Lords Sitting of 26 October 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

LORD FISKE
Sir William Geoffrey Fiske, Knight, C.B.E., having been created Baron Fiske, of Brent in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mitchison and the Baroness Serota.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
Charles George Percy Delacourt-Smith, Esquire, having been created Baron Delacourt-Smith, of New Windsor in the Royal County of Berks, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Geddes of Epsom and the Lord Royle.
The Lady Ruthven of Freeland—Sat first in Parliament, pursuant to the Peerage Act 1963.
The Earl of Carlisle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION SCHEME
3.27 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: 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—

(a) how many applications have been received by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for entry into the Brucellosis Eradication Scheme;

(b) how many herds are now supervised and how many accredited; and

(c) what financial provision is being made for the coming year.]

LORD BESWICK: My Lords, up to October 16, 1967, 6,393 applications for membership of the Brucellosis
1766
(Accredited Herds) Scheme had been received by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and 821 by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Though it normally takes from eight to ten months before herds can complete qualifying tests and become "supervised", 76 herds are already "supervised" and six are already "accredited". This is due to extensive tests carried out privately before the Scheme started. Financial provisions for the coming year are being considered in the light of the past six months' experience.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his very courteous reply, I should like to ask him this question. In view of the fact that no grant or assistance is available until the herd has reached the "supervised" state, does the Minister feel that this is a very satisfactory result, showing enthusiasm of producers for the Scheme as a whole?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite certain to which grant the noble Lord is referring, but if he is thinking in terms of a financial incentive to a farmer to have his herd accredited, of course once a herd is accredited then it assumes a higher value, and there is that incentive to a farmer to have his herd become accredited. If the noble Lord is thinking in terms of grant or compensation for animals slaughtered, which is not payable until a herd is supervised, I would say that the argument has been discussed, but I think he will agree that it would be quite impossible to pay grants for compensation before that stage.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, that, I am afraid, was not the question I asked. It was this: In view of the fact that no grants are available until after a herd is "supervised", is the Minister satisfied with the progress of the Scheme as at present?
LORD BESWICK: The answer to that is, Yes, my Lords. Over 7,000 applications have been received, and this is most satisfactory.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a good deal of anxiety among the farming world that the incentives are not sufficient to bring about the very

1767
much desired progress in the Scheme? Will he ask his right honourable friend whether he will look again at the structure of the Scheme and consider whether the incentive should not be increased in order to get a faster recruitment to bring our herds generally into the Scheme, which is so desirable?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the points which have been made, but 100 applications a week are coming in, which would seem to indicate that there is a considerable incentive.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he recalls that about 18 months ago I initiated a debate on this subject on an Unstarred Question, and in consequence I was given an assurance that effective measures would be taken. Nevertheless, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that there are still 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the herds in this country infected? Furthermore, is he aware that the incidence of brucellosis or undulant fever is so high among veterinary surgeons, milkers, herdsmen and agricultural labourers, that pressure is being applied to classify this as an industrial disease. Is he further aware that if this is done these people will be entitled to compensation, and the cost to the country will be infinitely higher than the sum for which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being asked now, in order to make the Scheme effective?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure that my noble friend is right about the percentage of herds which are affected. The figure I have been given is 14 per cent. But I agree that it is too high. The point of difference is how best we can tackle this problem. It seems to me to be some indication that there is a good response to this scheme in view of the number of applications for membership which are coming forward.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the whole scheme is in danger of being bogged down, owing to restrictions of various kinds, and that there is a strong feeling among producers that the Ministry are deliberately putting obstacles in the way
1768
in order to keep the cost within the £100,000 appropriation for this year?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has these fears. I understand that he has expressed them most effectively at the Ministry, and I am sure it has been useful for the Ministry to have the benefit of his practical experience. But I can still only say that progress is being made in registration, and in another few months there should be a considerable step forward when the tests are completed of the number of herds accredited.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I am afraid that is not the case.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like to know whether the Animal Health Service is considered to be adequate for carrying out the tests. A great many people, having applied some months ago, have still made no progress whatsoever and have still not even been visited by the Animal Health Service practitioners. A great many have already withdrawn their names from the list because of the frustration which they feel at being given strict rules and regulations without any possibility of carrying them out.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to hear from the noble Lord that there is frustration leading to withdrawal from the scheme, and I hope that he will use his influence to see that they are not non-co-operative in this way. But if the number is as large as 7,000, and there are 100 new applications a week, clearly there must be some little delay.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think it is encouraging that there should be this number, and would it not be within the competence of the Ministry to have a sufficient number of people to deal with the clearing of herds, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has already said, would undoubtedly save money in the long run?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt it would be possible to have additional staff at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I see that there is strong criticism this week

1769
in some journals at the number of people already employed there.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the co-operation of the producers and the veterinary services and the Ministry is looked upon as an essential, and is he aware that this co-operation seems to have gone very far amiss? The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers convened a meeting of presidents and secretaries of breed societies and show societies, and asked the Minister to send a representative to explain the restrictions. Unfortunately the Minister was not able—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It is customary for whoever is acting—is the noble Lord giving way?
LORD ROWALLAN: I must apologise to the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene on matters of such importance, but I believe your Lordships are inclined to think that supplementary questions should not be too lengthy, and it is my duty, or the duty of any of your Lordships, to intervene. I congratulate the noble Lord, because he has managed to get in three or four quite effective little speeches.
LORD ROWALLANMy Lords, I shall hope to raise the matter on a future occasion.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I might just say that if the noble Lord has any details of the restrictions which he says are being placed, I shall be glad to have them looked into.

TAXICAB PASSENGERS AND SAFETY BELTS
3.38 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents involving passengers in taxicabs, and whether the compulsory fitting of safety belts for passengers should be introduced.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, information on the total number of such accidents is not readily available as taxicabs are not separately distinguished from cars in the reports on which national statistics of road accidents are based. While we are aware of individual accidents in which a safety belt, had it been worn, might have saved or reduced injury to a passenger in the back seat of a taxicab, we have no information to suggest that such cases are frequent. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is concentrating first on policies to require the fitting of safety belts in the front seats of cars, and taxis, and of those registered in 1965 and 1966; to encourage their fitting in older cars, and, perhaps more important, to persuade people to use those belts.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am a little disturbed to find that he is not aware of the figures, which were sent to me from the Cabowners' Association. They state that the average number of cab accidents occurring in a year is about a thousand. I would ask him to remember that this constitutes about 20 a week, which is an alarming figure. I hope that the compassion that Her Majesty's Government ordinarily feel towards the prevention of accidents will extend to passengers in taxicabs.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, certainly that information is not available, and I will see that the Department look into it. In fact we have a private taxicab company which has fitted these rear seat belts, and the police themselves are watching this as an experiment. But at

1771
the present moment we feel that we must concentrate our attention where the danger most lies, and that is in the front seats, both for the driver and for the passenger.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, as safety belts are already fitted in taxicabs for the protection of passengers' luggage, is it not more important that they should be fitted compulsorily for the protection of the passengers themselves?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may well have a point there, but I can foresee considerable difficulties. Not only have we to protect the passengers who sit in the two main back seats but, on occasion, we should need to provide similar equipment for those who sit on the collapsible seats. This matter is being considered, but the Department feel that the greatest emphasis at the present moment should lie in regard to private cars and taxis; and safety belts being fitted to the front seats.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, if the driver of the taxi were strapped in, would he not have great inconvenience in giving change for fares?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that these safety belts can be undone.

