safeguard ought to be that the Chairman of the inquiry should himself be a qualified and experienced lawyer. This is the

671
burden of the argument. Both in principle and in practice, to carry the confidence of the general public in conducting inquiries of this kind, the Commission would be better off if they had an independent Chairman as the Amendment proposes. It is quite a small point, but a point of great importance. I hope that during the interval the noble Lord may have decided that he can accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not find my remarks convincing, even when he used his eyes to study them rather than his ears, because I must confess, with all due and becoming modesty, that I found my words extremely convincing in this case. Possibly because I found them convincing, I have to say that I still feel that the provision in this Amendment is completely inappropriate to the type of inquiry which is provided for in Clause 21. I do not want to go over ground which we have covered in the past, but I think this is an important matter, so if I may I should like briefly to repeat some of the things which I have already said.
First of all, these powers relate to inquiries which are essentially for the purpose of obtaining information. They are in no way disciplinary tribunals or courts of law. There would be no question whatsoever of the Commission being judge in their own cause, because in fact there would be no cause; no-one would be deciding for or against a person giving evidence. The inquiries would be solely for the purpose of enabling the Commission to obtain the information which they need in order to discharge their functions, and there is no power in Clause 21 for them to do more than this.
I am afraid it is a fact that there has been some misunderstanding about this. There are many people—and I rather think that the noble Lord may be among them—who feel that these fact-finding inquiries would put somebody in peril. Unfortunately, the very safeguards which have been written into the clause may
672
have added to this misunderstanding. As your Lordships may know, the Bill was amended in another place to give full protection to anyone who might be in difficulty about giving information before the Commission. This protection of course brings in the right of legal representation and of appeal to a court about the validity of any summons and so on, and that may have given the impression that this is in fact a form of legal tribunal.
But this in no way alters the fact that the witness who enjoys this protection is not being accused of anything at all; nor is he being threatened with any penalty as a result of what may be disclosed in his evidence. That, I think, is something which ought to be emphasised in this case, because it puts the matter in what I consider to be its correct proportion. The question has been raised of observing proper order at an inquiry where the powers under subsections (2) and (8) of Clause 21 are involved. The fact that there are legal safeguards for potential witnesses who feel difficulty about what information to give, in no way changes the character of the inquiry, and in no way makes it into anything like a court of law. But the fact remains that under subsection (10) witnesses would at all times have the right to be legally represented if they so wished.
Some comment has been made on the possibility of using the powers of inquiry under Clause 21, in connection with the preparation of a development scheme under Clause 9, and it has been suggested that an inquiry might, therefore, put a trader out of business. It is perfectly true that there would be nothing to prevent the Commission from using the powers under Clause 21 to obtain the facts, before deciding whether or not to prepare a draft development scheme. I assume that no one would suggest that it would be better for the Commission to be ignorant of the facts before they prepared such a scheme. But this process of obtaining the facts would not in itself put anybody out of business, and there is no case on these grounds for requiring such inquiries to have a legal chairman.
Once the facts had been obtained, a development scheme might subsequently be drafted under Clause 9 which could have such an effect of putting a trader out of business. But such a scheme

673
would then have to go through all the procedures laid down in Clause 2 and Schedule 2 for consultation with the interests concerned, publication and objections, ministerial inquiries, and approval by Ministers and Parliament, before it could become law, and no inquiries under Clause 21 could by-pass this process or be a substitute for it. If it is argued that the powers of inquiry might be used in connection with a development scheme already made, I suggest that this is a matter which would have been considered at the time such a scheme was drafted. Any development scheme would have to be considered in the context of all the Commission's other powers and duties.
This Amendment, as the noble Lord has now proposed it, would go even further than the one proposed in Committee, since in the position in which it is now proposed to insert it in the clause, after subsection (1), it would apply to all the inquiries undertaken by the Commission, whether the powers to require attendance and to take evidence on oath were used or not. I suggest to your Lordships that this would be impracticable, since the Commission are likely to hold a good many inquiries of one sort or another on an informal basis in the normal course of their activities, and it would be next to impossible to have a legal chairman for all of these.
Even if it were possible, I do not believe that it would be in the interests either of the Commission itself, which is trying to do an important job, or of the people affected by it, that this should be insisted upon. This effect no doubt results from an accident in the drafting of the Amendment, but I think it illustrates the point which I have made. Most of the Commission's inquiries—indeed probably almost all of them—are likely to be held on an informal and voluntary basis with people coming of their own free will to give information, and the provisions for a summons and for the taking of evidence on oath would be used only in very special cases where more formal proceedings were necessary.
If the Amendment were intended only to bring in an independent legal chairman specially for an inquiry in which a summons had to be issued, this would obviously interrupt the Commission's progress in gathering information. As I
674
said last week, however eminent the independent chairman it would not be conducive to efficiency to introduce him at what would probably be quite a late stage in the course of consideration of a particular subject. He would inevitably be unfamiliar with the subject matter which, as the noble Lord himself said on an earlier occasion, is likely to be extremely complex, and it would tend to give the proceedings a legal emphasis which would be inappropriate to their purpose or circumstances.
I suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that this Amendment, although I am sure it is full of good intentions—and we know where good intentions sometimes lead us—would not be in the interests of those very people whom the noble Lord and ourselves are doing our best to help; nor would it be in the interests of the overall efficiency of the industry. For these reasons I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press his Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as to why this Amendment should not be accepted, but I am bound to say that I for one remain slightly unconvinced. Of course, no Party point whatever is raised here. All we are doing is trying to find the right and just way to organise the powers which the Commission are to have. The noble Lord has said that there are to be many informal courts of inquiry or aspects of inquiry—
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I did not say that there would be many; I said that the majority of them would be informal. The majority is not necessarily the same as many.
EARL FERRERS: I am sorry, my Lords. I was not seeking to find a point of difference. The fact is that the noble Lord said that there would be some informal inquiries. The whole nub of the problem is that by this clause these will not be informal courts of inquiry. They will be formal, and very formal, too, because the powers which we are giving to the Commission are of course vast. As has been stated, they are such that the result may be to put a person out of business.
The noble Lord says that it is essential that the Commission should be in posession of the right facts, and that this clause

675
allows the facts to be ascertained. But what in fact are we doing? We are enabling the Commission to set up a court of inquiry which, in turn, will subpœna people—butchers, possibly; farmers, possibly; or possessors of abattoirs—and force them to come to the inquiry. The only way in which they can get out of it is by making an application to the High Court. Then, having come to this inquiry, the Bill makes it imperative for them to produce all the relevant facts and documents—their trading accounts, if necessary; their sources of supply; their profits; their prices. All this information has to be produced before the Commission, and then, at the end of it, the Commission ascertain the facts. Furthermore, if necessary the Commission may take all this evidence on oath.
These are very wide powers which we are giving to the Commission, very wide powers indeed, and they are powers of a legal nature. All we are saying is that if these wide powers are going to be given to the Commission, then it is right that the chairman of such an inquiry should be a wholly impartial person. But the noble Lord comes along and says, "This is all right. We must have these powers, but the chairman of the inquiry shall be a partial person and shall be a person with a loaded interest". If the decision of any inquiry were to go against an individual producer or retailer, let the noble Lord he quite clear about one thing: even though justice were done, it certainly would not have been seen to be done. What we are anxious to do is to make quite certain that if the Commission are to be vested with very wide and very sweeping powers, then the chairman of the inquiry should not be a person with a directly loaded interest, but should be an impartial person. I think this is only reasonable. As I say, this is not a Party point at all. All we want to do is to see fair play. I believe that if we had an impartial chairman we should see fair play. I do not believe that if the chairman were to be a member of the Livestock Commission this would necessarily be so.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may, I should like to amplify, or possibly correct, one point in the noble Earl's remarks. He said, "if the decision were
676
to go against one of the people who had given evidence". What I have tried to make clear to your Lordships is that at this inquiry there is to be no decision: no decision is taken. That is why I have put it to your Lordships that this Amendment is misconceived. Because the object of this inquiry will not be to reach a decision at the end of it. I should have a lot of sympathy with the Amendment if, having held the inquiry, the chairman of the inquiry or the Commission then came out with a decision and said, "This is what is to happen, and this is the penalty which will be imposed on one of the people who has given evidence". But that is not to be the case. No decision is to be taken. This is purely fact-finding. Having ascertained the facts through this inquiry, the Commission will then make their recommendations—their decision, if you like, although I should prefer to call it their recommendation—as to what should be done. Then all the due processes have to be gone through—and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them once more—before the actual decision is taken and implemented. I therefore repeat that the inquiry we have in mind is a fact-finding one, not a decision-taking inquiry.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend why he considers it essential that the chairman of the Commission should be a member of the Livestock Commission? Most of us who have had experience of inquiries usually expect the chairman to be impartial. There may be a very good reason for it, but could he tell us why it has been decided that the chairman should be a member of the Livestock Commission?
LORD WALSTON: I will do my best to do so, my Lords. The object of this inquiry is solely to ascertain the correct facts on which the Commission will make their recommendation for implementation through all the due processes. These processes are fairly complicated and, I think we all agree, give ample protection to all the people concerned. Therefore, this is not a court of inquiry in the normal sense. If there is an aeroplane or railway accident a court of inquiry is set up at which a certain amount of blame is usually allocated to different people. This is not that form of inquiry at all. This inquiry is purely to obtain information as

677
to profit margins, scope of business, consumer interests, agricultural interests and all the rest of it. There is a whole gamut of facts which have to be brought in and which the Commission have to acquire before they come to any decision. For this reason, I believe that it is logical and simple, and in the interests of efficiency, that it should be the Commission themselves who acquire the facts for their own use and subsequent recommendations.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the trouble he has gone to in re-arguing his case. But the truth is that this is the only public inquiry that will take place before a development scheme is brought into being. When the noble Lord referred to the procedures of Clause 2, I wondered whether my memory was at fault, so I quickly looked through Clause 2 and Schedule 2 again. All Clause 2 provides for are the specialist committees. No doubt those specialist committees would consider the facts which were gathered at a public inquiry, but the decision would then be taken by the Commission; and if they were proposing to go ahead with a rationalisation scheme, it could be a scheme which would affect the businesses of the men concerned. The only public act which would take place after that would be the Minister bringing his Affirmative Order before Parliament. There would no doubt be a debate of some kind, perhaps both in another place and here, but the Parliamentary majority of the Government of the day would ensure that they got the Order, and that would be the end of it. So the noble Lord really is not right when he says that only the facts are to be gathered here. They are facts gathered from the people summoned before the inquiry, and on these facts the future of their businesses may be at stake. This really is the point.
The noble Lord criticised the point at which I moved to insert the Amendment, following immediately after subsection (1), but that really seems to me to be the logical point at which to put it, because as it now stands subsection (2) gives the Commission power to summon witnesses and this, after all, is part of the great power which we feel should, to some extent at any rate, be controlled
678
by having a legal chairman. I feel that the case simply has not been answered, and that both in the interests of getting fair play (because so much depends on what an inquiry of this kind elucidates) and from the point of view of the look of the thing, the Commission would be much better off by having a legal chairman. I am afraid that I must press this Amendment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I just take the noble Lord up on one point? He said that this is the only public act—
LORD DERWENT: I do not wish to interrupt a debate in which I am not taking part, but this is Report stage and this is the Minister's fourth speech.
LORD WALSTON: I will, with your Lordships' permission, speak. I think three is the correct figure.
LORD DERWENT: I withdraw one.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken twice and I have spoken twice. I am perfectly prepared to leave it now, but if the House would like further amplification on points of fact I would be glad to give it. Otherwise, I will not.
I was going to correct one factual point made by the noble Lord the former Minister, when he said that this was the only public inquiry that was to take place. Once the Commission had made its inquiry and had ascertained its facts there would then be consultation, admittedly in private, with the interests concerned. There would then be publication and objections, followed by what I described as the ministerial inquiry. Under Schedule 2 the Minister may hold such inquiries—they may be public or otherwise—as are considered necessary. I assume that if it is a hotly contested case there is no reason why the inquiry should not be in public. Finally, there is the greatest public inquiry of all, the public inquiry before both Houses of Parliament. I think that justice would appear to be done, as well as be done, under the scheme as it is set out.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his further explanation, but I do not think he has answered the substance of our points.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I intervene? I have listened to both sides of the argument. I hope that the Government will take this matter back and have another look at it.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

INVESTMENT GRANTS
3.40 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it might be convenient if I were now to repeat a Statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Oakshott, L.

