Lords Sitting of 21 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth

WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS AND COST OF LIVING
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will bear in mind the effect on war disability pensioners and their dependants of the increase in the cost of living which has already taken place and which may continue to rise in the future by reason of devaluation and other causes, and the resultant reduction in the standard of living of these men and women who are unable to make, or are handicapped in making, provision for themselves by their own labour; and whether, during the ensuing months, they will study this problem with a view to forecasting in the gracious Speech action which could be taken next year.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that we made substantial increases in the pensions and allowances for war pensioners and their dependants just over six months ago. I can assure him that their needs will continue to be kept in mind by the Government. But I must remind the noble Lord that although we are already taking steps to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from hardship, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated in January that a further general uprating could not be undertaken before at least the autumn of 1969.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while recognising the United Kingdom's financial difficulties—as indeed all disabled ex-Servicemen do—may I ask the noble Lord whether he and the
586
Government will nevertheless bear in mind two facts? The first is that the rise to which he has referred, though it came into effect only six months ago, related to a period over a year ago; and the second is that the major Parties in the State have said more than once, and especially at Election times, that they would make it their aim to see that these men's remuneration or war pensions kept pace with the rises in the standard of living and in the cost of living.
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords. The basic rate of a 100 per cent. pension prior to last October was £6 15s. To restore the purchasing power of this pension, calculated between October, 1967, and March, 1968—the latest period for which figures are available—would require an increase of 3s. 3d., to £6 18s. 3d. The present rate is £7 12s., which is 13s. 9d. more than would be required merely to restore such a pension's previous purchasing power. Similar figures apply, of course, to widows' pensions. I think we are fully aware of the anxieties that the noble Lord has, and has had all his life, for the war-disabled pensioners, and I am sure that the House and the Government are very much in his debt for his interest.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord notice that in my Question I have not asked for a rise now, because I realise the difficulties? I have asked that this matter be given special consideration, to be dealt with next year.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have said that we are doing something this autumn. The noble Lord's Question asked whether it will be referred to in the gracious Speech, but the Prime Minister has indicated that a further general up-rating could not be undertaken before at least the autumn of 1969.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that successive Governments have been particularly mean to these men; and may I also draw the Minister's attention to those men who were prisoners of war of the Japanese in Burma and who are in institutions like Roehampton, whose chances of promotion are ruined because they have to go back to Roehampton every year for three months? Is it not

587
time that we had another look at the priorities in this question?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, all I can say to my noble friend is that I think that, except for some early years in the 1930s, the war pensioners are in receipt of higher real pensions now than at any other time. As regards the other point made by my noble friend, I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the question of the need for these people to go back to Roehampton every year for three months.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a disabled man who gets his disablement early in life can never be compensated properly?
Logi) BOWLES: Yes; I certainly, and regretfully, agree.

THE F.111 AIRCRAFT
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNGULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many R.A.F. and Ministry of Technology personnel are still engaged in America and in Britain on the now, abandoned F.111 aircraft project, and how soon it is expected a statement will be made on the agreed cancellation costs of this aircraft.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, no staff in the United Kingdom are engaged full time on the former F.111K programme. The staff involved in negotiating cancellation charges combine this with other duties. In the United States there are at present six Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Technology staff engaged in winding up the programme. I hope that it will prove possible for a final settlement on the level of termination charges to be negotiated with the United States Government shortly, but I am unable to forecast when a statement will be made.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him this question? Could he advise us whether, in
588
view of the Australian concern over their order for the aircraft and the high attrition rates of the aircraft that have occurred, an allowance will be made in the compensation payment now being discussed for the development faults that still existed in the aircraft when the cancellation of the British contract took place? Can the noble Lord also say whether, in the event of the F.111 project being cancelled or abandoned entirely by the United States Government, the British compensation payment would still stand?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the first part of that supplementary question, I think it is too early to draw any conclusions about the success or otherwise of the F.111, though I note with gratitude the noble Earl's remarks. The second part, I am afraid, is too hypothetical. I think it is too early to conclude that the project will be cancelled.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the United States authorities still proceeding with the project are deriving any benefit from the so-called winding-up process which is being carried out by the British personnel still in the United States; and, if so, whether the final cancellation charges will take account of the advantage, if it exists?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure the first part of the noble Lord's Question is highly relevant, but I cannot quite understand it.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I was wondering whether the winding-up process to which the noble Lord referred in his original Answer was in fact a continuing development of the original project, or was simply a question of the British personnel packing their bags and belongings before returning home.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there are a number of things to be settled. I should be surprised—I speak without advice—if there were much more to be derived from any British contribution during the winding-up process as such. A number of factors are involved and there is the possibility of offsets. All these will be taken into account when the final bill is established.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL AMENDMENTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to offer, with my own regrets, an explanation to the House about the delay in publishing to-day's Marshalled List for the Countryside Bill. Owing to a human error the Amendments were not available for printing in the Marshalled List. In the ordinary way we get such an impeccable service from the printers that I hope that there will be no ready disposition to lay any blame in that quarter. We have done our best, and so have the printers, to make available copies of the new Amendments which were tabled last night. The printed list is available in the Printed Paper Office. If the interests of the House can best be served by any adjustment of our present arrangements for the consideration of this Report stage of the Bill we shall be ready to consider them, although having had an opportunity of discussing this I understand that it might be thought that the best course would be to go through the Marshalled List as now printed—even though I accept that some Peers are going to be placed at some disadvantage.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his explanation. Let me say straight away that I associate myself with all that he has said about the very high standards of service which we receive from everybody who serves this House, not least the printers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having offered to consider some adjustment of the programme; but, that said, I must protest against this sort of thing which is becoming too frequent. A great avalanche of legislation is shortly to descend upon us, and I feel it quite wrong to let this forerunner of the avalanche go by without making a protest against the way in which legislation is tending to be pushed through this House without the possibility of our giving it due attention.
It was only yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will recall, that a long and important new clause—I think it was the Exmoor clause—was added to the Bill. That clause was tabled on Friday; it did not appear until Saturday. Most of your Lordships are not in the House on a Saturday and therefore most of you did
590
not see it until Monday. It was taken at that short notice yesterday. May I remind your Lordships what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said on that occasion? It was:
"I think that at this stage all I need to do is to commend it"—
that is, the new clause—
"to your Lordships and once again to apologise for the short notice at which I have been able to put it down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/5/68; col. 540.]
While fully accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said about what was clearly a slip—which was, perhaps, all the more obvious because we have so very few slips in the administration of this House—I feel that I must protest against the repetition of this sort of thing.
As for the possible adjustment of the programme, in considering this I feel it would be only right for me to hear what has to be said by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who is handling the Bill, and by my noble friend Lord Molson, who is particularly concerned with one of these Amendments. I should add that there is another Amendment which has just appeared in the same way. It stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Merrivale.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the Chief Whip was kind enough to ask me what I thought would be the most convenient way to get us out of this difficulty as easily as possible. Perhaps the best thing would be to proceed with the Amendments on the Marshalled List as, at long last, it has now been put into our hands. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an even fuller explanation of his Amendment than would otherwise be necessary, because many of us will be reading it for the first time when he speaks to it. Naturally, we shall expect a little more than the usual indulgence in putting down Amendments, if necessary, on Third Reading, since to a large extent this Report stage is developing into a kind of Committee stage.
I would emphasise what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has already said. This breakdown of machinery which resulted in the Amendments not being printed until halfway through this morning and their not being available to your Lordships until about half-an-hour ago is the kind of thing which is liable to happen when no reasonable notice is