ST. PANCRAS SITE: CONFERENCE CENTRE PROPOSAL
3.40 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the great need for London to possess an international congress centre capable of providing accommodation for up to 5,000 participants, they would consider the use of the St. Pancras station site for this purpose.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Government would in principle welcome the building of a large, new, purpose-built conference
1772
centre, but there would be very serious objection to any scheme at St. Pancras which involved demolishing the station hotel building or the train shed. Alternative uses for these buildings are now being studied by a working party representing British Railways and the local planning authorities.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and I am glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government are constantly alert to the need for founding such a congress centre.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be possible to use the hotel accommodation and the railway administration accommodation for international constructive organisations involved in such activity? And would it not be possible to preserve the magnificent archway over St. Pancras station as a great congress hall which might be divided up and might also be used for athletics and the training of athletes for international competition?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the use of the train shed for a sports arena is among the possibilities under study. If any internationally useful organisation would be interested in taking the whole or part of St. Pancras Hotel for a conference centre I hope the noble Lord will ask them to get in touch with me or the Greater London Council or the Camden Borough Council.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that these large-scale conferences should be encouraged to come to London, with its limited hotel accommodation and congested traffic? Is it not much better to encourage them to go to those towns where the accommodation can conveniently be made available?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is rather a separate question and one which raises conflicting considerations on both sides.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is wrong with using St. Pancras at a terminus for an improved railway service to the Midlands?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand that British Railways are convinced that they can provide a better service by closing St. Pancras and concentrating the traffic at King's Cross.

THE CASE OF MR. LESLIE PARKES
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: 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 when the report promised in February, 1967, as to the proceedings by the military authorities and the conduct of the Minister for Defence in relation to Mr. Leslie Parkes will be published.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will arrange that my right honourable friend's Statement which was made in another place yesterday will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply to a Question which was tabled before the Minister made his Statement, and while not wishing to pursue the matter in detail, may I ask the Minister to confirm that no Minister is entitled by law to interfere with the course of military justice and no Minister, whatever his motives and however good—and I do not suggest the motives were not high in this case—is entitled to order a commanding officer to dismiss a charge?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to consider rather carefully some of the implications of the noble Viscount's remarks, but I think I can give an unequivocal answer that a Minister cannot himself dismiss a charge or order that a charge shall be dismissed. I might also inform the noble Lord that his interesting suggestion regarding nolle prosequi is going to be examined further.
Following is the Statement referred to in Lord Shackleton's main Answer:
"On 9th July, 1963, Leslie Parkes enlisted in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps on a nine-year engagement. On 3rd December, 1965, as his general conduct was not satisfactory, he was given formal warning that if there was no improvement within three months he would be discharged from the Army. On 23rd December, 1965, he left his unit in Germany without
1774
permission, and on 24th January, 1966, was formally recorded as absent without leave. The civil police were notified and, when they interviewed Parkes, he said that he had been discharged from the Army. After reference to the military authorities they arrested him on 23rd June, 1966, and brought him before the magistrates under Sections 186 and 187 of the Army Act, 1955.
Sections 186 and 187 of the Act provide that the police may arrest a suspected deserter and bring him before the magistrates; if the magistrates are satisfied that the suspect is subject to military law and consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify his trial under the Army Act, they have him delivered into military custody. The police conduct these proceedings, though they obtain most of their evidence from the Army.
Parkes was brought before the magistrates on 23rd June and 7th and 21st July, 1966. An officer from his unit identified him, produced his attestation paper, and described how he was found to be absent. In the cross-examination the defending solicitor questioned the validity of the attestation. The police sought leave to call additional evidence but this request was not granted. Parkes then gave the evidence which was the subject of his subsequent conviction for perjury. He said that he had enlisted in December 1962, not July 1963—and for three years, not nine; and that in December 1965 his unit had allowed him to go home and had said that his discharge papers would follow. The magistrates discharged him—a decision against which there is no provision for appeal.
After the military authorities had collected all available evidence, the Army Legal Services advised that there was a case against Parkes, and the Ministry decided that he should be re-arrested in time for procedings to start on 13th February. The delay was partly due to the need to obtain evidence from witnesses who were in Germany and Aden, and partly to pressure of work on the Army Legal Services, which are under strength.
The present provisions in the Army Act regarding the arrest of deserters do not define clearly the respective functions of the civil and military authorities. The police have power to arrest a deserter under Section 186; but, in addition, the military authorities have power under Section 74 to arrest a soldier for any offence against the Act. In practice, the military authorities and the police co-operate in the arrest of deserters: usually the former arrest those who admit their identity as soldiers; the latter those who do not. The question whether the military authorities should rearrest a man who has been discharged by the magistrates under Section 187 has arisen only very rarely, although a footnote to that section in the Manual of Military Law states that a man can be rearrested under either Section.
It was more than 20 years since such a rearrest had taken place; in that case the surrounding circumstances were significantly different, and the man concerned, unlike Parkes, admitted that he was a soldier to the military

1775
police arresting him. In the Parkes case the disciplinary branch of the Ministry of Defence (Army) decided, on legal advice, that Parkes should be rearrested under Section 74.
The civil police co-operated to the extent of inducing him to go to a police station, where he was arrested by the Military Police on 9th February, 1967. The methods of his arrest were criticised, and the Chief Constable instituted an investigation. Since Parkes himself refused to make any complaint about the part played by the police in his arrest and the investigation did not disclose any other administrative or procedural fault, the Chief Constable has decided that no formal disciplinary action can ensure, but the cirticism has been noted and the officer concerned has been given suitable advice.
Since Parkes's original unit was overseas, he was held, as is normal, in the depot of his Corps—the R.A.O.C. depot at Blackdown. Parkes was confined in the guardroom. The depot is an exposed, unfenced camp, where there have been several escapes, so the commanding officer decided that Parkes should be handcuffed when moving about the camp, but not in his cell. It was impossible to keep photographers out of the camp, and photographs of him handcuffed and escorted by guards armed with pick helves were published. After being charged before his commanding officer, Parkes was remanded for a Summary of Evidence, which an officer of Army Legal Services started to take.
The case had now attracted considerable attention in Parliament and the Press. It had several features which suggested that the public interest might be better served if it proceeded no further. The way in which Parkes had been induced to go to the police station was open to criticism. The publication of photographs showing him hancuffed seemed likely to be prejudicial to him. There had been a long delay before each of his arrests—nearly 14 months had passed since he originally left his unit, and the preparation of a court-martial would have taken a further month or so.
Above all, there were doubts about the propriety of the action to arrest under Section 74 of the Army Act a man who had been discharged by the magistrates under Section 187. Even though such arrest was lawful, it seemed contrary to the public interest that a man who had been discharged by a civil court under one Section of the Act should be rearrested for the same offence by military procedures under a different Section of the Act. Taking all these factors into account, I therefore decided that Parkes ought to be released from custody and discharged from the Army forthwith.
In arriving at this decision, which I recognised would automatically involve the dismissal of the charge made against him by the military authorities, I was concerned to avoid the greater harm which I believed the public interest would have suffered if the case had been allowed to
1776
proceed—a concern widely held at the time and expressed in the House of Commons by the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on 14th February. In the absence of any military analogy to the civil procedures of 'entering a nolle prosequi' or 'offering no further evidence' there was no more satisfactory means by which the proceedings could be brought to an end.
On 15th February, 1967, Parkes was told that the case against him had been dropped, and that he was released from arrest. The next day he collected a temporary certificate of discharge from the Army; he received a final certificate of discharge with effect from 15th February. The commanding officer later endorsed the charge sheet, 'Case dismissed'.
Parkes was subsequently arrested by the civil police on charges of perjury arising from his appearance before the magistrates in June-July, 1966. On 24th July, he pleaded guilty at the Stafford Assizes to five charges of perjury, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against the sentence was rejected on 5th October, 1967.
Some of the circumstances which together persuaded me that Parkes should be released arose from minor errors of judgment which have been brought to the attention of those concerned. But the case has revealed inadequacies in the law as it now stands, which I am sure the House would wish to see corrected.
There is a lack of clarity in the existing law in two fields: first, in the circumstances in which the respective powers of arrest under Sections 74 and 186 of the Army Act should be exercised; and, second, in the way in which military disciplinary procedures may be stopped once they have started—in particular, where a man has been released from custody, as in this case. When the Army Act is next reviewed, consideration will be given to redefining the respective civil and military powers of arrest of absentees and deserters, and to providing, in the course of military disciplinary procedures some analogy to the civil processes of 'offering no further evidence' or 'entering a nolle prosequi'.
Meanwhile, instructions have been issued to Army Home commands, and incorporated in Queen's Regulations, that suspected deserters and absentees should not be arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act unless they admit that they are soldiers, and also that, where suspects have been arrested by the civil police and discharged by the magistrates, they should not be rearrested in the United Kingdom (except Scotland) under Section 74."