Airedale, L.

Elton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rathcavan, L.

Allerton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Amherst, E.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Auckland, L.

Haddington, E.

Salisbury, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Barnby, L.

Hereford, V.

Saye and Sele, L.

Bessborough, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Semphill, Ly.

Braye, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sinha, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Inglewood, L.

Soulbury, V.

Buckton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Spens, L.

Clinton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lambert, V.

Strange, L.

Congleton, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Daventry, V.

Mar, E.

Vivian, L.

Deramore, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Willingdon, M.

Devonport, V.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, L.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hurcomb, L.

Rusholme, L.

Beswick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Latham, L.

Segal, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Brown, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonham, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Popplewell, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Walston, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Rowley, L.

Williamson, L.

The Statement is as follows:
"What I announced on December 1 the Government's decision to make a temporary increase in the rate of investment grants payable by the Board of Trade under Part I of the Industrial Development Act 1966 I stated that I intended to speed up the payment of claims as soon as practicable. I have therefore reviewed whether the new organisation which we have built up could handle more claims. Claims on

681
investment made in 1966 have so far not come in at the rate we allowed for, and I am satisfied that the organisation can now start speeding up payments.
"I have therefore decided, after consultation with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that payments of valid claims for the first quarter of 1966 which have been cleared by the Grants Offices should begin in April instead of July. This will reduce the average interval between a firm's expenditure and payment of grant from 18 months to 15 months from the very beginning of the scheme.
"We have already invited firms to submit claims from April 1 onwards on their expenditure during the second quarter of 1966, and it will be our aim to begin making payments on this second batch of claims in July.
"Under the old system of investment allowances the delay between a firm's expenditure and the receipt of the allowance averaged about 18 months. We shall be improving on that this year, and I hope that this will encourage firms to take full advantage of the temporary increase in the rates of grants for investment this year and next, and go ahead with schemes for modernising and expanding their production capacity."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement and to welcome it so far as it goes. I should also like to express the hope that it is only the first step in implementing the Government's promise to reduce the period which is to elapse between the incurring of the expenditure on the investment and the receiving of the grant. Is the noble Lord aware that in comparing the time between the incurring of the expenditure and the receiving of the grant under the new system with the time under the old system of investment allowances he is not really comparing like with like? Under the old system the time that elapsed depended on the part of the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred. Under the new system the delay is imposed purely arbitrarily. I hope, therefore—particularly since, when the Bill was going through Parliament, the main reason for this delay under the new system was said to be the need to avoid, as
682
it were, a double burden of payments on the Exchequer in the initial stages of the Bill—that as time goes by it will be possible to space these out more and more until the delay is very substantially reduced. Therefore, while welcoming the Statement, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that it is only the first step.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his welcome. Perhaps this is a debating point (although I do not mean it as such), but the noble Lord said that the delay was an arbitrary one. It was arrived at, however, for practical reasons. It has now been shown possible to speed up the actual payment. I will not enter into a rather detailed argument as to whether in fact firms will be paid more quickly than under the old system, or whether it will take longer, although I think the noble Lord would agree that on average they will receive their money more quickly than under the old system. But whether that is so or not, the important thing is that now they will receive their money more quickly than they expected. This achievement is due in part to administrative efficiency in the Board of Trade to which I pay due credit. I hope the result of this will be, as I said, an incentive to investment, which, coupled with the other incentives already provided, will prove effective.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that, while I recognise the administrative efficiency with which this is being done—and we hope that this will improve more and more—the main impediment, obviously, is the financial incapacity to meet the payments sooner; and I would ask the noble Lord whether the efficiency of the Board of Trade in this matter will not, so to speak, be "trumped" by the unwillingness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the payments earlier?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, while welcoming this speeding up, may I ask what amount of money is involved after the first quarter of 1966?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend an answer in respect of that figure because we still have to await the full vetting of the claims for payment. With regard to

683
the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I can only repeat what I said in the actual Statement, that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has throughout all these talks been in touch with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and at this stage, and so far as one can see in the future, there will be no question of the Treasury saying, "You have gone far enough and you must now stop". Obviously, one cannot anticipate what will be the strain on the resources before the actual claims come in.

AGRICULTURE BILL
3.46 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 38:
Recovery of possession of farmhouse vacated on amalgamation and let on regulated tenancy
38.—
the court shall, in proceedings commenced by the landlord at any time during the period of five years beginning with the date on which the proposals for the amalgamation were approved by the appropriate Minister, make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON moved to leave out subsection (1) and to substitute:
"(1A) This section shall have effect where, after the carrying out of any proposals for amalgamation approved for the purpose of a scheme under section 26 of this Act, a dwelling-house which, at the time when the proposals were submitted, was occupied by a person responsible (whether as `owner, tenant, or, servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any of the land comprised in the amalgamation is let on a regulated tenancy otherwise than to—

(a) a person who ceased to be so responsible as part of the amalgamation, or

(b) a person who is, or at any time was, employed by the landlord in agriculture, or

(c) the widow of any such person as is mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient for the House if we discuss this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 at the same time, as they
684
are all closely connected. Your Lordships will probably remember that during the Committee stage we had a certain amount of discussion on the question of farmhouses which belonged to holdings to be amalgamated or which had been amalgamated. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and his friends raised some points which seemed to ma valid, and I undertook to look further into the matter. The essence of this was that we considered it reasonable that a farmer who in the process of amalgamation took over another holding should not have to make up his mind immediately whether he wanted the second farmhouse, the vacated farmhouse, for his own use. Clearly, he would need to make his plans for the future development of the amalgamated holding on a larger scale, and would need to consider the financial side of the business and whether he would be able to lay his hands on sufficient capital to enlarge his operations—possible to start a pig unit or increase the number of his livestock. As a result, he would not be in a position to know immediately whether or not he would require that extra house for a farmworker. We should not want to have a house left vacant pending this decision, so we have made provision for him to let it and to be able to regain possession of it at any time up to five years after the amalgamation took place.
There then arose the second point. If the outgoing farmer from the amalgamated holding had exercised his right to remain in his farmhouse, when he eventually left the house (or when his widow, who1 also has the same right, left—perhaps because she decided to go and live in a nearby town, or with her daughter-in-law) there would be a period in which it would be reasonable to allow the new farmer of the amalgamated holdings to make up his mind whether to enlarge his holding and make use of this house which had become vacant. This would avoid his having to let it, so establishing a tenancy which it would then be hard for him to break, or leaving the house empty, with unfortunate results on the present housing shortage and on his own or his landlord's pocket.
In order to meet this legitimate point—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to it—I am introducing this Amendment, which will allow

685
the farmer of the amalgamated holdings, when the second farmhouse becomes vacant because the farmer or his widow moves out of it, a period of three years under terms similar to the five years allowed under the original Bill. I believe this to be a practical and reasonable Amendment, which will add to the value of the Bill, prevent houses from remaining unnecessarily empty and also give the farmer sufficient protection by giving him adequate time to make up his mind about the additional type of farming he wishes to go in for once the house does become vacant. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships, and hope that you will agree to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the explanation he has given of the clause as now amended, and may I thank him in particular for the concession he has made in giving the extra three years after the second farmhouse has been vacated by the retiring farmer or his widow. I am sure that this will be a valuable additional convenience for the farmer.
As the noble Lord knows, the National Fanners' Union would have much preferred not to have a five-year limitation at all, and the original form in which I put down this new provision did not include limitation. However, I recognise that the Government attach a good deal of importance to this limitation and to the option, and I think that we should accept the Government's view that a limitation of some kind is needed. I hope that the five years which the Government allow will be enough, in normal circumstances, for the amalgamating fanner to make up his mind about what he wishes to do on the new holding and whether or not he wishes to have the farmhouse. I would advise my noble friends to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 45. line 32, leave out from ("landlord") to ("make") in line 35 and insert
686
("during the period specified in subsection (2A) below").—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) The period referred to in subsection (2) above is one of five years beginning with the date on which the proposals for the amalgamation were approved or, if occupation of the dwelling-house after the amalgamation continued in, or was first taken by, a person falling within subsection (1A)(a) above or his widow, a period expiring three years after the date on which the dwelling-house next became unoccupied").—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45:
Rural Development Boards
45.—(1) With a view to applying the provisions of this Part of this Act for meeting the special problems of the development as rural areas of hills and uplands, and the special needs of such areas, the appropriate Minister may, in accordance with this Part of this Act, establish a Board, to be known as a Rural Development Board, for any area appearing to be one where those problems or needs exist.
(2) Those special problems and needs include the special difficulties in the formation of commercial units of agricultural land in such areas, the need for an overall programme for guidance in making decisions as to the use of land in such areas for agriculture and forestry, so that those two uses are complementary, the need for improved public services in such areas in step with their development for agricultural and forestry purposes. and the need for preserving and taking full advantage of the amenities and scenery in those areas in the course of their development for those purposes.
3.56 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "uplands" to insert "lying outside areas designated as National Parks". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment draws attention to a point which I believe is of substance. It was raised during Second Reading, but I do not think that there has yet been any serious reply from the Government. So I venture to raise it again. It concerns the overlapping of authorities which can arise under the Bill as drafted. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that this is something that we should guard against, because it is a danger which can lead to inefficiency and rivalry, rather than to smooth progress. It is not difficult to see clashes occurring in an