591
given. Even had the printers been able to do their work at the right time, it still would be most unreasonable that your Lordships should see these Amendments only on the very morning when you are expected to debate them in the afternoon.
As my noble friend has said, this is constantly happening. I made a protest last week. At that time the very important Amendment dealing with Crown roads had not appeared on the Marshalled List. That Amendment carries out what was virtually a promise given by the Government during the Committee stage in another place. All these weeks went by without any of the necessary detailed work being done; then, at the last moment, your Lordships are asked to look at these extremely difficult and complicated matters and in a moment of time to understand them and all their implications. There is on these occasions—and there was particularly in that case—no opportunity whatsoever of consulting the county councils and the amenity societies, and so on, which have been concerned with this matter. Mention has been made already of the very important Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, yesterday. Incidentally, I should like to inquire from the Government Chief Whip or from anyone else (unfortunately I was obliged to be away from the Chamber in the middle of yesterday afternoon; but some of my noble friends have told me about this) whether there was a breakdown in communications which resulted in many noble Lords who were in the Library not knowing when this business came on in your Lordships' Chamber. I should be glad to know whether that was the case. What has happened to-day—although I am sure we shall all do our best to get ourselves and the Government out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves—is only the reductio ad absurdum of what has been happening all through this Bill and on a number of occasions in the past. I say to Her Majesty's Government that it is unreasonable to ask this House to legislate if your Lordships do not have reasonable notice of the proposals of the Government.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend of this fact and make a suggestion to the Leader
592
of the House and the Minister in charge of the Bill? I fully appreciate the extraordinary difficulty with which the House is confronted in having to face these Amendments, particularly at this stage in the progress of the Bill. But it is always possible for the House (it has been done frequently; I have often accepted a proposal when I was leading the House) to move to recommit a clause. The House then goes into Committee and the Amendment can be dealt with in a proper way, as at a Committee stage. I hope that in respect of any of these clauses which create this difficulty my noble friends will move to recommit them, so that we can go into Committee to discuss them. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that suggestion.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us think that he has no real need to be abject in his apology about this matter? Is it not the fact that what has been said this afternoon indicates that a reform of our mechanism is vitally necessary? When a criticism is made that the Report stage is being made into a Committee stage, whose fault is it? Surely it is the fault of the people who put down on Report the same Amendments as they put down on the Committee stage. There is no means of preventing that from happening, and no means of preventing the very same Amendments from being put down again on Third Reading. It is about time we got a bit of logic into this situation.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, should advise himself afresh about this matter. The trouble has not arisen over any Amendments moved from the Opposition Parties or from the Back Benches opposite. The trouble has centred on the fact that the Government tabled two major new clauses at the very last moment. I agree with everything said by my noble friend Lord Molson. It is wholly unreasonable to ask Parliament to consider matters of substantial importance like this with virtually no notice. It is impossible to consult all the people outside who are rightly interested in this Bill, and it is impossible for anybody to put down Amendments to new clauses in these circumstances unless they seek leave to move a manuscript