ABORTION (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment.
BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is proposed to take the Amendment referred to in the Commons Message immediately after the Leasehold Reform Bill. May I take the opportunity of saying that at a convenient moment there will be a Statement on the Common Market made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, after which my noble friend Lady Phillips will be making a Statement on the extension to the British Museum.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills be amended. I think I should say a few words by way of explanation of the Amendments I am proposing to Private Bill Standing Orders this afternoon. The majority of these Amendments, as will be seen on the Marshalled List, are to take account of the transfer of functions between various Ministries and the resulting changes of nomenclature for Government Departments at which, of course, copies of Private Bills and supporting documents are required by our Standing Orders to be deposited. Amendment No. 8 is something different; this is to leave out Standing Order 133 which was regarded as necessary when there were a large number of railway Bills. It is now considered to be out of date. There is no corresponding Standing Order relating to other works, such as dock works and water works, and there appears to be no reason now to single out railways or tramways for this treatment.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential on the passing of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965. No. 10 provides for the extension of petitioning time under our Standing Orders from 14 to 21 days, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. I may add that similar Amendments to Private Bill Standing Orders were agreed to yesterday in another place. To save the time of the House I should like to move these Amendments en bloc, and therefore, with your Lordships' permis-
1778
sion I will move that the Amendments set out on the Martialled List be agreed to.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills:
Standing Order 27, page 24, line 62, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Public Building and Works").
Standing Order 31, page 26, line 6, leave out ("Ministry of Transport") and insert ("Board of Trade").
Standing Order 37, page 28, line 15, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").
Standing Order 39, page 29, line 3, leave out ("Aviation") and insert ("Technology").
Standing Order 39, page 29, line 10, leave out ("the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources").
Standing Order 39, page 29, line 28, leave out ("Colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").
Standing Order 46, page 32, line 5, leave out ("or Ministry of Land and Natural Resources").
Standing Order 133, page 63, leave out the Order.
Standing Order 203, page 84, line 5 at end insert ("as amended by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965").
Standing Order 213, page 89, line 14, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS SCHEME 1967
3.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 26 be approved. It might be convenient to noble Lords if we were also to discuss the next Scheme on the Order Paper which is related to it, the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1967 at the same time.
The two Schemes have two main aims. First, to offer incentives to farmers who want to increase the size of their farms to enable them to make more efficient use of farm buildings and equipment, and at the same time to make a better living; and secondly, to help farmers who wish to leave their small and often uneconomic farms. Naturally, we hope that many farmers will avail

1779
themselves of these opportunities. But I want to emphasise what has already been said elsewhere, that the decisions to be taken are quite voluntary by the farmers concerned.
The Amalgamations Scheme is made under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967, and it runs for seven years. It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, and provides for grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of a wide range of expenses arising from the amalgamation of small farms and the reshaping of farms to give more satisfactory boundaries. To qualify for grant an amalgamation must combine an uncommercial unit with other land to form a commercial unit or, exceptionally, if a commercial unit cannot be formed in one step, to form an intermediate unit as the first stage.
A commercial unit may be defined as one that can provide full-time employment for the farmer and at least one other man. An uncommercial unit is one too small to qualify as commercial, while an intermediate unit must be capable of providing full-time work for one man. The size of each is assessed on the basis of how much employment it can provide, assuming a system of husbandry suitable for the district, and that the greater part of the livestock feed is produced on the farm. This means that a unit is assessed on the potential of the land and not necessarily on its current use.
There is no upper limit to the size of a commercial unit, but the tests in paragraph 5 of the Scheme of whether proposals are prudent, reasonable in cost, and effective, will prevent the creation of unwieldy units. To exclude farms which are essentially part-time the Scheme does not apply to uncommercial units which are not big enough to provide at least 100 days work a year. If an applicant proposes to form an intermediate, but not a commercial, unit, the proposed unit must satisfy the tests in paragraph 5(2) to show that the new unit will be a real step towards a fully commercial unit. The Scheme provides that the potential required of commercial units, which must provide full-time employment for not less than two men, is at least 600 days work a year; and that the potential
1780
required to qualify as an intermediate unit is 275 days work. In assessing the potential of existing and amalgamated farms, the current list of standard man-days as set out in the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme will be used. These are not, however, written into the Amalgamations Scheme since it is intended to keep it as flexible as possible.
It would, of course, be wrong to provide grants for the reconstitution of any commercial units which have been deliberately split up into uncommercial units since August 4, 1965, the date these proposals were first announced. To safeguard against this, paragraph 3 of the Scheme makes such units ineligible unless the applicant can show a good reason—such as the death or bankruptcy of the owner—for the splitting up. The works or improvements eligible for grant are set out in the Schedule. As noble Lords will see, it covers a very wide range of items. The remaining provisions are reasonably self-explanatory.
May I now turn to the Outgoers Scheme. This Scheme is made under Section 27 of the Agriculture Act 1967. It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and will run for seven years. It provides for the payment of lump sum or annuity grants to anyone who gives up occupation of an uncommercial unit so that it can be incorporated in an amalgamation. To qualify for this grant an applicant is required by paragraph 4(1) to have occupied the land he proposes to give up throughout the period from August 4, 1965, the date these grants were announced. This is to prevent people speculatively buying farms just to get a grant. People who have inherited farms or taken them over from members of the family may, however, qualify under paragraph 5 provided they have worked on the farm for at least two years by the time they submit their proposal to give up occupation. A surviving wife or husband need only have lived on the farm or occupied it for two years.
Both tenants and owners of farms are eligible under the Scheme, but tenants must hold full agricultural tenancies. They must give up their land for an amalgamation under the Amalgamations Scheme or on sale to the Minister or to a rural development board. The provision in paragraph 4(2) is to stop people

1781
deliberately reducing a unit in size in order to qualify under this Scheme for grant. But we do not wish to inhibit farmers from carrying out amalgamations of very small farms outside the scope of the Scheme. Under paragraph 6, therefore, a farmer may qualify for grant if he has added land to his farm. He must have occupied all the land he proposes to give up for at least two years, and sufficient of the land to form an uncommercial unit during the whole of the time from August 4, 1965.
Her Majesty's Government have always made it clear that the outgoer's grant is intended for those mainly dependent for their livelihood on the farms they want to give up. This is why we have the income test in paragraph 7. It will enable a farmer to qualify under the Scheme if the annual income of himself and his wife from sources other than farming does not exceed £400. And in these cases it does not matter whether they get a lot or little from the farm. But if a farmer and his wife have more than £400 from sources other than the farm, then they must have an income from the farm of £3 for every £1 over £400 from other sources. This test will enable farmers to derive a reasonable amount of income from outside their farms but it will, at the same time, exclude from the scheme those for whom farming does not represent their chief source of income.
Paragraph 3(1) empowers the Minister to impose conditions in paying grant. One of the conditions we propose to make is that the recipient of an annuity and his wife must give up farming. As the idea of the annuity is to ease the farmer's retirement he must not expect to get the grant and go back into farming. We realise, however, that a retired countryman may wish to "farm" on a small scale as a hobby or to meet family needs, and as long as the activity does not provide him with work in excess of 100 standard man days he can do this. Moreover, the farmer's wife (or husband) is entitled to receive the half annuity after his or her death. No similar condition will be imposed on outgoers who take the lump sum.
My Lords, these are small measures, but they should make a real contribution towards a lasting improvement, both in the structure and in the efficiency of the agricultural industry. They should
1782
also be of help to some of those who have struggled hard in the industry to make a living. The rate of grant has been improved since the discussions on the Agriculture Bill. They now offer, as I think most noble Lords will agree, an attractive incentive and will, I believe, evoke a satisfactory response. I invite the House to approve these two Schemes.
Moved, That the Draft Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1967, laid before the House on July 26, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
3.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, about our application to join the Common Market, the three European Communities. The Statement is as follows:
"First, let me give a brief summary of developments since the debate in the House on May 8 to 10. As honourable Members will recall, we then applied to join the Communities in terms strictly in accordance with the appropriate articles in the Treaties dealing with new members. Since that date all the procedures laid down in the Treaties have been observed. Before the Summer Recess, and following the statement which I made at the W.E.U. Council on July 4, the Council of Ministers of the Six asked the Commission to prepare an opinion on our application. This the Commission did quickly and thoroughly; their report was presented to the Council of Ministers on the 30th September.
"The Commission's report—which deals also with the application of Denmark, Ireland and Norway—has now been published; and copies of the English version have been available for some days in the Library of the House.
"The report is an internal document of the Community and has not yet been fully debated by the Six