687
area that has the character of a National Park and also has a character which might be deemed suitable for the area to be designated as an area where a Rural Development Board might be brought into existence.
I should like to ask the Minister how what we should call, in general terms, planning powers work out in practice in these circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replying to an Amendment during Committee stage, referred to the duty of a Rural Development Board as:
"… to see that the land in its area is put to the best use".
That sounds very like a planning power, ominously like a planning duty. One would suppose that in a National Park planning powers would be vested under Statute in the National Park authority. It is a curious situation. They may be vested in the National Park authority, yet the Rural Development Board would have a firmer hand on the purse strings of a much bigger and fuller purse.
Let us look closer at this matter. The existing National Parks legislation must soon be due for review and some amendment in the light of 20 years of experience, mainly successful. If I may cite the Lake District, there the National Parks Board is the planning authority, yet the three counties concerned remain the highways authorities. It must be admitted that a good deal of rivalry is revealed. No one could happily see yet another authority placed on top of these, especially one that is not answerable to the electorate. I am moving this Amendment because I feel that it is better to avoid the chance of such overlapping, and I commend it to your Lordships this afternoon as a simple and practical way of doing this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 32, after ("uplands") insert ("lying outside areas designated as National Parks").—(Lord Inglewood.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I appreciate the motives of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, and I have a great deal of sympathy with them; but I hope that when he has listened to me he will appreciate my motives for asking him do withdraw it. Boards when they are set up—and we do not yet know when or where they will be set up—will pre-
688
sumably be set up in areas of hills and uplands where there are considered to be special problems and special needs. It is quite possible that a Board's area might overlap that of an existing National Park, but I do not think that that is any cause for worry.
As the clause says, these problems and needs are to include those of farm structure and the co-ordinated use of land as between forestry and agriculture: also, the need for improved public services in line with this development, and, of course (and I think we shall be talking a little about this later), the need for preserving and taking advantage of the amenities and scenery in their areas. I do not see any conflict arising here between the functions of a National Park planning authority, which has the general duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of its area and to make provision for the public enjoyment of the countryside, and the duties of the Rural Development Boards.
Your Lordships will know that an obligation is laid on Boards to consult all interested bodies when drawing up their general programme. A National Park planning authority, as one of those, will of course be consulted in all cases where a Board's boundary adjoins or overlaps that of a National Park. Assurances have been given on this point before—I gave them myself on Committee stage—and I readily confirm them once again.
Acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment might well entail the exclusion of many people engaged in agriculture and forestry from the benefits that a Board will bring to their area. That, I think, would be unfortunate. We want to extend the benefits of these Boards to wide areas, whether they overlap National Parks areas or not, especially as the areas of National Parks in England and Wales are almost entirely in the hill areas and the type of country where the Rural Development Boards might well be expected to operate. I feel it would be unreasonable and unfair to these people to exclude them from the benefits that these Boards would bring to them. I hope the noble Lord may feel that he can withdraw his Amendment after my assurances that the legitimate points which he has raised have been covered.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, with permission, I should like to say that I have listened with interest to the noble Lord. I thought he would rest his case on the argument that acceptance of my Amendment would mean that certain people were going to be denied financial assistance, which they cannot obtain from their elected local authority and can obtain only through this appointed Board. I do not think, on the whole, that the noble Lord made as convincing a case as I did. However, I have shown the red light and voiced the dangers and difficulties that can easily arise from any situation where overlapping authorities of this sort are set up. Having said that, I do not wish this afternoon to press this Amendment. But I shall look forward to a time in the future when the noble Lord, if he is still in office, will be producing amending legislation in order to meet the case which I have described this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert
"( ) The overall programme referred to in the preceding subsection shall have regard to the special economic considerations and the long-term nature of forestry."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, much regret that my noble friend Lord Dundee cannot be with us to-day. He is temporarily laid low in hospital, and therefore these important forestry clauses will have to receive very second-class treatment from me. This Amendment would, we believe, have a valuable influence on Clause 45. Clause 45 is broadly descriptive of what the Rural Development Boards will do, and what sort of considerations should guide them, and our new subsection is really no more than an amplification of subsection (2) of Clause 45, in order to make quite sure that the economic interests of forestry are fully kept in mind by the Rural Development Boards when deciding on a scheme.
It may be that if the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is going to reply to this Amendment he will say that the Amendment is not really needed because it is already implied. I hope he does say that, because if he does, then at least we are agreed in principle. He will then be saying that it is already implicit in the Bill, and all I want is that it should be explicit, in order
690
to make quite sure that Rural Development Boards pay full attention to this matter.
We attach particular importance to this point, because I must confess that we are seriously concerned that the Government were unable to agree to our request that the Rural Development Boards should give compensation to a landowner who is obliged by one of their schemes under Clause 52 to refrain from planting when he wishes to plant, or has to plant something different from his intended planting. We feel strongly that if a Government agency gives such a direction which is against the economic interests of a landowner, then it should compensate. But we have to recognise the limitation of our powers here, and an Amendment which introduced compensation provisions into the Bill would be outside the Financial Resolution, and therefore would be likely to be ignored in another place. In these circumstances, we are falling back on to this position to make sure that the Rural Development Board will always pay full regard to the economic interests of forestry. If it does this, then no landowner can really complain.
In this connection, I should say that I listened with attention to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Committee stage with regard to the similarity between this implied decision of the Government, which will have the effect of reducing the landowner's rights of property in regard to forestry planting schemes, and the Town Planning Acts, which the noble Lord gave as a precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, argued with his customary cogency that this was a perfectly good analogy, and that my insistence that it was not was wrongly based, But I am bound to say that, perhaps because the noble Lord is so persuasive, the further he went the more alarmed I became.
I feel that, if it is the Government's intention to reduce the rights of private property in this respect, by preventing a landowner whose land comes within the scope of a Rural Development Board from planting as he wishes, then this is a major matter of principle. If the Government wish to alter the rights of property in that respect, then in my judgment they ought not to do it by a side wind, by a subsidiary order in a miscellaneous

691
Agriculture Bill of this kind. Of course, the Government of the day are constitutionally entitled to change the law in any way they wish, and they have been doing so substantially on matters like the Land Commission Act, which substantially alters the rights of property. But I feel strongly here that, if this is the intention of the Government, they should have put it in a substantial Bill and brought it before the House, so that the whole country could know that this was their intention.
It is true that these landowners concerned are perhaps few in number and politically unimportant, but they are still entitled to the full rights of the citizen. If their own rights of property are to be reduced in some way, then I am sure I am right in saying that this ought to be done openly by substantive legislation. I think it is objectionable to take away part of their rights of property in this manner.
As I have said, I regret that it is not possible to correct that by putting compensation terms into this Bill, but if noble Lords are agreeable to this Amendment I think that property owners who have forestry interests should have a substantial consolation in this, combined with the valuable concession which the noble Lord gave with regard to dedicated forest land, and they would know that when a Rural Development Board were deciding on a scheme full regard would be paid to the economic interests of forestry. In my judgment that would ensure that no scheme they proposed, either to stop planting or to require particular planting, would be wildly uneconomic and therefore owners would accept it. I hope this will be agreeable in principle to the noble Lord. He said that it is implicit, and therefore I hope that he will not find it objectionable if we make it explicit, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
4.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, while it may be correct to say that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, does not bring to these debates the particular expertise in forestry which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has, he certainly brings no less
692
skill in Parliamentary experience, so it is no loss to the House that there has been a change of spokesman. However, I think the noble Lord went a little far in stating that i said that it is the intention of the Government to change the rights of property in this matter. I made no such statement, and I do not make it now. I said that if Parliament did what is proposed in this case, they would be changing the right of the property owner and taking away the right which he has at the present time. That is not the object. The object is to get the co-ordinated use of land which is referred to in Clause 35(2), and the Board are charged with this responsibility If in so doing the rights of property are altered, this is no different from what is done repeatedly by Parliament in legislation.
Legislation frequently alters both property rights and individual rights, and this Bill is no exception. I was pointing out that it followed the parallel when in other legislation, where Parliament has deprived owners of property of a right which they have hitherto exercised, there were some circumstances in which Parliament accepted it as reasonable that compensation should be paid and other circumstances in which Parliament decided that there should not be compensation.
The noble Lord—not from choice, but because of the necessity of keeping clear of the privilege position—has not pressed the full compensation proposals, but I should like to point out that we still cannot accept this Amendment, for a variety of reasons. The first is the point which the noble Lord expected me to make, that it is implicit. I cannot accept that we are making that point. I do so because the first thing we have to keep in mind is that when the Board are considering—and I hesitate to repeat these words in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said previously—the question of the best land use in their areas they will do all in their power to arrive at the right decision.
Having repeated that, I must remind the Committee that it is the obligation of the Board to consider the best land use in relation to the powers which have been conferred on the Board. One of their functions, as listed in Clause 46, is to keep under review all means of meeting the problems and needs in their area. They

693
must also consult all interested bodies when drawing up their programme. They will bear in mind all relevant considerations, and I have no doubt that they will have before them not only the advice of the Forestry Commission, but also that of private forestry organisations.
No one who has listened to our discussions on Second Reading or in Committee on this Bill, or who may subsequently read the report of these deliberations, can be unaware of the economics of forestry or its long-term nature. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made reference during these discussions to the Report of the Land Use Study Group, which both he and I have read. I am confident that it will also be studied by Boards when they are considering their problems of rural development.
As the noble Lord anticipated, it is the view of the Government that the aim of this Amendment is already fully covered by the provisions of the Bill, and if we were to include a reference to this kind of forestry almost inevitably we should then have to bring in a subsequent series of Amendments relating to the special interests of every other section of agriculture—amenity interests—which we should be charging the Board to look after. We should then be coming back to the situation whereby, if we put in a number of specific points of this kind, we should be in danger of destroying the general construction of the Board, and this is just as likely to work to the disadvantage of particular interests as to their advantage. What we would be doing is to charge them to look particularly to the interests of certain people, and by inadvertence, in not specifying some interests, it could be taken that this was not an interest to which any special regard had to be paid. Therefore there is the danger to the other interests which the Board have to look after in seeking to make, in addition to the general powers of the Board, this special provision for forestry interests.
However, I am prepared to go perhaps a little further than the noble Lord anticipated. Although I am not advising the House to accept the Amendment, I am prepared to say that if the noble Lord agrees to withdraw it, for the reasons which I have stated, I am prepared to give an assurance that the appropriate Minister will draw the attention of Rural
694
Development Boards to this point so that there is the general requirement in the Bill that they should do all these things; and administratively we can make certain that this point is brought specially to their notice. That can be done without causing any complications in relation to any special interests.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I at least thank the noble Lord for going so far, though I think it is a pity he has not met my noble friend's Amendment in full. Any one of us who has ever been a Parliamentary Secretary knows well the argument which the noble Lord has just so vehemently used. It is in nearly every official brief for nearly every Parliamentary Secretary speaking on nearly every Bill. We all know the point, and it is frequently a valid one. But I do not think that on this occasion it has quite the validity he was perhaps asking us to accept. We are not pretending that Parliament has not the right to make inroads into people's interests such as this Bill now does; because all Bills do that. But I would ask him to bear in mind the fact that the powers of the Rural Development Boards are very wide indeed. Furthermore, those who exercise those powers, unlike local authorities, unlike Members of Parliament, unlike Ministers, are not answerable to the electorate; they are an appointed Board. Therefore people affected by the exercise of such powers are denied the ordinary remedy which we in this country have come to take for granted.
I would ask the noble Lord to look at this point again, because I should have thought that to accept the words proposed by my noble friend, and to include them in the Bill, would be a better way of achieving this purpose than by attempting to do something of the same sort administratively, a method which, in practice, can never be quite so effective. Surely it is fairer to accept these words.
4.22 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had to say; indeed, our ears pricked up a little as he came towards the latter part of his speech when for one wonderful moment we thought that he might accept the Amendment. I am bound to say that, on looking at this