593
Amendment. And your Lordships will all be aware that it is extremely difficult to have a satisfactory discussion on a manuscript Amendment which no one has seen until the previous moment.
Three manuscript Amendments were moved yesterday and we had debates on them, but few of us would say that in the time available we were able to do full justice to the points which they sought to establish. In this case the trouble has arisen through great haste on the part of the Government in seeking to get this Bill through. It is only 26 days ago that we had the Second Reading debate. Since then, we have had three days in Committee, and this is the second day on Report. If your Lordships will calculate, you will see that the intervals have been exceptionally small.
This trouble has been grievously aggravated by the action of the Government in putting down these two important new clauses at the last possible moment. I am prepared to discuss this latest new clause to-day, but I must join with my noble friend Lord Molson in warning the Government that there may well be Amendments put down on Third Reading simply and solely because it has been impossible to find time to bring considered judgment to bear on the proposals which the Government have put before us.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies, may I ask him whether he would not agree that noble Lords who have spoken from the other side of the House have engaged in a little bit of politics? I have sat through a good many of the debates on the Countryside Bill, and I am bound to say that I have seen no evidence of any attempt on the part of the Government to get it through quickly or hastily. I think that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has handled it extremely skilfully, and has been very co-operative, as indeed have noble Lords opposite. But to jibe at the Government and say that they are seeking to make unnecessary haste is, I thing, a little unworthy of the noble Lord who did so.
LORD STRANG: My Lords—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would remind your Lordships that we are to have a debate to-morrow in which
594
all these subjects can be aired, and I was hoping to curtail the discussion today. But if the noble Lord, Lord Strang, wishes to speak—
LORD STRANG: My Lords, let me say from these Benches in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, that I entirely agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I regard this as a "curtain-raiser" to tomorrow's debate—perhaps not a promising one, although it may have led to the expending of some of the undoubtedly strong feeling that exists—and therefore I do not want to discuss the general points. But I am bound to say, having heard noble Lords opposite, that although the Government have been extremely co-operative—at least I believe so—in the matter of handling the debates and trying to meet the Opposition, I recognise that we have put them in a difficult position with regard to these Amendments to-day, and I appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in suggesting that we should see how we get on to-day. We may have to face the possibility of further Amendments on Third Reading.
It is not particularly pleasant for a Government spokesman to stand up time and again and defend the conduct of business, and that is why we have put down the Motion for to-morrow, so that we may air the whole problem and explain some of the difficulties that confront the Government, which are not wholly connected, if I may say so, with the avalanche of legislation. There are other factors in your Lordships' House. I do not want to say anything contentious on the present point. My noble friend Lord Kennet—and I appreciate the tributes that have been paid to him—has tried his utmost, and I believe that he has conducted this Bill with great skill. I have listened most carefully, as has my noble friend the Chief Whip—and let me say that he has problems to cope with in timetabling your Lordships House, some of which we shall deploy to-morrow.
I hope that we may now proceed. I should like to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that we are extremely willing to discuss how we may

595
handle this matter at the moment. It is only fair to say that I do not regard the problem as wholly the result of a printers' error. The noble Lord put his finger on the time that was allotted. If we could leave the matter now and get on with the Bill, no doubt we can discuss this subject also in more general terms to-morrow.