1783
Governments. But there are two important, points in the report to which I should like to draw attention. First, the conclusion that Britain's accession to the Community will strengthen it and afford it the opportunity for further progress. Second, the firm recommendation of the Commission that negotiations should begin. For, as they say, solutions can only be found in negotiations.
"As the House knows, this is our view, and it conforms with Community procedures as laid down in the Treaty. It is the view of the overwhelming majority of opinion throughout Europe. We want to join the Communities as they are, on equal terms with the other members. And we want, with our partners, to go from there and build with them on the foundations they have laid, so that together we achieve a more united, more powerful Europe. I am glad to think that our purposes in this are now clearly recognised.
"The Council of Ministers of the Community discussed, as members know, the Commission's opinion at length earlier this week. These discussions will continue on the 20th November. Meanwhile we in Britain should not rush to draw conclusions.
"We are confident that the procedures laid down in the Treaty will continue to be followed. The Treaty provides that the Member States and the Applicant States shall agree on the conditions of admission and the adjustments required. This means negotiations. We therefore continue to expect a reply from the Six as a whole that having received the Commission's Opinion on the point they are ready to open negotiations with us.
"The Luxembourg meeting demonstrated what a lot of support there is for this application in the Community. I should like to acknowledge the strong support we received from a number of countries. We are confident that in the further discussions which the Six are to have next month the utmost efforts will be made to obtain agreement that the Community should begin negotiations with us in accordance with the Treaty.
1784
"As the House knows, we have had the pleasure of a visit these last three days from the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. This gave us a timely opportunity for a thorough discussion together on these issues. We were encouraged by the strong support which Chancellor Kiesinger and his Government continue to give us. I should like to remind the House of the statement which he made before he left London yesterday.
'The Federal Government is of the opinion that Great Britain should become a member of the European Communities. It will carefully examine the objections to British membership which have been raised within the Community of the Six. During the deliberations initiated among the Six the Federal Government will endeavour to help overcome the difficulties that have arisen and trusts that these deliberations will soon lead to the opening of negotiations with Great Britain'.
"Her Majesty's Government will continue to press hard for negotiations. Our application is on the table. We for our part are ready to start negotiations now."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making this Statement, which most of your Lordships will have been glad to hear. The Statement makes only the briefest reference to the meeting of the Council of Ministers at the beginning of this week which decided to postpone further discussion until November 20, and the noble Lord expressed the hope that we should not rush to draw any conclusions about this. Whatever conclusions we may draw, I think there is one thing that we must never do and that is to turn our backs on Europe in a huff. It is quite possible that within the next two or three months the French Government may do and say many things which may be deliberately designed to provoke and to encourage hostility in Great Britain against the Common Market. We must not allow ourselves to fall into this trap, and we may have to be very patient, not so much for our own sakes as for the sake of humanity, whose highest interests we must hope that General de Gaulle will not continue to obstruct for ever. Meanwhile, we fully support the policy which is contained in the Statement.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friends on these

1785
Benches, I should like to congratulate the Government most sincerely on the strong effort which they are making to enter the European Economic Community, and indeed on the punctilious way in which they have duly fulfilled all the formalities required. In so doing they have, of course, a great majority of this House and of the country behind them, to say nothing of Europe, as I think the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement. In spite of the feverish propaganda of the present French Government, which, as we all know, for rather obscure political reasons is seizing on every possible excuse to refuse us admittance or at any rate to delay our entry, we on these Benches believe that the Government also have the support of a large section of the people of France. In these circumstances we must assume that negotiations will in the long run duly take place, and I am sure that the Government are not going to lose heart in any way.
I must say that we should have welcomed the Statement of the Foreign Secretary even more if he had been a little more explicit as regards the Government's intention, once they are in the Community, to abide by the terms of the Treaty of Rome as regards qualified majority voting, which is the whole point, and of their ultimate intention—and why not?—once they are in the Community, to work towards the formation of a real European Political Community employing the same techniques as those employed in the European Economic Community. I have no doubt that that is their intention, but if it is, we feel that it would be desirable for them to say so, thus demonstrating to our friends in Europe, whose support is so vital to us, our intention to form with them a real European entity and not to make do with what is usually referred to in Gaullist circles as a Europe of States.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I shall not to-day be making a speech, but will defer it until the foreign affairs debate. May I ask my noble friend how much humiliation we have to face before we become a dignified nation? Should we not now withdraw our application and not be snubbed, as we have been this week and as we were in 1963? Can we not stop running about like scalded cats in Europe and seek our livelihood with the rest of the world in a dignified manner?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I welcome the remarks of both the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I admire their eloquence. I admire the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Blyton, although I do not welcome it. I think that he does not expect me to comment. I would only draw his attention to the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, which were that we should not turn our backs in a huff and that we must show patience. I do not for one moment accept that we have taken other than a determined and dignified posture.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what action the Government are taking at present to improve and develop our relations with EFTA, and how far it is possible for them to keep in touch with our EFTA colleagues throughout the whole of these negotiations and discussions with the Six?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. He will be aware that we have been constantly in touch with EFTA and that our EFTA colleagues know at each stage exactly the policy Her Majesty's Government are following. I think that there is a great degree of mutual understanding in EFTA about the present situation.

FARM AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS SCHEME 1967
4.9 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining to us the intention and meaning of the two Agricultural Orders now before us. I would observe that Lord Shackleton's intervention on the Government's intention to continue with the application to enter the Common Market adds some point to the debate on these Agricultural Orders in relation to farm amalgamations. In fact, this country on the whole has with regard to farm structure been well placed in competition with other European countries. It will matter a great deal, if this application to enter succeeds, that we should retain and preserve the advantage we now have on

1787
farm structure against the day when we are in open competition with the other European countries who go to make up the Common Market.
For this reason I welcome the Government's general intention to assist the amalgamation of farms on the one hand, to build them up into bigger and more economic holdings, and on the other hand to assist the outgoer who wishes to leave his farm. We are moving towards modern mechanisation and improvements in technology, both in livestock and in crop growing, with the bigger the unit the lower the unit cost. Therefore there is a better prospect for both the farmer and the farm worker to get a decent living out of the farm, and at the same time to produce food at lower prices. So the general trend here is, I am sure, generally acceptable to everybody.
These Orders have been described as a modest incentive—and I agree with that—both in giving grants for the amalgamation of farms and in the payment to outgoers. Here I have to recognise that it has probably been traditional for farmers to tend to retire to a smaller farm as a sort of pension job, and there to remain for the rest of their lives, which often, and I hope usually, are very long ones. But this is not entirely in the best interests of getting the biggest production out of our farms.
I observe that the trend towards amalgamation over recent years has been proceeding fairly well, as a result of the natural economic forces. In 1953 there were some 380,000 farms registered in England and Wales, and in 1964 there were 323,000 farms registered in England and Wales on the farm returns. So there has been a reduction in the total number over this period of some 15 per cent.; that is to say, a rate of reduction of over 1 per cent. per annum. In this context I should like to ask the noble Lord—if he would be good enough to answer a few questions at the end of the debate—what acceleration of this rate of amalgamation he expects to happen as a result of these two Orders, say, over the next ten years, and what he expects to be the annual cost of administering these two Orders.
Here I would ask the noble Lord about an even more important point, and it is
1788
this. Is the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, satisfied that the additional incentive which these two Orders will provide will be strong enough to offset the influence of this Government's fiscal measures to break up the bigger farm holdings? Farmers are now generally aware of the drastic effect—and I emphasise the word "drastic"—of the new long-term capital gains tax on farm holdings which pass at the death of the occupant. With the continuing inflation and rise of land values, the incidence is going to be so great that most farms will have to be split up on the death of the present occupant, in order to meet the capital gains tax, plus the estate duties.
The noble Lord may be aware that at the last Oxford farming conference this was the chief topic of discussion among the leading farmers of this country, and it is causing a great deal of anxiety. I need hardly add that nothing could be more damaging to the future prospect of the cheap and plentiful production of our farms, especially in these days of technological advance, than splitting up big holdings into a larger number of small ones. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would pass that thought on to his colleagues and ask them most urgently to reconsider it. I would also add that my Party has pledged itself to repeal the folly of this long-term capital gains tax.
Turning to the terms of the two Orders, I must thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given us of a number of points in them, but I am sure he will not take it amiss if I observe that these Orders are pretty complex—especially the two taken together—and for the laymen, among whom I would include myself, a child's guide will really be most necessary if farmers are to understand how they are to qualify for either of the grants. May I ask the noble Lord whether, if such a child's guide will be made available, he can assure us that there will be examples to show how it works? May I also ask him whether he can tell us when such a publication could come out? In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the meaning of paragraph 7 of the Order relating to payments to outgoers, dealing with the income test—that is, the means test—which I found difficult to understand, although I understood the trend of it. Would the noble