695
Amendment, I wondered how the noble Lord could possibly not accept it, because I thought it was such an innocuous Amendment.
He said that he would instruct the Boards to bear all these relevant considerations in mind, but I do not think that is going far enough. Moreover, I also, with respect, treat with a certain degree of scepticism the argument that if we include forestry in this particular reference in the Bill then ipso facto this means that all other matters not included by references are less important than the one which is. After all, the Rural Development Boards have been given pretty wide powers in this Bill, and they will operate mainly in some of the less developed parts of the country; and it is, of course, in those less developed parts of the country where the interests of forestry have their greatest impact.
I am no forester myself, but it is common knowledge that those who do indulge in forestry have to take a very long-term view and have to think in terms of not 20 years but 60 or 70 years. Anyone who is going to tie himself up, financially, or in any other way, in schemes going on for 60 or 70 years is going to take a fairly shrewd appreciation of the situation and probably, on the whole, will know better than a Board the circumstances which would require him to take a certain action. Therefore I think it is essential that we should bear in mind that these people who are currently engaged in forestry probably have a pretty shrewd appreciation of the scale of operations which will be required of them.
All we are saying in this Amendment is that if the Minister or the Rural Development Board is going to make an Order, due regard should be had to the economic circumstances of forestry. We are not saying that such an order should consider the economic aspect. I do not think this is going too far. What we are really saying is that if an owner wishes, and thinks, having taken all the facts of the matter into consideration, that he should plant, for instance, an area of pine trees, the Rural Development Board should not come along and say, "No, you should plant oak trees". This, after all, is a perfectly normal and natural provision. It is not condemning the Boards to take certain action. It is merely say-
696
ing that they should have due regard to the economic circumstances which are peculiar to forestry. I very much hope that the noble Lord will think a little harder, rather than say that the Minister will give a direction to the Boards. I think it would be very much better if this particular point were written into the Bill, and I do not see that it would have any restrictive effect on the Rural Development Boards.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for answering the debate so pleasantly, and for going so far to acknowledge that the point is implicit in subsection (2) of Clause 45. I am sure he will understand our wish to see k actually stated in the Bill. I am equally sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, were going to be in charge of the Department ad infinitum the matter would be very safe. He speaks, of course, not only with cogency but with most disarming innocence, because he has no intention of having any Rural Development Boards in Scotland. But what may happen South of the Border is quite another thing. We must give some thought to what Rural Development Boards might do.
The fact is that the noble Lord's argument, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers just said, about reducing the effectiveness of the generality is not a good one, because here the forestry interests are at risk. They are at risk in a special way that does not apply to any other interests. No agricultural interests are at risk in any way: a Rural Development Board cannot direct a farmer to grow or not to grow any particular crop on his fields. It is only the forestry interests that can be given these special conditions under an improvement scheme.
If we are to take the analogy with the town planning laws, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that under the 1962 Town Planning Act if a tree preservation order is put on any particular trees, compensation has to be paid. But in this case there is no compensation, and therefore I do think it is right to include in the Bill a clear provision that the Rural Development Board must have regard to the economic interests of forestry. Whilst I thank the noble Lord for his offer that the Minister concerned will call particular attention

697
to this point, I believe that it would be in the long-term interest if it were in the Bill. If, therefore, the noble Lord cannot give way, I ask noble Lords to vote on this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no right to speak again, unless it is the House's wish that I should do so, and I should have preferred to rise before the noble Lord spoke again. If noble Lords opposite feel so strongly on this matter that they wish to divide, I would strongly advise them to withdraw at this stage, even if they wish to bring this Amendment forward again at Third Reading. My remark about the dangers to the other interests of including this special provision for forestry was not lightly made. Although noble Lords will undoubtedly not be hindering the interests of forestry if they press this Amendment, so making explicit what I have admitted is implicit, the fact is that by putting it in in this way, and so qualifying the general powers and the general instructions to the Rural Development Board, they may be importing dangers to other interests which the Board have to take into consideration.
I shall be making the point in detail on a later Amendment, where an attempt is being made to give specific instructions in relation to a definition which will help agriculture; and in that case, because I had more time to consider the point, I can give an example of an interest which would definitely be at peril if the Government were to accept the proposal put forward. I have not the slightest doubt that, while noble Lords are anxious to help forestry interests, they would rather that help should be given implicitly, if that can be done without hindrance to other sections with which the Rural Development Board are dealing, than by making the matter explicit, with the consequence that other interests are put in danger. All I am asking is that between now and Third Reading they should consider this position. I am willing to discuss the possibilities and the dangers with the noble Lord, if he so wishes. I am not making a debating point; it is a danger which really exists.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I thank the noble Lord for the further point he has made. It is of course not our wish to throw the Bill out of balance, and if the noble Lord can give us the prospect of including some words which will secure the interest which we feel is really vital here, and secure it more effectively without throwing the rest of the Bill out of gear, then on those terms I would advise my noble friends to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment now, with a view to looking at some different construction on Third Reading. But I must make plain to the noble Lord that we want to see something in the Bill which will meet this point. If he will agree to these terms, then I will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord. I did not say that I could find a form of words. What I said was that, if I could persuade the noble Lord of the dangers of the course of action he is contemplating, he would be losing nothing, because he could still bring forward his own form of words on Third Reading, accepting the risks if he felt so inclined.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, if, with the permission of the House I may speak again, I would thank the noble Lord for his reply. But we have given a great deal of thought to this, and we feel that something specific should be said, because the interests of forestry are so seriously endangered by Rural Development Boards, and for that reason they deserve special treatment. I see the noble Lord's difficulty, in that he cannot give me an undertaking that some words will be inserted. In the circumstances, I think I should advise noble Lords to vote on this Amendment.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Amherst, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buckton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Auckland, L.

Carrington, L.

Allerton, L.

Blackford, L.

Clinton, L.

Colgrain, L.

Henley, L.

Oakshott, L.

Coutanche, L.

Hereford, V.

Rea, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reay, L.

Daventry, V.

Ilford, L.

Redmayne, L.

Derwent, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Helens, L.

Dudley, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Effingham, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sandford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lambert, V.

Sinha, L.

Exeter, M.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mar, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thurlow, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Meston, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolverton. L.

Haddington, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Woolton, E.

Hawke, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Rowley, L.

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burden, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Raglan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rhodes, L.

Walston, L.

Granville-West, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hall, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 52:
Control of afforestation
52.—(1) Subject to this section, no person shall plant land in the area of a Rural Development Board with trees except under the authority of a licence granted by the Board.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply—

(a) to planting by the Forestry Commission,

(b) so long as the covenant, agreement or scheme in question continues in force, to land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant or agreement as defined in the Forestry Act 1947. or the subject of an approved woodlands scheme made under the powers contained in the Forestry Act 1919,

4.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2)(b), after "force" to insert:
"but without prejudice to the enforceability of any condition contained in a licence granted before it was entered into, or as the case may be, took effect ".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I accepted on Committee stage the Amendment about dedication, which enabled noble Lords opposite to withdraw
700
a considerable number of consequential Amendments, I indicated that it might be necessary to move an Amendment at this stage after we had looked at the full effects of the "dedication Amendment", if I might so describe it. I am glad to say that very little amendment of the clause will be necessary. In accordance with the requirement laid on them by Clause 46(3), the Board and the Commission will be in day-to-day contact on the implementation of their programme and any dispute between them will be settled by the Minister. This means that if the Board and the Commission are agreed that land should be planted, with no more than the normal conditions imposed by the Commission in their dedication agreements to ensure good woodland management, the landowner can be given his reply by the Commission without more ado. On the other hand, if the programme of the two bodies does not provide for the land to be planted in that way, the Commission can tell him.
There is, however, one point only which we should like to have put right about the clause as it now stands. It could be read as meaning that if the Board had already issued a licence when the landowner offers his land for dedication, the

701
conclusion of a covenant would invalidate the licence and any conditions attached to it. This was not intended at all by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he put forward his Amendment. Noble Lords will remember that one of the arguments advanced by the noble Earl was that a landowner who might be prepared to dedicate his land and who, after some hesitation, finally decides to do so, could perhaps be put off if he had to face what he regarded as the unknown perils and hazards of applying for a licence. This does not apply in regard to this condition because this refers to a man who has in fact applied for and obtained a licence to which conditions are attached. We must, therefore, make it quite clear that there is no risk that this interpretation could be included in the Amendment as moved, and it is to prevent the risk of that interpretation that I move this Amendment to include the words now on the Order Paper. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will feel able to accept this very slight alteration to the broad principle which the Government accepted on Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 2, after ('force") insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining the meaning of this Amendment. It is within the spirit of the concession that he made. I take the point which he made, and I consider that it is quite fair. I advise my noble friends to accept the Amendment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend undertook to have another look at the penalty imposed for planting without a licence or for contravening a condition of a planting licence. We have borne in mind the criticisms made both in this House and in another place and also our discussions in Committee on Clause 68. As a result we have come to the view that, in the interests of consistency, a figure of £100 would be appropriate. Although this does not go as far as some noble Lords opposite asked, it rather more than splits, the difference in their favour, and I hope it will be acceptable to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 7, leave out ("two") and insert ("one").—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the "horse deal".
LORD HURCOMB LORD HURCOMB moved, after Clause 53, to insert the following new clause:
Conditions for exercise of functions of Rural Development Board
". In formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions, a Rural Development Board and the appropriate Minister shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the flora, fauna, physiographical features, buildings, antiquities and natural beauty of the countryside."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who during Committee stage gave notice of his intention to move it again on Report stage, cannot be here this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, undertook to consider the matter further, and I hope that he will now be prepared to accept this Amendment at least in substance. The existing Clause 45 does not adequately meet our point. As Lord Molson pointed out, any direction which it contains appears to be governed by reference to the development of agriculture and forestry in the course of which advantage is to be taken of any scientific interest in the area concerned.
I have admitted that the somewhat curious wording of the clause is interesting and indeed apt if one is thinking of the treatment of the scenery and of taking advantage of it on the lines followed by the great landscape architects. But I ask again what a Rural Development Board may think or do when told to take advantage of any feature of scientific interest in the area in the course of its development for agriculture and forestry. The standard clause which has now been incorporated in many Acts on the advice of the Government's scientific advisers in these matters, and which has worked satisfactorily in practice, does not really conflict with Clause 45. Apart from that, in my submission it has the great advantage of being clear, comprehensive and positive in its direction. Above all, it makes the important point that regard is