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper to suspend Standing Orders Nos. 35 and 41, I am aware that we do not always do this before the Whitsun Recess, though it has been done on three occasions since 1960. We managed this Session without the usual Easter suspension of Standing Orders, and we certainly do not envisage that it will be necessary to make any considerable use of the powers for which we are asking. If any noble Lord wishes to know in more detail why we are doing it, I shall be happy to answer, but the proposal I am making is not an unusual one. I beg to move.
Moved, That, until the Recess at Whit-sun, Standing Orders No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended and Government business do have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other business.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am glad to respond to the invitation which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just given me. I agree that there are precedents for suspending Standing Orders before the Whitsun Recess, and the noble Lord has reminded us that this has occurred on three occasions since 1960. Nevertheless, it is something which
596
on the whole we wish to avoid, particularly when we know that we shall have to embark on a particularly heavy schedule. I would ask the noble Lord what is the reason which makes it particularly necessary for us to suspend Standing Orders on this occasion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it was because I knew the noble Earl wanted to say something that I gave him that invitation. I should say that I do not see the connection between the suspension of Standing Orders and the fact that we are going to have a heavy session. This Motion is put down simply in order to enable certain Bills which can conveniently go through more than one stage on a particular day, to go through. Not only have Standing Orders been suspended three times since 1960, but there are probably about 15 other occasions when this was done in the four years before this Government came into office. Following our earlier discussion, I should like to make it clear that there is nothing sinister in this. The only items we have in mind are the possibility of the Industrial Expansion Bill, if there are no Amendments tabled on Report—a matter which naturally I would want to discuss with the noble Lords concerned—and the deep regard which we have for the Maintenance Orders Bill, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is anxious to get through before Whitsun.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, the noble Lord said that all that is effected by this Motion is that more than one stage of a Bill can be taken in one day, but does it not mean also that Government business will have precedence over any other business, which presumably means the removal of the right of private Members of your Lordships' House to put down business which takes precedence of any other business not put down before it on the day in question? In those circumstances it is removing a right, and some reason should be given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House why it is necessary to do this abnormally early. Many of us who have an interest in putting down Questions and taking part in the business of the House on an independent basis are thus deprived of any opportunity we should have for carrying out that role.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in these matters, as I think the noble Lord will agree, my noble friend makes the best efforts he can, but it is quite customary to move this Motion. It may be unlikely that we shall want to do this with regard to Government business, but there are certain Bills that come to a climax at a certain stage and we might have to fit in with the timetable of another place. Without this power we should find ourselves in an inflexible situation. This gives the Government the flexibility which previous Governments have asked for in these circumstances. The noble Lord is perfectly right to draw your Lordships' attention to the point, but I must admit that I had the noble Baroness more in mind than the Government's interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME 1968
3.8 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1968, laid before the House on the 23rd of April last, be approved. I trust that it will be convenient, when dealing with this Order, to deal also with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1968.
This grant is payable for the ploughing up of grassland more than 12 years old where the cost of the operations involved is substantially heavier than normal. Your Lordships will recall that the objective is to assist farmers to bring under cultivation land which would otherwise remain unproductive. Some 50,000 acres are lost every year to farming due to nonagricultural development and this is approximately counterbalanced by a similar acreage reclaimed with assistance under these Schemes. I feel sure your Lordships will agree that at this time it is right that we should continue to provide this encouragement, not only to help to make good this land lost to farming, but also to help ensure that the best use is made of this country's natural resources.
598
The Schemes are virtually the same as those of last year, apart from a minor change. This is a further widening of a clause introduced in 1966 and allows approval given under the three previous Schemes to remain valid for the current Scheme. This will save farmers from some unnecessary form-filling, which I am sure will be welcome, and will also ease the administrative load on the Department, but it does not lead to any loss of financial control. My Lords, I am sure you will agree that a £12 ploughing grant provides a worthwhile form of assistance to farmers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1968, laid before the House on the 23rd of April last, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for moving this Scheme, and to say a word of welcome to it, but in the interests of economy of time I will make no more than one comment; namely, that the rate of f12 for bringing into cultivation this land, which in the main is difficult, marginal and expensive to bring into cultivation, was fixed in 1955, thirteen years ago. I therefore ask that before a Scheme is brought forward again next year the rate should be examined to see whether this is sufficient to continue to do the job that we all want it to do
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1968
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1968, laid before the House on the 23rd of April last, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1963, laid before the House on the 23rd of April last, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) (EXTENSION OF DELIVERY PERIOD) SCHEME 1968
3.12 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Extension of Delivery Period) Scheme 1968, laid before the House on the 25th of April last, be approved. Schemes have been approved by the House regularly since 1952 and the new Scheme extends to May 31, 1969, the period of operation of the 1967 Scheme. Subsidy will continue to be paid upon the phosphoric acid and/or nitrogen content of chemical fertilisers bought in lots of 4 cwt. or more for use on agricultural land or crops or for growing mushrooms. No subsidy is paid on potash or on fertilisers wholly derived from organic matter.
Expenditure on this subsidy during the coming fertiliser year is expected to be £32½ million. This scale of contribution meets about 23 per cent. of the gross cost of subsidised fertilisers and combined with the improved returns to agriculture resulting from changes made in this year's Review, provides a substantial inducement to farmers to maintain and improve the productivity of their soil. And farmers with special difficulties—in hill areas and the Scottish islands—can have this scale of contribution supplemented under other Schemes.
There were changes, I know, in fertiliser prices in 1967–68 resulting from the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes in March, 1967, and, later on, the unavoidable effects of the closure of the Suez Canal and devaluation on costs of imported raw materials. The proposed total of subsidy is little more than that of recent years, but the increase in cost of fertilisers was taken into account during the last Price Review. Despite the increases, the technological progress of the industry has meant that compound fertilisers are still cheaper per ton of plant food than they were ten years ago.
Since 1952–53 there has been a 97 per cent. increase in fertiliser use, and the benefits which come from the use of the right kinds of fertilisers are well known to most farmers. The main task now is for the farmer to judge how much more
600
fertiliser to use profitably in his own particular circumstances. I have every hope that the propaganda and advisory effort being made in many directions, coupled with the price guarantee incentives in the Review, will overcome any indifference in this respect. I am sure the House would wish this subsidy to continue for a further year, and I therefore ask the House to approve the Scheme.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Extension of Delivery Period) Scheme 1968, laid before the House on April 25 last, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for the terms in which he has moved this Order continuing the fertiliser subsidy. I wish to make a point of rather more substance than I made on the last Order. It is with regard to the price increase of fertiliser that has taken place in the last year. By keeping the total cost of the subsidy at about £32 million—that is, at about the same level as before—when there has been this sharp increase in fertiliser price, the effect is to reduce the effective rate of subsidy per ton of fertiliser and, if my arithmetic is correct, to make fertiliser to the farmer about 10 per cent. more expensive. This, I think, is bound to have some restraining effect on fertiliser use by the farmer at a time when we want the farmer to increase fertiliser usage.
The noble Lord has referred to the three factors which have increased the price—the prices and incomes award of 1967; the effect of closing the Suez Canal on freight rates; and, of course, devaluation, which may still have further effects. These have all caused a much sharper increase in the price of fertilisers in the past year than has occurred before. I would make the point to noble Lords that although, as the noble Lord has said, fertiliser usage has increased greatly in the last 15 years, it has still far to go before it reaches the optimum level. A recent study by I.C.I. showed that in their sample the nitrogen usage by the best ten dairy farmers was more than four times the national average; and not only does this affect production, it affects profit as well. And most interestingly, a recent paper by Fisons showed that if the