1789
Lord make sure that this, in particular, is explained in the laymen's guide that comes out?
A rather more substantial point arises on the qualification in paragraph 3(2) of the same Order on the eligibility of proposals. That limits the holdings which qualify to those where
"the greater part of the feeding stuffs required by any livestock kept on the unit is grown there".
This qualification would appear completely to exclude the specialist livestock holding, either of cattle if they were kept intensively, or of pigs or poultry. Of course, there are many small farmers up and down the country, especially on the less good land, who have relied on keeping perhaps 1,000 hens or 10 breeding sows in order to bring in the greater part of their income. These farmers are now feeling the pressure of reducing profit margins and are progressively being pushed out of business. On those holdings, of course, the livestock are mainly dependent on bought feeding stuffs, as opposed to feeding stuffs produced on the holding.
These small farmers are undoubtedly desperately in need of the outgoers' grant which is described here and, in the main, it would probably be desirable that these small holdings were given up and amalgamated with neighbouring holdings, in order to produce more economic holdings. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention that this type of specialist producer, who is mainly dependent on bought feeding stuffs, is to be excluded from the benefit of these grants. If that is the Government's intention I think we ought to know it. But I would most cogently ask the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend the Minister to reconsider this point.
Finally, I should like to mention a matter which has received a good deal of comment in the farming world, and that is the effect of Schedule 3 of the 1967 Act which requires repayment of grant if the amalgamated holding is either sold or split up within 40 years. I believe the Minister has undertaken to consider sympathetically an application if a sale is needed in order to meet the estate duty or capital gains tax. We welcome such words from the present Minister, who is known to be sympathetic to the farming
1790
world, but a successor might not be so sympathetic. Therefore, would it not have been better to put some such discretion specifically into the Order, in order to make plain that such discretion would be used in reasonable circumstances? With those few comments, may I say that I welcome the general principle of the Order and hope that your Lordships will give it your assent.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Order but perhaps in a rather qualified way. I feel that it is a good try to solve a rather intractable problem, but I am not terribly hopeful that it will work. I believe we all thought twenty years ago that the natural economic trends would work rather faster than they have done, so this is one of the methods we ought to try. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, this incentive is working directly contrary to the present fiscal policy, which is another reason why I am not sure that the scheme will work.
One of the factors which makes for the intractability of this problem is the inflexibility of our law on land tenure, and I hope that when we come to reexamine some of the problems of the Agricultural Holdings Act—which we probably will do in the next two years—this sort of problem will be given great attention. Nevertheless, as I say, I welcome the Order. It is a good try and one which ought to be made, and whereas the natural economic forces sometimes cause great hardship to certain individuals, with regard to this Order there is, at least, every hope that that will not happen, and that people whom one wishes to leave an industry will leave it, not in pain and bitterness, as it were, but advantageously, not only to the industry in general but also to themselves.
4.20 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the welcome given by noble Lords opposite to these two Orders, though perhaps with rather more enthusiasm than that evinced by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, mentioned the economic aspects of these Orders, which are important. There are also, of course, the social implications which I think are possibly even more

1791
important in certain areas of this country. For my part, I think it is particularly gratifying to see this practical application of genuine Socialist planning, both for economic efficiency and for the welfare of human beings, coming from the Ministry of Agriculture at this time.
I should like to ask for amplification from my noble friend on one particular point, even though, I am afraid, it exhibits my own ignorance or inability to understand the words of the Order. As I understood him in his remarks, he said that before the spouse of an occupier, on the death of the occupier himself, was able to claim any grant under this Order he or she would have to have been in occupation for two years. Reading paragraph 5(b) of the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme, that does not, as I understand it, seem to be the case. It looks to me—and, if I may say so, this seems to me the commonsense interpretation—as if, should a farmer die tomorrow and his widow wish to avail herself of the provisions of this Order, she would be able to do so at once and would not have to remain there for two years before she was entitled to do that. As I say, that seems to me the common-sense application, and it is, I believe, what the Order means. But possibly I misunderstood my noble friend in his remarks, and therefore I would be most grateful if he could clarify it for us.
4.23 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first of all thank noble Lords who have given a general welcome to these two Schemes? A number of very relevant questions have been asked. If I am not able to answer them all in detail, I shall certainly get the answers to them and let the noble Lords concerned know. I was asked whether it was possible to have a "child's guide" to these Schemes. My understanding is that there is an explanatory leaflet already in the Library, and that it has already been distributed; but if that is not adequate, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will let me know in what respects he thinks it falls short of what is desired, and I shall certainly put the point to my right honourable friend. I agree with the noble Lord—and I think everybody accepts this—that the Schemes are diffi-
1792
cult, are a little complicated, and that if they are to achieve the result which we require it will be absolutely essential that those who are concerned and are likely to benefit should understand what the possibilities are.
I was asked about the rate of amalgamations, and the noble Lord himself gave some figures as to the reduction that has already taken place in the number of smallholdings in this country. It is estimated, as I understand, that something like 3,000 small and medium-sized farms are amalgamated in the United Kingdom each year now. Not all of those, of course, are permanent amalgamations. Sometimes the extra land is only rented. The object of the new Scheme is to speed up this trend; and, although it is too early to make any reliable estimate of the rate which will be achieved, the expectation is that the existing rate of some 3,000 a year might be doubled in the next year or so. That, of course, is only a reasonably intelligent guess, but that is the expectation.
The noble Lord had some words to say about the fiscal measures of the present Government. I suppose that his general welcome to the Scheme and his general kindness on these matters would not prevent him from having some "dig" at the Government, especially so soon after Brighton. However, I do not believe that any facts can be produced to show that the capital gains tax has had effect upon amalgamations; and, in any case, as the noble Lord will know, I think there are provisions, there are reliefs, by which, in the event of an estate having to be broken up, payment of tax on gains can be spread over a period of, I believe, something like eight years. So I should have thought it was inconceivable that there would be a capital gains consideration which would involve the breaking up of an estate into the kind of fragmented parcels that we are talking about under this Scheme.
The noble Lord also asked me about the cost of the Scheme. It is expected that, when it is running, possibly over the next three or four years, the cost will be of the order of £15 million to £17 million a year. The administrative cost within that figure, it is estimated, will be about £500,000 a year. I was asked by my noble friend Lord Walston about the surviving spouse. I am sorry if I did not