703
to be had to the possible effects of every proposal upon the flora, fauna and natural beauty of the countryside at the earliest possible stage.
There is nothing vague or negative about it. The Amendment says:
"In formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions, a Rural Development Board and"—
which is another important point—
"the appropriate Minister shall take into account any effect which the proposals may have"
upon the interests in question. These considerations must therefore enter into the Board's thinking from the very start, and I find it difficult to understand on what grounds the noble Lord, or the Departments advising him, should desire to resist a clause which was acceptable to the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, in one of the Electricity Acts some years ago, and which has been acceptable to every other Minister who has had to consider the problem since. Moreover, it is completely in line with the countryside policy which Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention of pursuing.
Apart from those points, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in Committee, that it is advantageous to have this provision in one separate clause. I should have thought that as a matter of drafting this would be a better course to adopt than to attempt some amendment of Clause 45. But I must await the precise suggestions which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is to make, and of which he has very courteously given me some general indication. After hearing what those suggestions are, I may or may not beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. Meanwhile, my Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 53, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hurcomb.)
4.53 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this particular point has been a great education to me, and I admit freely that there are many gaps in my Parliamentary education. It is really remarkable that a matter on which all of us—the movers of the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and his friends, and Her Majesty's Government and I—are all in
704
agreement, should give rise to such very grave problems as to drafting and the achieving of our desired ends. I had hoped that it would have been possible to devise an Amendment which was agreeable both to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, before the Report stage. Unfortunately, through no fault of anybody concerned, that has not yet been possible, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has indicated, I have put to him a suggestion which he is now considering.
I would say once more to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who are interested in this matter, that we are as desirous as they are of ensuring, not only in these particular areas under discussion, but throughout the whole countryside, that we preserve our national heritage in so far as that is consistent with other needs. This should play its due part—not overriding, although it should in no way be pushed to one side—in the way of beauty, amenities, historic interest, scientific interest or anything else, and we are as eager as anybody—more eager than many people—that this should be done.
But we have very grave misgivings about this clause, for two reasons. In the first place, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Hughes earlier this afternoon, the spelling out of any particular group of activities or subjects is inclined to weaken those which, possibly inadvertently, have been left out, and that we certainly do not want to do. Secondly, this conservation clause, as one may call it, is altogether more negative than the existing wording of Clause 45. The conservation clause, as originally drafted for other Bills which are now Acts, was designed to give pause to statutory bodies who might otherwise go ahead with their statutory duties and destroy such features of historic interest, of beauty or of scientific interest without thought. It was simply to make them stop and think before they entered upon this act of destruction or vandalism. We want to go much further than that, and Clause 45(2) ensures not simply that the Board will give pause before it destroys these things, but that these matters will always be in the forefront of their mind as something actively to be fostered in planning their programme. I think there is a difference there. I do not want to labour

705
this point, except to make it perfectly clear that our objectives are the same.
What I suggest to the noble Lord, even at this somewhat late stage, is that he should withdraw this Amendment now and that he and I will consult together before the Third Reading. I hope that we shall then be able to arrive at a form of words which will implement the objectives of both of us. If we are unable to do so, he is, of course, always free to re-introduce this Amendment on Third Reading, but I hope that that will not be necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, at least for the time being.
LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to prolong the argument with the noble Lord, who has been most courteous in his treatment of my Amendment, and who I know has at heart the same objects as I and my friends. But I do not understand why he thinks that the Amendment is in any way negative. On the contrary, as I have emphasised, it says that in formulating their proposals the authority concerned is to take all these matters into proper account. In many cases that has had a very beneficial effect. It has suited the electricity authorities, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, and many other authorities who have given effect both to the wording of the clause and to its spirit. Therefore, I think that the Department concerned with this Bill, which is taking the contrary view, is really not fully appraised of the circumstances. Nor, I think, in view of the wording of the clause, is there any risk, or any ground for grave misgivings, that anything material has been left out.
On the assurance of the noble Lord that he will either agree an acceptable wording in the form of some amendment to the existing Clause 45, or leave me and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, quite free to move this Amendment again at the final stages of the Bill, I am glad to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this is not strictly speaking an Amendment of substance, but it is rather technical. The intention is that the scheme of grants to be made under this clause shall provide for the Minister of Agriculture alone to pay to the Central Council money for
706
them to pay out in grants. That being so, the Ministers—that is, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Scotland—when recovering grant under Clause 61(4), could not be said to be doing so in respect of grant paid "by them". I am sure that the House will agree, therefore, that these words should be removed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 36, leave out ("by them").—(Lord Walston.)
5.1 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, after Clause 67, to insert the following new clause:
Application of capital money in payment of improvement rentcharges
". Section 73(1)(xiii) of the Settled Land Act 1925 (under which capital money arising under that Act may be applied in the redemption of improvement rentcharges) shall, in its application to any charge created under the Improvement of Land Act 1864 in respect of an improvement benefiting agricultural land, and its application by virtue of section 3(3) of the Agricultural Credits Act 1932 to the repayment secured by any mortgage, have effect as if the reference to redemption included a reference to discharging as it falls due so much of any periodical payment as represents repayment of capital."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment similar in nature to this one, and endeavoured to explain the purpose of it. I was a trifle dismayed when afterwards I met two or three noble Lords who told me that they had not the slightest idea what I was talking about, I having been sufficiently misguided to suggest it was a simple Amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Walston, got the idea of what the Amendment was about, and accepted it in principle. He suggested that if we discussed how the Amendment of substance could be put in and the wording that should be used, the Government would see their way to incorporating this Amendment. So the Amendment which is now before us is, so to speak, the revised edition.
It is somewhat more complicated, but in view of my unhappy experience last time I do not propose to explain again to your Lordships what it is about, unless your Lordships so desire, other than to say that its basic object is to ensure

707
that where a farm or land is to be improved by a mortgage from the Agricultural Mortgages Corporation or the Land Improvements Council, and where that land is settled land, a settled trust, then the annual charges and repayments due to the A.M.C. or the Land Improvements Council can in fact be recovered from the capital of the settled trust, whereas heretofore they were unable to be recovered. This is the object of the Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 67, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having explained his revised Amendment with such clarity. I am sure that there is no noble Lord present who, having listened to him, is now in any doubt as to exactly what it is intended to do, and how it will achieve its purpose. But I am grateful to him for more than that. That is because I think he has drawn attention to something which was very definitely in need of improvement, as a result of which this Bill has now, I believe, been strengthened. I certainly support his Amendment, and am very glad to recommend to your Lordships that it be accepted.
Clause 68 [False statements to obtain grants]:
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this is a purely technical drafting Amendment, as in Clause 14, to achieve conformity with similar provisions in other Acts relating to agriculture. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("knowingly").—(Lord Walston.)
Clause 74:
Short title, interpretation, repeals and commencement.
74.—
"agriculture", "agricultural land", "agricultural unit" and cognate expressions and references to farming shall be construed except in relation to Scotland in accordance with section 109 of the Agriculture Act 1947, and in
708
relation to Scotland, in accordance with section 86 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948;
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, in subsection (2), in the definition of "agriculture" and cognate expressions, to leave out all words after the first word "section" and to insert instead:
"17 of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, and in relation to Scotland, in accordance with section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15, standing in my name on the Order Paper. Noble Lords may wonder what lies behind my putting down this Amendment, and I can explain it very easily. First, I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be a shortcoming in the definition of "agriculture" used in Bills and Acts which are also concerned with forestry. Forestry may be a side issue in this Bill—it has been described as a side issue, I think—but it is none the less a very important one and deserves fuller consideration.
The definition employed in the Bill includes, under the definition of "agriculture", these words:
"… the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes …"—
which is rather a mouthful. I think most of us can envisage very large areas of woodland in some of the areas which will come under review by a Rural Development Board. Some of that woodland will presumably rank as "agriculture" under this definition, and some will not.
The definition which I am suggesting as one to be preferred leaves us with no such confusion of mind, because there the definition of "agriculture" includes the words, "the use of land as … woodland …", and nothing could be simpler than that. If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is going to reply, I am sure he will give me a clear explanation, because he is so very able at explaining these things; and I am sure he will agree, too, that the wording of the two definitions is very different. The one that has been chosen is difficult to understand: the one that I am suggesting is very simple.
Later, when I was turning this point over in my mind, I came on another

709
difficulty, and I wondered whether the areas owned and controlled by the Nature Conservancy do or do not rank as "agriculture" under the definition in the 1947 Agriculture Act. The noble Lord will perhaps tell me that this does not matter. Perhaps none of this matters; but I think that at this stage it would be nice to know. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 18 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Inglewood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. on his ingenuity in finding that there is a reference to this in Clause 38, in finding that it included a definition of "agriculture" which suited the purpose of forestry better than the one that was used, and on seizing on the opportunity to put it in here. If he had, in fact, discovered everything, instead of just discovering that this was in Clause 38, I should indeed be on difficult ground in seeking to rebut him. But, unfortunately for him, he was unable, simply because he does not have at his back all the resources that are available to me, in this short time to find out all the consequences of his Amendment. I hope I shall be as successful in convincing him to withdraw this Amendment as he was in persuading the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to press the previous one. It was to this one that I was referring when I said that I would give an indication of the dangers to other interests that could be imported in seeking to press forestry interests. This is the Amendment to which I was then referring.
The definitions of "agriculture", "agricultural land", "agricultural unit" and related expressions included in Clause 74(2) are those used in Section 109 of the Agriculture Act 1947 and in the comparable Scottish legislation. References to farming throughout agricultural Bills have been governed by these definitions, and we have used them throughout this Bill except where a distinction is deliberately made. The noble Lord suggests that we should use the definition contained in the Agricultural Wages Act, but this differs in several respects from that in the 1947 Act. For instance, it makes no specific reference to the keeping of livestock for food production, and it refers
710
—and this is the point which commended it to the noble Lord—to all woodland instead of to woodlands ancillary to agriculture.
I am advised that if we were to accept the definition which the noble Lord prefers, it is likely that intensive livestock enterprises not dependent on the land—such as certain types of poultry and egg production—would not be able to qualify for investment grant under Clause 31. That is definite. These are, however, one of the most important classes of agricultural business that we might expect to benefit from these grants. There may well be other adverse effects—I have not had time to go into all the possibilities. I could have used this argument before, when I was warning of the consequences; but it did not seem to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood that I should argue his Amendment before we came to it. But I thought it important that I should be able to advise the House of a specific consequence, and an adverse consequence, to a type of agriculture which would flow from attempting to do something of this kind. I think that is better than just giving a vague, general warning of things which might happen.
What I want to make certain is that I am not in a position to say that this is the only consequence which could flow from the adoption of this Amendment. This is one which has been picked up in the time available. As I understand it, the 1948 Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, wishes to refer, was a consolidating measure and drew on a definition of agriculture going back to 1924. It therefore has its history in the legislation governing relationships between employee and employer. Where we are dealing with labour relationships, as in the new Clause 38, we do, in fact, bring in the traditional definition already in use for that purpose. It is not that we have been picking and choosing. Where there is a regular definition of agriculture for the general purpose we have used that one. Where there has been a definition which, over the years, has been used in a particular relationship, such as in the employee—employer relationship we have continued to use that.
The definition included in the Agriculture Act 1947 was worked out to give expression to the post-war view of the