601
increase in rate of usage of fertilisers could be raised from 5 per cent. to 7·3 per cent. over the next five years we could get an increase in total national production on our farms of £200 million per annum, mostly in livestock products. Nothing would be more welcome than that to our balance of payments at the present time. So I advisedly make to noble Lords the point that anything which tends to deter or restrain the use of fertilisers at this time seems to be very shortsighted policy. That is what this Order does, and it falls far short of the increased incentives which farmers were told by the Prime Minister they were to receive in order to increase production when he was making his statement at the time of devaluation.
It is too late for us to do anything about it now; we can but approve the Order and hope for the best. But I would strongly urge on the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, and on his right honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture, that this should be looked at again next year to see whether it would not be wise policy to increase the total sum available for fertiliser usage in order to keep up the rate of subsidy and so keep the price at the level it was before. Nothing would pay us better than an increased usage of fertilisers on the farms; nothing would give more production more easily. With those rather strong cautionary words, I support the Order.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has made some very relevant points, and I am sure that most of them will be taken into account. I think, however, that when he speaks about the reduction in the effective rate of this subsidy he exaggerates the position somewhat. He is quite right when he says that the increase in the price of fertilisers has been very substantial, but he will also recognise that this increase in the price was known at the time of the Annual Review
602
and was taken into account at that time. I think the noble Lord will agree, also, in fairness, that one has to look at the Review as a whole when one thinks of the incentive given to production. The noble Lord mentioned an effective reduction of 10 per cent. in the proportionate rate of subsidy. I do not think that this is quite so. I am advised that his arithmetic is somewhere at fault.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I said, "an effective increase in the price to the farmer of 10 per cent". Of course, in fact the £15 million increase in price will make a very much bigger decrease in the rate of subsidy.
LORD BESWICK: But probably we should look at it in this way. In recent years the effective rate of subsidy has been reduced each year by some 2 or 3 per cent. The encouragement has been given, and as the encouragement is given the amount of money necessary to encourage the additional use of fertiliser has been reduced; and there has been, so I am advised, over recent years, a reduction of 2 to 3 per cent. in the proportionate rate of subsidy. This year the effective rate of reduction is only some 3 to 4 per cent. Normally the amount is reduced. This year the £32½ million includes a net increase of £1 million, so although I agree with the noble Lord that there is a great reduction, I do not think it is quite so great as he suggests. Nevertheless, we are at one with him in hoping that a more widespread application of fertiliser will continue, and that with education and experience it will be used much more widely and wisely, and we shall get the increased production which he requires. Nevertheless, I am glad that he has no intention of opposing this Order, and I hope we can now go on to adopt it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
3.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resume its consideration on Report of this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Public Rights of Way]:
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, at the beginning to insert:
"LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 (1925 c. 20)
Section 193 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands)
It is hereby declared that the right of access of any land specified in this section is a right of access on foot only."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a short one, as you will see, and simple, but it calls for some explanation. It aims to protect foot people without unfairly treating horse riders. It will be obvious to all that of those using commons the overwhelming majority must be foot people, and those riding horses are a relatively small minority. For that reason it would seem that this Amendment would appeal to noble Lords opposite, who conventionally have particular sympathy for what tends to help the less privileged. The Bill on page 11 sets out common land to which the public have the right of access. The word "access" has run continually through the discussion of many clauses of this Bill.
I need not remind your Lordships that there are many kinds of commons. There are open commons and there are thickly wooded commons; there are commons that belong to local authorities, to private individuals, to the National Trust, and to bodies holding commons by special Act of Parliament. It is obvious that in woodlands vegetation grows and passages become overgrown and the room available is often small. The Law of Property Act 1925 states that the public shall have right of access on all lands subject to common rights. One can readily understand that in narrow passages in these possibly heavily wooded lands where foot people have the right to walk, do walk,
604
and enjoy walking, they thereby take advantage of the aim of this Bill and its Preamble. If people walking down these narrow passages are suddenly overtaken by somebody riding on horseback—and often riders are galloping and some of them are not very good riders—then bang!, over goes the pram and there is trouble. Because of that, the aim of this Amendment is to protect foot people. Of course, many owners of the soil will do their best to assist the passage of the public, but there are others who will give much less assistance.
It is thought by some that the intention of this Amendment is to cause hardship to horse riders. I must, with the indulgence of the House, explain that that would not be my intention. I have been brought up with horses from the age of three; I have ridden all my life. I have indulged in horse exercises and recreations, I have mustered cattle on four continents, and have had the honour of commanding a cavalry regiment. It is not likely, therefore, that I should tend to act against horse riders. I must make that explanation on this Amendment.
These commons are quite complicated. Their origin goes back into the mystic antiquity of history. It is a fascinating study. Many years ago I had a modest part, with the late Lord Winterton, in bringing about the Royal Commission on Common Land, and anybody who has taken the trouble to study their Report will find it very illuminating and fascinating. The reason why I bring that point forward is to explain that I have made a deep study of this question, and I feel that I can have confidence in recommending what I now recommend. The Law of Property Act 1925, as I have said, only states that the public have the right of access for air and exercise. What does "access" mean? Does it refer to those on foot, on horse, or on a cycle? There is great confusion. This Amendment seeks to clear that point up and to obtain a definition. There are hundreds of commons in the country comprising over a million acres. This clarification is needed; lack of clarification means bad legislation. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 clearly imposed on local authorities the obligation to produce maps which would show clearly the distinction between footpaths and bridle paths, but the people who drafted that