1793
make this more clear, but as I understand it the surviving spouse must have been on the holding, or have been entitled to be there, for at least two years. But these two years may, of course, have been before her husband's death.
I was asked a very important question by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about the qualification of a smallholding, in connection with the provision that the greater part of the feeding stuffs required for the stock kept on that land must also be grown on the land; and he felt that this might exclude some very deserving smallholders. I can probably explain this point better in this way. Paragraph 3 provides that, in order to qualify for grant, the uncommercial unit being relinquished must be capable of providing employment for at least 100 days a year: and what I have to emphasise is that it does not necessarily follow that the unit must at present provide this number of days' employment. If I may quote a few examples, the present scale allows 12 standard man-days for each dairy cow, four standard man-days for each breeding sow, and one standard man-day for every five hens. So a holding would be regarded as capable of providing at least 100 days employment a year if, under the farming system suitable for the district, it could, for example, keep 9 dairy cows or 25 breeding sows or 500 hens, and grow the greater part of the feeding stuffs required. But the capability to do this is what is important.
Another example of a smallholding which could satisfy the test would be a unit of 400 hens on 12 acres, of which 9 acres were capable of growing barley. I say capable of growing barley, but there may well be a situation in which a greater part of the land was used for keeping the poultry and a lesser part for producing the feeding stuffs. But the land must have this potential to provide half the feeding stuffs. The kind of holding which may well be ruled out by this qualification is what one might call the factory farm, on which there is very intensive farming of stock with feedstuffs entirely brought in from off the farm. It is this type of factory farm which it is thought is not the sort to be encouraged to amalgamate by these two Schemes.
My Lords, I think that this covers the questions I have been asked. If on
1794
reading Hansard I find that I have overlooked any, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned. In the meantime, may I thank the House for the welcome given to these Schemes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM STRUCTURE (PAYMENTS TO OUTGOERS) SCHEME 1967
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1967, laid before the House on July 26, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VESSELS PROTECTION 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 July 26), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
4.33 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Common Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (278) as first printed for the Lords, Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendment are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) In this Part of this Act references to a leasehold house shall not include a house situated on land belonging to a landlord which is an institution, organisation or trust established for charitable purposes.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it would not be just for a tenant's right to retain his home under the Bill to be made subject to an exception depending on the fact that the landlord's investment in the premises is held for charity.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and carried on Division by a large majority. It concerns charities, and he was putting the view, which commended itself to your Lordships, that in the general context of this Bill estates owned by charities should be excluded from the enfranchisement provisions. I do not think that any one of us would argue for special consideration for charities if the terms of compensation under the Bill were just; but the fact that the terms of compensation are confiscatory, so far as the bricks and mortar are concerned, causes a revulsion of feeling against the proposition that individual leaseholders should be able to make substantial capital gains on their leasehold houses at the expense of the charity concerned. I personally feel as strongly about these untaxed capital gains where the freeholder is an individual or a company as I do where the freeholder is a charity; but I think it is particularly repellent to public opinion that a charity should be made to suffer because its leaseholders can obtain the bricks and mortar of their houses for nothing.
This was the issue between us, and unfortunately the Commons have disagreed to our Amendment. They have given a Reason which suggests that it is not possible to make a special exception for a certain type of property according
1796
to its freehold owner. But in fact in other parts of the Bill that is exactly what the Government have assumed. I must grant that this was a Bill founded on a White Paper which was before the electorate at the time of the last Election. It would not, therefore, be suitable for your Lordships to resist the Commons in this matter, as that would be tantamount to throwing out the Bill. But I have no doubt whatever that in this matter it is this House which has declared the view that is generally acceptable to public opinion, and the action of the Commons, taken on the invitation of the Government, is contrary to what the general public of this country would desire.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the houses about which we are talking are not houses held or used for any charitable purpose. They are investments like other tenanted houses in the country and—as I have explained twice before—the fact that the investor is a charity, as opposed to not being a charity did not seem to the Government reason for exempting charities as investors. The noble Lord made the point that the Bill did provide for exemptions from enfranchisement in the case of certain other landlords because of the nature of those landlords. This is so; but only in the case of landlords which have compulsory purchase powers—landlords like local authorities and certain others. It is obviously absurd to insist on the tenant having a right to enfranchise from a body which within a short time intends to redevelop that property and has the right to do so by taking it back under compulsory purchase powers. Charities do not have compulsory purchase powers.
Lastly, the noble Lord is quite right to say that this was in the White Paper. With his usual meticulous observation of what has been before the electorate and what has not, I am glad to hear that he does not think that your Lordships should pursue the point any further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 1, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, this Part of this Act shall not confer on the tenant of a house any right by reference to his occupation of it