711
scope of the agricultural industry, including, of course, the horticultural industry but excluding forestry, for which separate provision was made. This is the definition which was subsequently used in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, the Agriculture Act 1957, and the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act 1959. We need this definition in the Act to express accurately what we have in mind for farm amalgamations, farm improvements and agricultural businesses in various parts of the Act. In short, the effect of the Amendment would be to bring in a definition of agriculture which would be less appropriate to farms and farming but which would include forestry. As was made clear in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, when we were considering a series of Amendments to Part II and IV by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we do not consider it either necessary or appropriate to extend the scope of the Bill to include forestry, except in so far as forestry is brought in naturally in such matters as the operation of the Rural Development Boards.
My Lords, the Bill is an Agriculture Bill, and I think we should retain the definition in the 1947 Agriculture Act and its equivalent for Scotland, since these are the definitions most appropriate to farms and farming. I hope, therefore, while I still feel that the noble Lord has worked very hard to try to achieve his aim, that he will accept that there would be a definite price to be paid for the adoption of this Amendment. I do not know how many people would pay for it; but the intensive poultry farmer would be included among them.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Inglewood on his ingenuity in finding this definition, which would appear on the surface to be more beneficial to forestry. I thought he made out his case very well; but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has come back with equal ingenuity in describing what would be the specific adverse consequences. While I would not ask my noble friend to put too much weight on them, or to declare that there is a certain interest on the Front Bench in intensive livestock activities—I should not like him to be unduly influenced by this in the conclu-
712
sion he reaches—I should be glad if he will keep it in mind.
5.16 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that very full reply. I had looked carefully at the two definitions before I put this Amendment on the Paper. The last thing I wanted to do was to rob Peter in order to pay Paul; on the other hand, I do not think that this traditional definition of "agriculture", which I think first appeared in the 1947 Act—and some of us in this Chamber were probably present at the Committee stage of that Bill—is necessarily so perfect that it never needs amendment of any kind. I should think that the Bill we are now considering affords the sort of occasion when a modest Amendment might be appropriate, so that it is fair to forestry without asking anybody else to pay.
I do not want to enter into a long argument with the noble Lord, but I do not think he was quite fair in saying that livestock was going to be treated so badly under the definition which I suggested. May I say I am not bound to the exact words. I quote from the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948:
"'agriculture' includes dairy farming, the production of any consumable produce"—
I should have thought that might include battery-produced chicken—
"which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use for the purposes of a trade or business …"
None the less, if the noble Lord is advised that my Amendment has such wide shortcomings, I would beg leave to withdraw it. But I should like the noble Lord to look at it again to see whether an addition of a word or two to what he calls the traditional definition of "agriculture" might not be a good thing in this Bill and a good thing in Bills in the future.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, is that an invitation for me to speak again? If so, with your Lordships' permission, I would say that one thing I did not mention—an added difficulty which would need a great deal of work to get over—is that the noble Lord seeks to substitute a definition in another Act and he asks that Act to define "agriculture". But, in fact, the Act to which he refers does not

713
include any definition of some of the things he seeks to define. The 1948 Act does not include a definition of "agricultural land". It defines "agriculture"; it does not define "agricultural land". It does not define an "agricultural unit". These are two of the things his Amendment seeks to do. In fact, if he were going to do this he must alter not only this Bill but also the 1948 Act.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I have already begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Rural Development Boards.]:
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, in paragraph 3(1) of Part II, after "functions" to insert:
"including the appointment of sub-committees and the co-option of suitable persons to serve thereon,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name. As I read this Schedule there does not appear to be power with the Board to appoint sub-committees and to co-opt appropriate people to them. Although in general I am not in favour of proliferation, the subjects which the Rural Development Boards are being asked to study constitute a wide range: tourism, amenities, communications. I have more than forestry in mind, I would assure the noble Lord. I should have thought it was a waste of the time of all the members of the Boards—I believe they are going to have only a relatively small membership—if they have to go into all the details of all the subjects which come under review. Furthermore, I think those who are going to be affected by the decisions of the Board would feel happier if they knew their circumstances were considered, at least at one stage, by a body which had recognised experience of that particular subject.
I would imagine that agriculture will be the interest principally represented on Rural Development Boards, and that the other subjects such as I have mentioned will be definitely minority interests. None the less, those concerned deserve the same consideration, and I should like them to feel not only that justice is being done but that justice is seen to be done. It would be a valuable addition to the constitution
714
of the Rural Development Boards if they could appoint sub-committees and co-opt suitable members.
Furthermore, this power to co-opt suitable people would be extremely useful in helping to link up with elected local authorities. I am surprised that we have not heard more about them from noble Lords on the Government Front Bench. Generally one hears a great deal about local authorities. But these Boards are not subject to election, they are subject to appointment by the Minister, and I assume that their status and position in country districts would be greatly enhanced if it were felt that there was a link up somewhere between them and members of the elected local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 6, after ("functions") insert ("including the appointment of sub-committees and the co-option of suitable persons to serve thereon,").—(Lord Inglewood.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think I can finish on an extremely amicable note on this Bill. Although I am not accepting the Amendment, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord that he has served a useful purpose in putting it forward. My reason for not accepting the Amendment is because the power exists, although I could forgive the noble Lord for not having noticed it. I had not noticed it myself until my attention was drawn to it. In paragraph 8(2) of the Schedule, on page 105, there are these words:
"… and subject to the foregoing provisions of this Schedule a Board may determine their own procedure, and the procedure of their committees."
This is the only reference in the Schedule to the appointment of committees. Nowhere is there any instruction 'to a Board as to the form its committees may take. They are not told that a committee shall consist of so many members, or that it shall consist of certain members. They have complete freedom to appoint their committees, and it is implicit in that that the freedom includes the freedom to co-opt such members as they may desire. In fact we should expect that this would be the normal procedure. Therefore the power which the noble Lord seeks is already in paragraph 8(2). Having moved his Amendment, I hope

715
he will feel that it was worthwhile, in that it has provided an opportunity to point out publicly that the power to appoint committees and to co-opt people to membership of committees is within the power of the Board. With that information, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he has achieved his purpose, even though he withdraws his Amendment.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, if I may butt in on this argument, speaking as a complete layman, as the noble Lord has said it is quite right that there is mention of committees in the paragraph, but there is no power, so far as I can see, to pay anything towards the expenses or remuneration of those committees. Under the general part of Part 11 salaries may be paid to members of a Board, but there is no suggestion that we can pay salaries to members of committees.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I would go a little further and say that I am by no means convinced by the explanation of the noble Lard, Lord Hughes, that the paragraph constitutes the power to appoint committees. You may easily read it to mean that it is committees of the body itself, a breaking-up into small groups consisting of committees, whereas my noble friend obviously wants to bring in outside people, which is quite right.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is very difficult. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is wrong in this. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, that the power is there. If I may draw attention to paragraph 3 on page 104, that says:
"It shall be within the capacity of a Board as a statutory corporation to do such things and to enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the performance of any of its functions, but they shall not borrow money without the appropriate Minister's written consent."
This gives them all the power necessary to appoint committees, whether from within their own membership or outwith their membership, or jointly with their own membership and co-opted membership. It is not contemplated, and I do not think that such committees as this necessarily would include, that there should be a paid membership. This would be far from the normal purpose of these things. What it does—
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? If the noble Lord had given that information at the very beginning, probably I should have been perfectly satisfied. But on which paragraph is he now relying to rebut the argument of my noble friend—the paragraph at the top of page 104 or the one towards the bottom of page 105?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not relying on any paragraph to rebut the argument. I am accepting the points put forward by the noble Lord that the principle which he is seeking is a good one, and this Schedule makes provision for it. I pointed out 8(2) as the paragraph in which there was a specific reference to committees. There is no point in referring to committees in the Schedule unless a Board has power to appoint them. Two points were raised. While this may give a Board power to appoint committees, there did not seem to be any power to pay any expenses in which the committees might be involved. The power to meet expenditure is covered within the very wide powers given to the Board in paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
If I had been clairvoyant, I should have known that the noble Lord was going to say this before he said it, and I should have answered him before he made the point. But I suffer from the same defect as other people, in that I do not always know what people are going to say until in fact they say it. I am happy to be able to answer it when it is said, and that is something for a Minister to be able to do—or for a member of the Opposition for that matter.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the matter is covered by other paragraphs of the Schedule. It is extraordinary what one finds in a Bill if one digs deeply enough, but until the noble Lord explained it all to us no ordinary man glancing through this Schedule would have realised that it was possible for the Rural Development Boards to operate in this way. I think that my Amendment has served a certain purpose, and on the happy note that we have now been able to strike may I conclude and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FUTURE BUSINESS
5.28 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short statement on to-morrow's business. It is intended to take the Commons' Message on the Iron and Steel Bill immediately after Questions to-morrow. Thereafter the House will consider the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, before launching into the main business of the afternoon which will be the debate on Civil Defence. A Royal Commission has been arranged for 6.30 p.m. That concludes the statement.

GIBRALTARIANS AND IMMIGRATION CONTROL
5.29 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why the people of Gibraltar, a British dependent territory, are subjected to the control of immigration provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, since they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies holding passports issued by the Governor of Gibraltar in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for my raising this short debate this evening is that I hope to show either that the people of Gibraltar should not be subject to the Control of Immigration provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, or that they find themselves in a very special position warranting very particular consideration. I am grateful to Major Gache for having discussed this matter with me last week and for putting forward certain arguments which I found somewhat convincing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will find them equally convincing. I would mention to the noble Lord that Major Gache is a gentleman who has for a number of years taken a close and keen interest—and an enlightened interest, I might add—in the affairs of Gibraltar.
Should the people of Gibraltar be subjected to the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962? Section 2 of the Act gives an immigration officer power to refuse admission or to admit subject to conditions restricting the period of stay, with or without a condition restricting freedom to take employment,
718
any Commonwealth citizen who does not satisfy one of the conditions laid down in Section 1 of the Act; namely that he is:

"(a) A person born in the United Kingdom,

(b) A person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.…"

and so forth. And "United Kingdom passport" means a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.
But, as stated by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart, in his letter of March 30, 1965, to His Excellency the Spanish Ambassador in London:
"The Constitutional position with regard to the granting or renewal of British passports is that all such passports (including those issued to persons who belong to a British dependent territory) are granted or renewed in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. This Royal Prerogative is exercised through Her Majsty's Ministers and in particular, but not exclusively by, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is also exercised through Governors of Colonies, British High Commissioners in Commonwealth countries and Her Majesty's Consular Officers acting on the instructions of Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
It would therefore appear to me logical to assume that the Governor of Gibraltar, when granting or renewing a British passport which is marked "Colony of Gibraltar", is acting solely on behalf of, and as an agent of, the Crown. Should it not then follow that such a passport is constitutionally a United Kingdom passport? For it seems to me, on reading the letter which the then Foreign Secretary sent to the Spanish Ambassador on April 28, 1965, there can be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government felt that this passport is not issued
"on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom."
I apologise for quoting again, but this letter says:
"…all dependent territories for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible have governments. These territories are not sovereign independent States, and the use of the term "government" in connection with them does not, and cannot, imply that they have the international personality and capacity required for statehood. The Government of Gibraltar has no extra territorial competence within the normal meaning