605
legislation somehow failed to tie the two Acts together; therefore the confusion continues.
I contend that in our work yesterday the 1925 Act was breached, and perhaps I should explain what I mean by that. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he recognises that the Footpaths Association, which protects walkers, of which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is the chairman and which is believed to have the greatest knowledge of this question, have a definite view that "access" means only on foot. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the legal advisers to the Ministry take a different view, presumably, therefore, holding that access is possible to anybody, anywhere, anyhow; and that is what is being contested at this moment. The Footpaths Association have a wide knowledge of this subject and have followed it up with great care, with the result that many letters have appeared in the Press. I have one here, part of which says:
"People feel at liberty to walk in comfort, and that should have high priority."
If this Amendment were passed I am informed that the Act of 1949 would immediately be affected. Section 27 of that Act defines the distinction between a footpath and a bridle path and who should go on which. That is the problem which I am seeking to put to your Lordships to-day. In the course of earlier discussion the Minister urged that it is better to delay legislation on this issue, admitting that there is confusion and there is need for legislation but that it should be delayed until more comprehensive legislation on a larger scale can be brought about. But why delay? If there is confusion, why not carry legislation through now?
On February 20 in column 1104 of the Commons Hansard the Minister of State in another place referred to the Gosling Committee. That was the Committee which, because of the complication of this subject, was appointed to sift the facts thoroughly. The Gosling Committee reported, and in paragraph 75 say:
"We do not think that horses should be ridden on footpaths. They can turn a footpath into a quagmire and they may be a hazard to walkers."
In Recommendations 15 and 18 of their Report the Gosling Committee made their views clear: that the highway authorities should be given powers to
606
deal effectively with anyone unlawfully riding a horse on a public footpath which is not a bridleway. The Minister of State in another place said
"We are minded, subject to consultation with authorities, to accept the recommendations …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Standing Committee, 20/2/68; col. 1104.]
In those few words I have put to the House the reason why I urge strongly that this Amendment should be accepted. This is a non-partisan Bill which has been accepted by both sides of the House. It is a Bill which has already consumed a great deal of time; indeed, I believe in another place it consumed more time than any Bill in history. It covers a lot of difficult ground. It has been skilfully piloted through this House by the Parliamentary Secretary, with great thoroughness and great tact. But, alas!, this fine Bill retains a blemish. It is for that reason that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can now improve this Bill about which he has shown such knowledge. Therefore I commend this Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Barnby.)
LORD LEATH ERLAND: My Lords, I expect the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, made a pretty shrewd guess when he said that Members on this side of the House were more likely to be in favour of pedestrians than of horses. That being so, I suppose it makes me a kind of "odd man out", because for many seasons I was a regular rider to foxhounds and some of the happiest days of my life were spent in the saddle. I greatly regret that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is introducing an Amendment which will have the effect of curbing the activities of people who want to have their recreation on the back of a horse in the open air. I am not so much concerned with adult riders as with those thousands of young people who are now forming the backbone of our pony clubs throughout the country. They are enthusiastic in following their sport, and they find with every passing day, with the building of new roads, the construction of new housing estates, and the increasing numbers of vehicles—and especially very heavy vehicles—on the roads, the opportunities to follow their particular recreation ire are rapidly diminishing.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I said nothing which suggested any interference with horse riding on the properly recognised bridlepaths, which are quite numerous; and any owner of the common, as the owner of the soil, has the privilege of giving permission to as many as he likes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Quite so, my Lords, but the whole object of this Amendment is to curb the facilities for horse riding, and I am sorry that that is going to happen.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, that is not so.
LORD LEATHER LAND: Moreover, if the object is to curb horse riding—
LORD BARNBY: No, my Lords.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord started his speech by suggesting that there would be some restrictions on horse riding?—
LORD BARNBY: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I started by referring to protection for pedestrians.
LORD LEATHERLAND: If the noble Lord feels that he wants to curb horse riding I hardly feel that this Amendment is the right way to do it, because it says that this section is to apply to land where there is right of access on foot only. As a matter of technical drafting, if one is riding on a horse and the horse is galloping on its feet, is not that access on foot only? I am quite sure that if the Amendment were passed in this form some able court advocate—Lord Foot, for instance—would be able to ride through it. I think this Amendment requires great consideration before it is accepted.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am less concerned with either the footmen on this side or the cavaliers on that. What I am interested in is trying to get some order eventually into legislation about commons. The difficulty in trying to put through an Amendment like this, whether it is a good one or a bad one, is that it is taking one single issue out of the fearful muddle commons have got into. For some curious reason, when the Law of Property Act was devised in 1925 a great deal of the machinery which enabled commons to work properly, such
608
things as stints for cattle, and what access means, were forgotten. We have been left with frightful muddle, and the result is that our commons all over the country are in a state of deplorable confusion. Work is being done. It will take some time to get it into shape for legislation, but in the meantime one cannot take one single issue of definition from the Law of Property Act and attempt to put it right in this Bill. It would not help the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who wants to get some order into this matter. Nor would it help the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, who wants to see more horsemen. I think on the whole the Amendment is really better left alone.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. Before I say anything else, may I say that sympathise entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said about the desirability of encouraging riding, especially among young people.
LORD BARNBY: Hear, hear!
LORD SOMERS: On the other hand, anybody who has lived in the country must realise that many footpaths are extremely narrow and in some places there may not be room for both horse and pedestrian. It is possible, as your Lordships know, for a horse to get out of control, and in that case there might be circumstances of danger for the pedestrian. To country lovers walking is just as much a pastime as riding; therefore I think my noble friend's Amendment is an extremely good one. Bridlepaths, after all, are not scarce throughout the country. Therefore I hope the House will support this Amendment.
3.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, put down the same Amendment on Committee stage and gave his reasons for desiring this; and I gave the Government's reasons for thinking it would not be a good idea. Since then he has been kind enough to come and see me and he gave me his reasons again; and once again I gave him the Government's reasons for thinking it would not be a good idea. We now have the same Amendment and the noble Lord has introduced it with the same reasons as before. I think I should briefly repeat, for the second time in this House and