1797
as his residence if the house forms part of an estate which on application made by the owner to the High Court either before the appointed day for this Part of the Act or within not more than three months thereafter is certified by the High Court as an estate held under statutory enactment or trust deed the purpose of which is to maintain the entity of the freehold estate and that on the date of application to the High Court the owner of the estate was required to have regard only to the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) in granting to a tenant of a house and premises an extension or renewal of an existing long tenancy at a low rent:
Provided that in the event of the conditions not continuing to apply to the estate the High Court on application by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State shall be empowered to cancel the certificate and thereupon this Part of this Act shall apply to the estate as from the date of cancellation of the certificate.
In default of agreement between the owner of the estate and a tenant of a house held on a long lease at a low rent as to the letting value of the site of the house and premises the provisions of section 21 of this Act shall apply as if it were rent to be fixed under section 15.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because there is no sufficient case for making the tenant's rights under the Bill subject to a general exception in the case at which the Amendment is aimed, and the Amendment would allow landlords to defeat the objects of the Bill in other cases also.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would say a little more about this issue. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that this Amendment was inserted on the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and was supported, on a Division, by noble Lords of all Parties. It was designed primarily to protect the integrity of places like Letchworth. I understand that the Government have now thought of some other possible way, by means of a Private Bill, which could prevent the damage to places like Letchworth that would have been liable to occur if the Bill had gone through unamended in its original state.
1798
In another place the Motion That the Commons do disagree with the Lords in this Amendment was not opposed, and I take it that that was because of the statement made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to other possible remedies. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is not able to be here at this moment, but I know that the Letchworth concept is dear to the heart of many noble Lords, regardless of Party, and I think it would be helpful to your Lordships' House if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would explain the position as he sees it, assuming that we do not still insist on this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Lindgren moved this Amendment, and succeeded in carrying it into the Bill, he said:
"And one can now say that the town is united in asking for its exclusion from this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/7/67, c. 944.]
The noble Lord went on to say (col. 945):
"… public opinion in Letchworth is virtually unanimous in favour of its exclusion."
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is perfectly right in saying that the Letchworth concept is dear to many Members of this House. It is dear to many members of the Labour Party, and, in itself, it is dear to the Government. But it has not been clear what is the best way to proceed on this difficult point.
Since my noble friend Lord Lindgren moved his Amendment the champions of enfranchisement in Letchworth, those who wish Letchworth to be included in the Bill as it now is, have claimed that 1,663 out of the 2,632 Corporation lessees have signed forms indicating that they wish to have the right of enfranchisement. On the other hand, the "Save Letchworth" Committee, who are the friends of the Amendment and the enemies of the Bill as it now stands, claim 220 signatures in support of a counter-petition to exclude Letchworth from the Bill. The noble Lord will have noticed that yesterday the Minister of State said in the House of Commons that if the people of Letchworth would compose this difference, he would be more than happy to give a fair wind to, and help if he could, a piece of local legislation which they could bring forward to remedy any grievance under which they felt they might lie as a result of this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3–5]
Clause 3, page 4, line 26, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fifty")
Clause 3, page 5, line 7, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fifty")
Clause 3, Page 5, line 14, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fifty")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because the term of 21 years has for nearly 50 years been taken in comparable legislation as the test for distinguishing between long and short leases, and is more suitable than a longer term for purposes of the Bill.
4.43 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope it will not be thought discourteous to another place if I say that I think very little of the Reason given for the Commons disagreement to this Amendment. It is stated to be:
"Because the term of 21 years has for nearly 50 years been taken in comparable legislation as the test for distinguishing between long and short leases, and is more suitable than a longer term for purposes of the Bill."
But that overlooks the fact that this Bill is unique. We have never before had a Bill designed to deprive the freeholder of leasehold property of his interest in the bricks and mortar. I should have thought that in those circumstances the Government would have concentrated on seeking to find a definition which would discriminate between the genuine building lease, where I think it is their desire to protect the leaseholder, and the lease which does not involve any obligation on the original lessee to build a house on the ground because in fact the house is already there.
I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which anybody would agree to enter into a lease for less than fifty
1800
years and to build a house on the land in question; it would be so obviously an uneconomic proposition. We all know that the average building leases are for seventy-five or ninety-nine, or sometimes 999 years. It was on these grounds that your Lordships agreed to substitute fifty years for twenty-one years as the discriminating figure between a short lease and a long lease for the purposes of the Bill; and I have no doubt whatever that your Lordships were right to do so. There is really no substance at all in the argument that in previous legislation, dealing with quite other matters, the discriminating figure has been taken to be twenty-one and not fifty. Quite obviously this Bill is not designed to apply to the case where the lease is entered into without an obligation to build on the land. The whole concept of the Bill is directed towards the building lease, and it was for that reason that I moved the Amendment to substitute fifty for twenty-one. I can only regret that the Government have added to the confusion of their thinking in advising the Commons not to accept our Amendments, and in giving this quite irrelevant Reason for their disagreement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that the Bill is unique in that it affects who shall pay whom for the bricks and mortar, and that we have never had a Bill before which does this. The same could be said of any Bill ever passed by any Parliament. Every Bill is unique, and of every Bill it could be said that we have never before had a Bill which does such and such, because if we had had such a Bill before, it would not have been necessary to pass another. The Bill is part of landlord and tenant legislation which for many years has had the period in question, and not the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Moreover, the figure of 21 years appears in the White Paper which was before the electorate in the last Election, as the noble Lord can confirm if he will turn to paragraph 5.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement about the British Museum Library which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in another place. It is as follows:
"The plan to build a new library for the British Museum adjacent to the Museum buildings in Bloomsbury has been under examination by the Government. In September, 1964, the previous Government approved an outline plan for the building subject to consultation with the authorities concerned. The London Borough of Camden, who are the local planning authority, subsequently made formal objections, and these have been under consideration. The Government, having regard particularly to the housing situation in the borough, and to the need to preserve buildings of historic or architectural importance in Bloomsbury, have decided on balance that the borough's objections to the plan should be upheld.
"In reaching this decision the Government have also had in mind that the present pattern of national library services is a patchwork which has developed piecemeal over the years under different institutions. I have been considering whether the system provides a service which is efficient from the standpoint of users and gives good value for the large sums of public money spent on it. Attention has been drawn to some of the problems in this field in the recent Report of the University Grants Committee on Libraries, under the chairmanship of Dr. Thomas Parry.
"The Government have decided to set up a small independent Committee to examine the functions and organisation of the British Museum Library, the National Central Library, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology and the Science Museum Library in providing national library facilities, and to consider whether, in the interests of efficiency
1802
and economy, such facilities should be brought into a unified framework.
"One of the questions to which the Committee will have to give its attention is the way in which the needs for storage of library material should be met. This problem is particularly acute in Central London, and discussions are being opened with the local planning authorities concerned about alternative possibilities for a site in the Central London area, to meet whatever needs are determined in the light of the Committee's Report."
That is the end of the Statement.
4.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in the name of us all, may I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy in repeating that Statement here and express our regret that she was kept so long before she had an opportunity to do so. But is she aware that in the past three years, while the present Government have been handling this urgent matter, its progress sounds from this Statement to have been backwards rather than forwards? While nobody is more aware than I of the difficulty of the housing problem of the Borough of Camden, is the noble Baroness aware that the needs of the British Museum for new library accommodation become more and more pressing every week? Can she give an assurance on behalf of the Government that this new Committee has been asked to present its Report as quickly as possible and that then the Government will reach their final decision as expeditiously as possible?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I hope that I can satisfy him by saying that the Committee is to be small, it is to be high-powered and with the distinct objective of completing its work speedily. It will be mainly looking at organisation and the handling of large resources. Therefore the people who will be manning this Committee may well be experts in this field, although the library interests will also be strongly represented. I think that we should remember that building operations were timed to begin in the early 1970's. Therefore the Government feel that there is no reason why this Committee should hold up the project any more than if we proceeded without a committee.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the sense of outrage that the Trustees of the British Museum feel, both in the manner and in the content of this Statement—outrage in the manner in view of the totally inadequate consultation with the Trustees, although they have been appointed by Act of Parliament to advise the Secretary of State on all matters to do with the British Museum, and outrage in the content in view of the fact that the Statement buries twenty years of planning of the new library for the British Museum?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I feel the sincerity with which the noble Lord has expressed his point of view. Were I a Trustee of this institution, no doubt I would speak in the same terms. But I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this rather strong line without having the benefit of a fuller debate. It is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, was consulted in his capacity as Chairman of the Trustees by my right honourable friend and that he took back the results of this consultation to the Trustees before he was again told by my right honourable friend of the decision which was reached. I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that this could not have been an easy decision for Her Majesty's Government to reach, because the interests of several groups in the community have had to be taken into consideration.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, may I, as a Trustee of the British Museum, reappointed such by the Prime Minister a month ago for a further period of five years, and as Chairman of the Building Committee of the British Museum, warmly endorse all that my noble friend Lord Annan has said? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the Trustees knew nothing whatever of what she was going to say in this House and of what her right honourable friend was going to say in another place until asked to the Department yesterday, and then we had only a very general indication of the decision that had been reached? There was no chance whatever of the Trustees commenting with any value on what we were told. There was no possibility of the Government decision being altered, we were informed.
1804
The noble Baroness has referred to my noble friend, Lord Radcliffe. May I say that I have spoken to him to-day and twice yesterday, though he is ill at his home in Warwickshire—but I am glad to say he is improving. Both he and all his colleagues firmly understood that there would be proper consultation with the Trustees before a decision was finally reached. Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness whether this is not an extraordinary way in which to treat Trustees who have been charged with the governance of our greatest collection of national treasures and appointed as its custodians for the future?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount feels in this way. Naturally, I am in no position to enter into a discussion of what took place during the consultations. As I understand it, the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, was consulted by the then Secretary of State before the end of the Recess and subsequently discussed this matter with his Trustees. As I said before, I sympathise with the feelings of the Trustees. I am sorry that they feel they have not been given due respect. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this subject more fully quite soon, but the noble Viscount will appreciate, from his own experience in another place, that it would be improper for me to comment on what has taken place during the consultations between my right honourable friend and the Chairman of the Trustees.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lady aware that the sense of outrage at this decision is not at all confined to the Trustees? Is it not a fact that the Government are making an important decision on the future of perhaps the greatest library in the world, against the wishes of the Trustees legally responsible for it and without adequate consultation of those Trustees, and without any prior consent of Parliament? Is she aware that for those reasons the sense of outrage felt by the Trustees is shared, I believe, by every educated man?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, may I put two questions to the noble Lady? If I may declare my interest, may I say that I am a Trustee of the British