719
of this expression, since the United Kingdom is responsible for its international relations."
Further on, it says:
"…all British passports are issued in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and there is, of course, no exception to this in the case of passports bearing reference to the 'Government of Gibraltar'."
And again:
"…it is clear that no question of the recognition of the Government of a State is involved in respect of British passports bearing a reference to the Government of Gibraltar'."
Later, the letter says:
"…there is. in the present circumstances, no question whatsoever of the recognition of any authority claiming to be the Government of an independent State."
My Lords, if the Government of Gibraltar have no international personality or capacity for statehood, then one would have thought that passports cannot be issued on their behalf, thus meaning, I would assume, that a passport issued by the Governor of Gibraltar in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is, in effect, a United Kingdom passport of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and therefore not subject to the provisions of the 1962 Act. I am wondering, therefore, whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could say under what authority these passports, bearing the words "Colony of Gibraltar", and issued by the Government in exercise of the Royal Prerogative are marked:
"This passport is subject to Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962."
My reading of the provisions of Section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, is that the national status of the people of Gibraltar is British subject, citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and I do not know of any later legislation—not even the 1962 Act—which would change anything of that interpretation. Like other British subjects, Gibraltarians have the common national status of Commonwealth citizens, but unlike citizens of other member States of the Commonwealth they "belong"—and I use that word deliberately—to the United Kingdom, if we bear in mind the provisions of Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht.
On the other hand, if my assessment or interpretation of this matter is wrong—and I sincerely hope that it is not—I hope the noble Lord will agree that there are strong grounds for looking into this ques
720
tion of the right of Gibraltarians to enter this country freely. I sincerely urge Her Majesty's Government and the Minister to consider this Question most sympathetically. The Gibraltarians certainly deserve it.
Should the present restrictions be lifted at some future date, my guess would be that, out of the total population of around 25,000, at most 100 or 200 might take advantage of the easing of the restrictions and thus have free access to what they consider to be, and rightly so, the Mother country. As Mr. Sol Seruya, the Gibraltarian Minister of Economic Development, put it in the remarks he made on March 13 last, in a Committee Room in the House of Commons to members of the Society for Individual Freedom,
"The Gibraltarians would never leave their sunny rock for a magnificent but foggy Britain."
Surely the noble Lord must understand their desire for the basic freedom of a United Kingdom passport without restriction, giving them the right to enter Britain freely at any time.
I should have thought that this was not too much to ask for a people, natural-born British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who have been subjected since November, 1964, to an intolerable blockade of their frontier by the Spanish authorities, and who since then, through loyalty to this country, have denied to themselves the pleasurable experience of seeking temporary respite in Spain from the economic stranglehold which is being imposed upon them by Spain; and, I would add, all the extra pressure that has been put upon them by the Spanish authorities, and all the aspersions cast by the Spanish information service, are due to this loyalty. If these people do not go into Spain through loyalty to us, is it right to deny them free access to this country, which they consider to be theirs, too?
In their "Instructions to Immigration Officers" contained in the White Paper on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 (Cmnd. 1716) the Government seem capable of a certain flexibility in their interpretation of the Act. Paragraph 25 says:
"A woman who has been living in permanent association with a man, even if not married to him, should be treated for this purpose as a wife."
Another paragraph says:
"Husbands. The normal rule should be to treat a Commonwealth citizen as eligible for admission if the Immigration Officer is satisfied that he is coming to join his wife and the latter is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom."
The White Paper goes on to say, in paragraph 35:
"Any Commonwealth citizen is entitled to admission if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or has been so resident at any time during the previous two years."
Further down, it says:
"A Commonwealth citizen can still be admitted if, for example, he has strong family ties there and has previously lived in the United Kingdom for some time."
Surely, if there can be a certain amount of flexibility in the interpretation of the 1962 Act, there can be a certain amount of humanity and understanding on the part of the Government with regard to the plight of the population of Gibraltar, who are, as it seems to me, so wrongly restricted from free access to this country.
With regard to paragraph 36 of "Instructions to Immigration Officers", it might be an interesting thought for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that in 1940 16,700 men over 45, women and children were evacuated to this country from Gibraltar, and lived here for a number of years. Should they not be allowed free access, as (heir children who were born here during that period of time?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that people who were born here will not be in any difficulty.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am well aware of that fact. I am just suggesting that, for a number of reasons, it might be worth the while of the Government that this should be extended to their parents.
Finally, I should like to say a few words concerning what I consider to be a somewhat regrettable incident involving five Gibraltarians at the port of Harwich on March 2 last. These youngsters are members of a very good "pop" group, called the H.T. Group. They were returning to this country from Holland. On arrival they were refused entry, and held under police supervision for over 24 hours pending deportation back to Holland. They had previously been over here for a period of six months.
722
If my information is correct, it seems to me that in this matter the Home Office acted in a somewhat thoughtless and inhumane way. For I understand that the senior immigration officer at Harwich received a minute from the Home Office to the effect that he should not allow the Gibraltar H.T. Group into this country as they did not possess a work permit. They were going to be deported quite regardless of whether or not they had any money and as to how they could make their way back to Gibraltar. The noble Lord may laugh, but it is a valid point. Can he imagine the field day that the Spanish information services would have had over such a rebuff to loyal Gibraltarians trying to re-enter this country, and having, in effect, to make their way back in some way to Gibraltar, possibly having to go through Spain?
I understand that now the Home Office have agreed to their entry for a period of three months. But surely this should never have happened in the first place. It seems to me—I should not like to say disgraceful, but a poor way of treating British subjects, who, in effect were nearly deported, and not for any crime, but purely due to the fact that they had passports which were issued in Gibraltar.
These passports carry these words, which I should have thought still have some meaning:
"The Governor of Gibraltar requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
Well, my Lords, there we are. Would not the noble Lord agree to look into this question sympathetically? I raise the matter of the five Gibraltarians because I feel that something like this should never happen. They are British subjects and hold British passports issued by the Governor in the exercise of the Royal' Prerogative. It seems wrong that British subjects should be detained for over 24 hours, under police supervision, when they have committed no crime whatever.
Then, there are certain anomalies. For instance, a Gibraltarian whose passport expires while he is in this country can obtain from the Passport Office a new United Kingdom passport containing no restrictions whatever. This means that one of these Gibraltarian young men could have remained in this country while

723
the others were sent back. Equally, I presume that if a Gibraltarian was abroad and his passport expired, he would get a brand new United Kingdom passport issued by Her Majesty's Consular officers with no restrictions on it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it would be issued in the name of Gibraltar, and would therefore be no different from a passport reissued by the Administration of Gibraltar.
LORD MERRIVALE: I cannot see how it can be issued in the name of some authority in Gibraltar.
LORD STONHAM: On behalf of, then, I assure the noble Lord that I have made inquiries about this.
LORD MERRIVALE: It is surely not issued on behalf of the Government of Gibraltar, because that was one of the points which the Spanish authorities objected to. Therefore, it is issued solely by the Governor in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, or on behalf of the Crown, as a U.K. passport and the sole words that are added are "Colony of Gibraltar".
Another anomaly seems to be that, according to Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948, a woman who is an alien and who has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies can become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration. Thus, an alien woman who marries in the United Kingdom a person holding a "Colony of Gibraltar" passport would herself be granted a United Kingdom passport in the United Kingdom. So "Control of Immigration" provisions would not apply to her, nor for that matter, I presume, to her husband, who is a Gibraltarian, if he wished to be included in her passport.
A Gibraltarian who has a "Colony of Gibraltar" passport which expires in this country, and who goes to the Passport Office to get a new passport, gets a British passport which has no restriction on it, and does not get a passport marked "Colony of Gibraltar". There seems to be an anomaly if a Gibraltarian can come and get a British passport. I do not see why he is entitled to it here but not when he lives in Gibraltar.
724
I feel that I have not convinced the noble Lord in any way. Perhaps I have not convinced him of the validity of my argument. However, I hope that I have convinced him of my sincere belief that there is need to do something for the people of Gibraltar; that there is need to look into this question; and that maybe it is unfair under present conditions that the people of Gibraltar should be treated in this way. Perhaps the point I put earlier on is not valid, but what is valid, I think, is that the people of Gibraltar deserve special consideration in this matter of free access into this country.
5.50 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to give qualified general support to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. As we have just heard, clearly this is a question which can be presented in its various fairly complicated technical aspects, but it seems to me that the noble Lord has a point which might cause some concern. According to the 1962 Immigrants Act, the provisions of which were renewed in 1965, the control of immigrants does not apply to persons who were born in this country or to persons holding United Kingdom passports, or to persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and I think I am right in saying that it seems to be the case that the people of Gibraltar qualify under the last two categories, both as holding British passports and as being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
This being the case, I think there is a prima facie reason for requiring the Government to answer, if indeed there are cases of restrictions imposed upon the people of Gibraltar. Possibly I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to give his description of the restrictions which operate against the people of Gibraltar, and perhaps also one might emphasise the degree to which the people of Gibraltar are denied their full rights in this respect. If they are denied to the degree which it appears that they are, this must tend to depreciate the belief of the people of Gibraltar in our determination to remain in the island.
5.52 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I am most grateful for the detailed

725
way in which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has presented his case, and I never for one moment doubted the sincerity of his convictions, or indeed at times the passion with which he put forward his case on behalf of the Gibraltarians. So far as his objective is concerned, and the principle that he was driving at, I do not suppose there is any difference between any two people in any part of this House. But the noble Lord has asked a question, and in short the Question on the Order Paper is why the people of Gibraltar, Commonwealth citizens, should be subject to immigration control. It is to that question that I propose to address myself.
I do not think that in this House I need to justify the existence of immigration control over Commonwealth citizens. Nobody regrets more than I do the breach which was made by the 1962 Act in the freedom of British subjects or Commonwealth citizens—and I emphasise that the terms are interchangeable—to come and go as they wish. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been on this in the past, I believe that there is now general agreement that the Act was necessary and that some control over Commonwealth immigration is essential, although there may still be—and indeed there are—differences of view as to the degree of control required.
Given the need for control, the first question that arises is to which Commonwealth citizens the control should apply? I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and indeed all noble Lords opposite, that the Conservative Government, of which they were supporters, refused to institute a system of control that differentiated between the peoples of the different Commonwealth territories overseas. I should be the last to dissent from that view, and I do not think anyone else dissents from it. Indeed the Government fully accept the principle upon which the Act of 1962 is based. This principle is that people who, for want of a better term, "belong" to the United Kingdom (the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, used the word "belong") should be free of immigration control, and that people who "belong" to other Commonwealth territories should be subject to it. That is the short answer to the noble Lord's question asking why the people of Gibraltar are subject to the provisions of the 1962 Act.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he agree that the people of Gibraltar belong to this country on account of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I used the word "belong" in the sense in which think we understand it. I will develop that, because I think the noble Lord has really mixed up Sections 1 and 2 of the 1962 Act. I have only reached the point so far about British subjects or Commonwealth citizens being interchangeable and being the same for those purposes until we come to the 1962 Act. Then, one lot of British subjects are not subject to its provisions and another lot, by the virtually unanimous agreement of Parliament, are subject to it.
The noble Lord made some references, which I regretted, to the immigration officers and the way they carry out their duties—
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I did not cast a single aspersion on the immigration officers and the way in which they carry out their duties. I am sure that they do so efficiently and extremely well. I was casting aspersions on the way in which the Home Office handle this question in their notification to the Chief Immigration Officer at Harwich.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad to have that assurance from the noble Lord, because I think they carry out extremely difficult duties extremely well, and in a humanitarian way. Indeed, I hope that the booklet from which the noble Lord quoted will be read by every noble Lord in the House, because it gives an example of the kindly, human way in which we interpret the provisions of the 1962 Act. The noble Lord quoted one specific example, and if he reads tomorrow what he has said, he will find that he was somewhat rigorous in his criticisms of the Home Office and their attitude and, if I may say so, rather inaccurate. That is why I smiled at the pitiful picture he conjured up of these five poor "pop-groupers" being in danger of going penniless back to Gibraltar. The facts are somewhat otherwise.
This matter was raised in December, 1965, by my honourable friend, Mr. Colin Jackson, in another place, when he raised