609
for the third time to the noble Lord, the Government's reasons.
Some of the discussion on this Amendment appears to have been on the assumption that we are talking about footpaths, but the effect of the Amendment would be to keep horses off commons—all parts of certain commons; that is, the open green bits as well as the footpaths. It would simply put an end to riding on Section 193 commons. The present law is that the general public have a right to go there; they have a right of access for the enjoyment of the open air. I am advised, and I advise the House, that this right includes the right to ride on Section 193 commons. The noble Lord therefore proposes to take away the right to ride on commons. I am not contending that the right to go on horseback on Section 193 commons ought always to be exercised, that it is always expedient that it should be. In those cases where it is not there is already provision in the law for the soil owner of the common to apply to the Minister for a scheme regulating where horses may go and where horses may not go.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, mentioned his interest at Committee stage. His interest is before the House. I understand he is the soil owner of Ashtead Common in the urban district of Leatherhead to which the public have an automatic right of access for air and exercise by virtue of Section 193 of the 1925 Act, and he has applied to the Minister for an order under that section to limit the activities of the public, the main purpose being to restrict riding to certain parts of the common. My right honourable friend has announced his intention before determining this application to hold a public inquiry, which will be next month. Nearly 1,000 persons have petitioned against the restriction on riding in the case of Ashtead Common. There you have an example of the present law in operation, and I would submit to your Lordships that the occasion to change the Law of Property Act of 1925 is not this one but on a major revision of the commons law in the future.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think the majority of your Lordships will probably feel a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Barnby in his desire to see an ambiguity
610
in the law clarified and settled by Parliament. It is natural for him to feel particularly strongly about this because, as he disclosed in Committee, he has a personal interest, and it must be aggravating for him that conflicting legal advice is given as to the meaning of the present law. I understand that he has received legal advice that in fact the right of access means a right of access to commons for foot passengers only. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet has just told the House, and he told the Committee previously, that the legal advice available to the Government is that there is no such limitation on the right of access and that the right of access to these commons extends to people on horseback as well as on foot. Almost all of us, I believe, agree that as soon as possible this matter should be settled one way or the other.
We must feel some sympathy with the Government, and with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the appropriate place for settling this question would be in the context of major commons legislation, which I, for my part, dearly hope will come soon. If any noble Lord has his interest in commons aroused by this debate, I, too, would recommend him to read the report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, which is one of the most attractively written documents published by the Stationery Office for years. The fact that we have legislation on common land in the offing, though it may well be a long way off, would not to me be a final argument against accepting this Amendment. What does deter me from supporting it is that it seems to me that on a matter not only of doubtful law but of questioned merit, if I may put it that way, the rights, or the believed rights, of large numbers of people would be removed by Act of Parliament without any further inquiry.
It seems to me that, where you have a case in which large numbers of people may have their rights curtailed if a new interpretation is put upon the law, or if the law is altered as this Amendment would seek to alter it, there should he thorough inquiry before that is done. I believe in the system of public inquiry; I believe still more in the system of thorough examination where all concerned can put their points of view. The

611
riders, whether they wish to ride on Ashtead Common or on an other common, have not had an opportunity to put their point of view before your Lordships and yet, if this Amendment were written into the Bill, the rights for which they are contending and which they claim that they have under the existing law, would be swept away.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not think that this would be a satisfactory way to clear up the matter. I do not think it would be wholly fair and just. If they do not accept this Amendment I hope that the Government will settle the matter as quickly as possible in some other way. But let us settle it after thorough investigation where all the interests concerned can have full opportunity to have their say, rather than, as it were, by a side-wind in an Amendment to this Countryside Bill.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend who is leading the Opposition in this matter for his balanced and sagacious assessment of the position. In the course of the discussions on the Bill this question has arisen in many ways, and yesterday I suggested that in agreeing to the passage of cycles over commons—or, anyway, the passage of cycles on bridle paths only, but not on footpaths—the principle of the 1925 Act was breached, the Act which the Parliamentary Secretary has just said gives the right of passage. Here I am in some difficulty, because I am told that legally there is a great distinction between access and passage. Anyway it gives right of passage access—because I do not see how you can have passage unless you have access—over commons. That infringes the fact that up to now it has been argued, or the noble Lord has just said, that the 1925 Act permits passage anywhere, anyhow, in any way.
I have put down this Amendment again on Report, because the situation has quite changed from what it was when we were in Committee by reason of what has taken place in the earlier part of this Report stage. I must occupy the time of the House to say that when
612
I intervened yesterday in regard to this matter and asked whether commons were specially excluded from this clause, the noble Lord replied in regard to the rights of cyclists on footpaths and bridle paths in all parts of the country. I then asked:
"Surely 'all parts of the country' must include commons?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 575.]
and I received no reply. I had hoped that the noble Lord would deal with that point to-day. But I must not take up the time of the House.
I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary saw fit to introduce a personal angle into this discussion. I had certainly declared my interest, and I should prefer him not to have taken the course of insinuating that it was because of that interest that I was pressing this Amendment. But he has insinuated that it is that personal interest which causes me to put down this Amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has just said, will affect all commons, comprising in all over 1 million acres in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary said: in these cases let there be applications for special definition. He brought up my own particular case. I am bound to refer to it, to indicate that so far as anything to do with rights of access to large parts of the common are concerned, regardless of whether they are bridle paths or footpaths, that has been agreed to.
Nobody has denied that confusion exists. It is because this question will have to be cleared up at some time, and legislation will have to be introduced, that I had sincerely hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to see his way now, not later, to agree to this Amendment which, quite contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said, is aimed at protecting people on foot who can be over-ridden by horses on footpaths. Because confusion exists, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Falkland, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ailwyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Mar, E.

Albemarle, E.

Gridley, L.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Amherst, E.

Hayter, L.

Raglan, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Archibald, L.

Heycock, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Iddesleigh, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Samuel, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Long, V.

Serota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Cawley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Soper, L.

Citrine, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

MacLeavy, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Cottesloe, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mais, L.

Strang, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strange, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Molson, L.

Swaythling, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, L.

Swinton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Wade, L.

Faringdon, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Walston, L.

Fleck, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Foot, L.

Pargiter, L.