1805
Museum. My first question is this: does the noble Lady realise that the Trustees of the British Museum for years have been working on the concept of what a national library really ought to be? Now we are told that a Commission is to be set up to advise the Government on the policy of the National Library, and on the very same day the Government have excluded from the purview of that Commission the view of the Trustees themselves that the best place for a national library would be adjacent to the collections.
My second question is this. I wonder whether the Ministers have really taken into consideration that in this matter we happen to have an opportunity that the United States of America and France have not got. They cannot have their collections of works of art, of prints and manuscripts and of other precious objects alongside their National Library. It is not possible for them. We have this unique possibility, that we can keep the whole conspectus of our culture on one site: something that no other country in the world can do. May I ask the noble Lady whether she will again carry this message back to the Secretary of State, because it appears to the British Museum Trustees that this great opportunity is being thrown away on housing grounds. We admit that housing is very important, but we can have houses elsewhere. You cannot have a national collection and a national library on the same site anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, is she aware that we on these Benches share entirely the sentiments that have been expressed? I cannot remember any single case where a matter of this importance has been pushed through in this way without proper consultation with the responsible Trustees. We suggest that at a very early date a full explanation should be given of this whole matter, because at the present moment we are left in a most unsatisfactory position. The second question I wish to ask is this. Will the Committee which it is proposed to set up have any concern with the National Library of Wales, which, as the Minister knows, has a very friendly and warm relationship with the British Museum Library.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I cannot, of course, accept the statement that there has not been proper consultation with the Trustees. Noble Lords have stated this fact in all sincerity, but we should require a much fuller debate before we could come to such a definite conclusion. I must accept the statement that I have received, that my right honourable friend has been in consultation with the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe. May I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that this is not a Commission, but a Committee, and, as I understand it, one of the reasons particularly for setting up this Committee is to look into the wider issue of the national library service. Naturally, the work which has already been done will be utilised and taken fully into account.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I am afraid I cannot give a reply immediately about the National Library of Wales, but I will see that he is given that information. I can do no more than convey these messages to my right honourable friend, without, of course, in any way giving any commitment that there is more that I can do as a very junior Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, could I ask the noble Baroness one question? She has spoken of the necessity for a much fuller debate, and on that I think we all agree with her. Are we to take her reply as meaning that no decision will be taken until a fuller debate has taken place in Parliament?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: No, my Lords, I am afraid the noble Marquess cannot take that as being the case. The decision has been taken.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am not a Trustee of the British Museum, but having listened to this discussion I must say that I am rather shocked at the idea, not only that the Trustees have not been consulted—and we have three responsible Trustees here who all say they have not been consulted—but also by the fact that the noble Lady is talking of a debate hereafter when the matter is closed and a debate could serve no useful purpose. Will she go back to her Minister and tell him that there is strong feeling in this House that at least the decision ought not to be finalised until there has been discussion, and particularly the opportunity of discussion with the Trustees?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I feel that noble Lords sitting on all sides of the House are pressing me in a way which some of them who have been Ministers will perhaps recognise. There is little I can add to what I have already said. I will naturally take back—I have always done this—any statements or messages which have been made here today. The Committee will be meeting to discuss the wider provision of a national library service and I must admit that this is what I meant when I referred to a debate. I think we must bear in mind when dicussing this matter that, though the Trustees are strongly represented in your Lordships' House, it may well be that the other interests concerned are not represented, and if they were other views might be heard.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there are other interests which are concerned in this case, such as the Borough of Camden in their housing difficulties, could I ask her to take back this message to the Secretary of State: that the Trustees have never been unmindful of the difficulties of the Borough of Camden in their housing problems, but that they themselves have housing problems, mainly the disgraceful conditions in which the staff of the British Museum, and particularly the library staff, work owing to the fact that so little has been done on this matter for so long. That is not entirely the responsibility of this Government, of course—it is the responsibility of Governments over the past twenty years—but we have our duty towards our staff in respect of living conditions and working conditions.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not wish to add to the troubles of the noble Baroness in this matter—and I think we all appreciate the difficulty she is in—but when she goes back to her right honourable friend I should like her to represent to him the very strong views that have been expressed from all quarters in your Lordships' House, and not least the view that a decision on the narrower issue may be held open until we have had time to debate this matter fully; and I hope it will be debated in both Houses of Parliament. I ask the noble Baroness at least to have this possibility
1808
in mind in her representations to her right honourable friend.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I can give my solemn assurance that I will make representations to my right honourable friend, and this I will do immediately.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
5.7 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Reasons resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 3, page 5, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("as to bring to more than fifty years")
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
Leave out ("fifty") and insert ("twenty-one").
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Clause 9, page 13, line 41, after ("tenancy") insert ("; and on the assumption that, during the period commencing on the date 25 years before the original term date, or at the relevant time (whichever is the later), and ending on the original term date, the rent payable under the tenancy was to be the letting value at the commencement of that period ascertained in accordance with section 15(2)(a) below;")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the effect of the Amendment would be that on enfranchisement a tenant would be paying the landlord in part for the interest which the tenant already has in the land.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this disagreement arises out of an

1809
Amendment which was moved in your Lordships' House on Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. He said that he was speaking, in particular, on behalf of the bursars of Oxford and Cambridge colleges; and no doubt there are many other freeholders who are in a similar position. His anxiety was to ensure that less injustice was done to those freeholders who had many years of a lease still unexpired. Under the Bill, if it went through unamended, in a case where perhaps there were 40 years of a lease still unexpired and the leaseholder sought to enfranchise, the price of enfranchisement would be based on the supposition that the old original low ground rent continued for the whole of the long remaining unexpired period of the lease. Quite clearly, a ground rent of that kind continuing for many years would never have been created originally at a low figure had there been any thought of compulsory enfranchisement coming along while the lease still had many years to run.
It was to rectify in some small degree that situation that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, moved his Amendment, and your Lordships approved it on a Division. We now understand that the Commons disagree to this Amendment for a reason which, frankly, was not mentioned by the Government, or anybody else, during the debates on the Amendment in your Lordships' House. The Reason given is:
"Because the effect of the Amendment would be that on enfranchisement a tenant would be paying the landlord in part for the interest which the tenant already has in the land."
I am bound to say that this is rather a late stage to start debating that quite new point, which was not, as I say, raised at all from any quarter of your Lordships' House while the matter was under debate here. The Government did not bring it forward.
Here, as in other cases, I recognise that we must accept the Commons' disagreement, and that we cannot insist on our Amendment. I can only say that I am sorry that once again the Government have thrown away an opportunity to do slightly more justice to freeholders, often charities, who were most severely treated by the provisions of the Bill in the manner that I have described.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I differ from the noble Lord when he says that the Commons Reason was not put forward in this House. It was not put forward in those terms, I agree; but it comes to very much the same thing. This is another way of expressing the points made in this House earlier.
The Amendment which the Commons have struck out would have a curious effect, and I am not sure that it was fully realised in this House. In the case of a 99-year lease, for the last 25 years the terms of the existing tenancy are swept aside, and the leaseholder would pay the site value at the end of the lease, or something near that value. On the other hand, during the period when there was from about 60 years to 25 years to run, he would pay more than he has to pay under the present law. Where there are more than 60 years to run, the effect is marginal, but he might pay a little more than under the present law. The reason for this paradoxical effect is that arbitrarily introducing a modern ground rent somewhere during the term of an existing lease will affect all valuations made which have to ascribe a value to the unexpired term, even though the change-point may be some years ahead.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8–11]
Clause 15, page 25, line 25, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 27, and insert ("each period of ten years after the original term date the letting value at the expiration of that period")
Clause 15, page 25, line 30, leave out ("either") and insert ("each")
Clause 15, page 25, line 33, leave out ("by") and insert ("equally by the landlord and")
Clause 15, page 25, line 35, leave out ("of the twenty-five,") and insert ("year of any period of ten")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because a revision of a ground rent at intervals as short as 10 years is not in accordance with normal practice.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on Amendments 8 to 11 inclusive to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this is a somewhat technical point. Here again I am afraid that I cannot accept the Reason given by the Commons. That Reason is:
"Because a revision of a ground rent at intervals as short as 10 years is not in accordance with normal practice".
It is not in accordance with normal practice that, when you have granted a lease, you should be compelled by Act of Parliament to extend that lease against your own will for up to 50 years. Here, again, we are dealing with an entirely new and unprecedented situation. The Government said that it would be sufficient if the ground rent for that period of 50 years could be assessed twice: once at the beginning, and once after 25 years, halfway during the term of the extension. Their choice of 25 years was entirely arbitrary, and it appeared to me, and to the majority of your Lordships, that it would be fairer if the ground rent were reassessed at intervals of ten years, rather than at intervals of 25 years. The Commons, however, have thought otherwise, and I must let it go, contenting myself with saying that the Commons' Reason cuts no ice at all.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have noted the noble Lord's insistence time and again on this point of desiring to more than double the frequency of valuations in certain classes of house property. I have also noticed the insistence from many noble Lords that the profession of valuer is at the moment understaffed and overworked. The next time the latter point comes up I shall remember the noble Lord's remarks this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ABORTION (No. 2) BILL
5.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Consequential Amendment to the Bill be considered forthwith. I do not propose to say anything on this Motion—I move it formally—because any discussion that might take place would more appropriately be taken on the next Motion, That the House doth agree.
Moved, That the Commons Consequential Amendment be considered forth with.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

[References are to Bill (310) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Consequential Amendment is printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out "that practitioner and another registered medical practitioner" and insert "two registered medical practitioners".
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following Consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out ("another registered medical practitioner") and insert ("two registered medical practitioners").
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment to the Bill. This Amendment which I am asking the House to agree with is a formal Amendment which flows from the Amendment which this House carried (and which the other place accepted) as a Manuscript Amendment at the very last moment of the discussion on the Bill. It related to the question of doctors. The particular Amendment which we are being asked to agree to flows as a matter of drafting from the Amendment to which we then agreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment to the Bill.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.