727
the question of this group being admitted for six months. At first there was some understanding that they might have been employed by the Shell Company and that they did "pop" work in their spare time. Therefore the question of work vouchers was raised, and indeed properly raised. When it was found that they wanted to come as a "pop" group they were admitted in March. so it was not for a period of six months, but in March, 1966, they were admitted for six months.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, that is what I said.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord said that they were here for six months.
LORD MERRIVALE: I said, "previous to their visit to Holland".
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am telling the noble Lord that he is wrong, because their stay was extended to December 16, 1966, in order that they could be here when their first record was released. Incidentally, I understand they have a five-year recording contract with the Polydor company, so they are not hard up. The recording was delayed, so they actually remained here until January 31 of this year; namely, ten months. Then we were informed that they were leaving for a month's engagement in Cologne, and we were asked whether they could then return here for a further six months.
We have these concessions for entertainers, and we have entertainers and "pop" groups of our own in the country. We have concessions for entertainers who come here for a maximum of six months; but these boys had then been here for ten months, they were away for a month, then they asked whether they could come back for another six months. We thought that they had worked out their allowance at least until early 1968, and therefore we said, No. But they arrived at Harwich on March 3, and one of them, a Mr. Brittenden, travelling on a United Kingdom passport, was exempt from control. I would mention, in view of the fact that the noble Lord asked whether this was a question of policy, that Mr. Brittenden was given a passport which was not endorsed with "Gibraltar" to show it was issued on behalf of the Government of Gilhraltar. That was a mistake; it
728
should have been endorsed in that way. But he happened to be lucky. You cannot get a British passport in that way except, as this was, by accident. After considering the matter they were admitted for a further three months to allow them to fulfil the engagements to which they were committed. That is a total of 13 months out of 14, and I do not think they have been hard done by. In fact they have been treated particularly well compared with any other entertainers from abroad.
To come back to the original proposition, the principle is simple enough to express in general terms, but there are great technical difficulties in expressing it with sufficient precision for incorporation in an Act of Parliament. If there were such a thing as citizenship of the United Kingdom, in the way that there is citizenship of Switzerland or Canada, which distinguished the people who belong to the United Kingdom from those who belong to all other Commonwealth and foreign territories, we should have a simple task. But although each of the independent Commonwealth territories has a separate citizenship of its own, complication arises with people who belong to other parts of the Commonwealth, such as Gibraltar. Our nationality law draws no distinction between an Englishman who has lived all his life in England and a Gibraltarian who has lived all his life in Gibraltar, or a Fijiian who has lived all his life in Fiji. All of them are what we term citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But for the purposes of the 1962 Act—and this is the point where I think I depart in argument from the noble Lord—and of immigration controls, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two. The Englishman must be free of the control and the Gibraltarian ought to be subject to it. At least, that is what we have said until this moment under the Act.
The relevant statutory provision—Section 1 of the 1962 Act—makes this distinction according to whether a Commonwealth citizen was born in the United Kingdom and, if not, according to the kind of passport he holds. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, both made incomplete statements as to, broadly speaking, what exempts the Commonwealth citizen from the control. There are three, and I

729
should like to give them in full. First, lie is exempt from the control if he was born in the United Kingdom; secondly, he is exempt from control if his passport was issued to him by one of the British passport offices in the United Kingdom—that happened to Mr. Brittenden, by accident. Thirdly, he is exempt if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—which is as far as the noble Lord. Lord Reay, got in what he said—and his passport was issued to him overseas by a British High Commission or Consulate. That is part of what is necessary.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but what the noble Lord is saying is not what is said in the Act. Section 1(2) of the 1962 Act says:
"This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being—

(a) a person born in the United Kingdom;

(b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies "

and so forth. And this is qualified in sub-section (3), which says:
"In this section 'passport' means a current passport; and 'United Kingdom passport' means a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom".
There is no mention of the point made by the noble Lord: that it should be issued in this country by the Passport Office.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord read that section far too quickly for me to grasp the whole point. Indeed, I am not sure that I should have grasped it completely had he read it more slowly. The only ways a man can be exempted from the control are the three ways I mentioned, and I do emphasise on that exemption the third one is that he must be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and his passport must have been issued overseas by a British High Commission or Consulate.
LORD MERRIVALE: It is not in the Act.
LORD STONHAM: I would ask the noble Lord to accept that I will take note of his point and look at it. What I have given him is not only what I am advised but what has operated for the last
730
four and a half years, ever since the Act was passed.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, also argues that a passport issued by the Government of Gibraltar to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, acquiring that citizenship because he belongs to Gibraltar, exempts the holder from Part 1 of the Act, and that is why I said he is confusing Part II and Part I of the Act. We are talking about immigration control. That is the whole purpose of the noble Lord's Question. He is asking why Gibraltarians are subject to immigration control. I am telling him why. The noble Lord's view of the law which he has just expounded does not accord with ours. This point has not been tried out in a court of law. Therefore we shall continue to act on the assumption that Section 1 of the Act does what it set out to do. I think that is the position I must take up there.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment, merely to ask for information, because I am puzzled by all this? If what the noble Lord said is right, why do not the words "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"—"and Colonies"—produce exemption?
LORD STONHAM: A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is a British citizen in the same way as the noble Lord and I are British citizens and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But the point we are dealing with is which of us, persons like the noble Lord and myself, who were born in this country, or persons like the Gibraltarians, the Fijiians, the Mauritians, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, who were not born here but nevertheless are, like us, British citizens, are subject to immigration control, and that is precisely what I am now saying. I am dealing with the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, and I have correctly stated those provisions.
I would remind your Lordships that those provisions were virtually unanimously endorsed, not only in 1962 but again, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, reminded us, in 1965. It is with these provisions that I am now dealing, not the undeniable fact that the noble Lord and I, and people born in the British Commonwealth overseas, are all equally citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, though we do not have equal

731
liabilities under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. As I have tried to make clear, a Commonwealth citizen is not exempt from the control, if he was born outside the United Kingdom and his passport was issued by or on behalf of the Government of a Commonwealth country overseas or of a Colony or protectorate. The result is that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have acquired that status because of their connection with Gibraltar (and who thus get passports issued by or on behalf of the Governor of Gibraltar) are as much subject to the immigration control as the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who acquired that status through a connection with, say. Hong Kong or Mauritius; and all are subject to the immigration control to the same extent as, say, citizens of India or Cyprus.
The noble Lord has argued that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who "belong" to Gibraltar should be exempted from the immigration control. It was the burden of a considerable part of his speech that they should have special consideration. If I may say so, I respect his reasons for doing so, and I respect his sincerity. But I do not think his arguments are strong enough to warrant a breach of the principle on which Section 1 of the Act is based. I have no doubt whatever that it would be possible to make out a moving case for special treatment for almost any Commonwealth territory overseas, including the independent Commonwealth countries, and the noble Lord, eloquently though he argued, has not convinced me that his claim for Gibraltar is so strong—so much stronger than any other claim from any other country—that Gibraltarians can be treated more favourably than all other Commonwealth citizens who are at present subject to the control. Indeed, a great deal of what he said on behalf of Gibraltar would apply to the dependent territories in general; and, though there are fewer such territories now than in 1962 when Section 1 of the Act passed into law, their citizens still add up to a formidable population.
The total population of all the dependent territories in 1966 was no less than 9,123,000. What is being advocated on behalf of the 24,000 Gibraltarians could be argued with almost as much force,
732
in many cases with quite as much force, on behalf of the whole of that 9,123,000. Out of that number of more than 9 million, 30,162 were admitted to this country last year. That is about one in every 300. So far as Gibraltar is concerned, the population of which is a little over 24.000. the number admitted here last year was 2,247—almost one in ten. That compares, I am glad to say, with the admissions of Gibraltarians in 1963 of only 1,660. It is going up. In 1963 all but 39 of that 1,660 re-embarked. Last year, the net balance of admissions over embarkations of Gibraltarians was 176. The noble Lord mentioned that only 100 or 200 would come here. One or two thousand are coming here, and 100 or 200 are staying. So they are not doing so badly.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, what I meant was, do they remain permanently?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the balance of admissions over embarkations was 176, the assumption is that they did remain. That is why I have given all the figures fairly. Clearly, even if we thought it right to abandon the principle that the control should apply equally to all Commonwealth citizens overseas, I feel sure it would not be practical politics to exempt 9 million who do not belong to the United Kingdom from our immigration control.
The noble Lord said he hoped that at least consideration will flow from this Question. Most certainly we will consider it. My right honourable friend will consider carefully all that the noble Lord has said, and the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. But I do not want to raise false hopes. I am bound to say at the moment that I do not think that the noble Lord has made his case. But this is not to say that there is any lack of warmth in our feelings for Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians. We greatly admire the courage and resourcefulness to which he referred, and which they have shown over the last eighteen months when they have been confronted with grave difficulties.
Her Majesty's Government have made quite clear their determination to sustain the people of Gibraltar, and I am glad to have this opportunity to reiterate that.

733
As your Lordships know, considerable help has already been given, and more has been pledged. I would emphasise that the fact that the Gibraltarians are subject to immigration control does not mean that they are prevented from coming here. Large numbers of people who are subject to the immigration control are entitled, as of right, to be admitted to the United Kingdom, and other categories are freely admitted in accordance with the Home Secretary's instructions. The people of Gibraltar share these rights with the people of other Commonwealth territories, and I am glad that the figures I have given indicate
734
that they are using and exercising those rights in an ever-increasing degree. I hope that they will continue to do so, and that the strong ties between us will continue to grow and thrive.

UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [H.L.]

  NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BURGESSES' LANDS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, without amendment.
  House adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.