Williamson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plummer, Bs.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Gifford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8 p.m.
LORD MOLSONhad given Notice of his intention to move to add to the Amendments of the 1949 Act:
"Section 37 (powers of Minister to expedite survey).
The power of the Minister in section 37 to expedite the preparation of maps and statements shall include the power to direct a surveying authority to prepare a revised map and statement in draft form where the period referred to in section 33(3) has expired and where, after consultation with the surveying authority, it seems to the Minister that by reason of changes since the relevant date the definitive map, or the last preceding map prepared in definitive form, as the case may be, is no longer a reasonably accurate record of public rights of way in the area of the authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Chorley and I put down. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, in his place. I should like to explain to him, as I
614
should to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, if he were here, that it was necessary for Lord Chorley and myself to put down exactly the same Amendment on Report stage as we put down on Committee stage because, despite the fact that we hoped that the Government would deal with this matter by an Amendment on the Report stage, it is only since I came to this House this afternoon that I have had the opportunity of reading Amendment No. 43B which has appeared on the Paper only to-day.
I am most anxious to save the time of your Lordships, and as it appears to me, from the best perusal that I have been able to make of the Government's Amendment, No. 43B, that it covers the points in my Amendment No. 37, I will not move my Amendment, but I shall listen to the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt give of the Government Amendment when we reach it.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, to leave out the proposed Amendment of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, and to insert instead:
"1. Section 3(1) shall have effect with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the acquiring authority.
2. In the case of an order under section 3(1) extinguishing a right of way (but not an order reviving a right of way)—

(a) the order shall not take effect unless confirmed by the Minister, as defined in this Act, or unless confirmed, as an unopposed order, by the acquiring authority.

(b) the Minister shall not confirm the order unless satisfied as to the matters set out in section 3(1),

(c) the time specified in the order as the time from which the right of way is extinguished shall not be earlier than confirmation of the order.

(d) Schedule 7 to the Highways Act 1959, as amended below, shall have effect as to the making, confirmation, validity and date of operation of the order.

but paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above shall not apply where the acquiring authority is the Minister.
3. These amendments of section 3 of the Act of 1946 shall not affect that section as applied by section 15 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (suspension of rights of way).
4. These amendments of the said section 3 shall not apply in relation to an order if made before the date of the coming into force of this Act, or if a notice relating to the order was published pursuant to subsection (2) of the said section 3 before that date."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments No. 38 and No. 39, and the consequential Amendment No. 44, have the effect of removing the need for local authorities and other acquiring authorities to submit certain public path orders to the Minister for making or for confirmation when there is no opposition to those orders. The effect is simply that if the local authority makes an order, advertises it, waits for the due period and nobody is against it, the local authority itself can confirm the order and it is then made, rather than going through all the hoops of sending it up to the Minister, whose jurisdiction in this is in common sense simply to see that objections are fairly considered. If the House wishes any further explanation of the detailed way in which this is achieved I shall of course give it, but I hope that a general statement of purpose will suffice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for that brief explanation and for having assured your Lordships that the only thing which this Amendment and the next one do is enable the local authority to carry through certain processes when there is no objection to an order, or when all objections have been withdrawn, instead of the matter having to go to the Minister. I had studied these rather complicated Amendments as best I could, but I was unable to make absolutely sure whether in any respect they went beyond that simple purpose. I am very ready to accept the noble Lord's assurance that they achieve that purpose and nothing else, and that being so I certainly recommend your Lordships to assent to both Amendments.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in order for us to be perfectly certain that we are all together, may I say that it enables local authorities and other acquiring authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 32, at end insert—
("Schedule 7 (Orders for creation, extinguishment or diversion of public paths)
1. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule shall have effect as respects any order not made by the Minister, as defined in this Act, subject as follows.
2. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the authority by whom the order was made may, instead of submitting the order to the Minister, themselves confirm the order (but without any modification).
3. The authority shall not confirm a public path extinguishment order or a public path diversion order unless satisfied on all the matters on which the Minister must, under section 110(2), or as the case may be section 111 (5), of the Act be satisfied when it is the Minister who is confirming the order.
4. The words "or confirmed as an unopposed order" shall be inserted—

(a) in section 28(1), section 110(1) and section 111(1) of the Act of 1959 after the words "and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government",

(b) in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7 to the Act of 1959 after "Government for confirmation", and

(c) in paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 7 after "confirmed or made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government",

617
and in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 1(1) after "confirmation" insert "or to be confirmed as an unopposed order".

5. Section 286(2) of the Act of 1959 (variation or revocation of orders) shall apply to a public path creation order, a public path extinguishment order, or a public path diversion order confirmed as an unopposed order as it applies to such an order confirmed by the Minister, but so that an order confirmed in either way may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order confirmed in the other way.
6. In paragraph 3(1) of the said Schedule 7 (regulations about procedure) the word "making" shall be inserted before "submission and confirmation".
7. These amendments of the Act of 1959 shall not affect an order made before the coming into force of this Act.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD RAGLANmoved to leave out paragraphs 1 to 7 of Part II. [Revision of Maps and Statements]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is tabled really to raise certain points covered in this Part of the Schedule. I have no objection at all to the procedure which is laid out in paragraphs 2 and 3; in fact, I think it is rather good. It shortens the procedure, but that does not make it any less good. I have one question to ask my noble friend. Paragraph 3 states:
"The review shall include the preparation of a revised map and statement in draft."
If I may direct my noble friend's attention to paragraph 6 across the page, that refers to a
"revised map and statement, if any".
I am wondering whether it would not be better drafting and more explicit if paragraph 3 said:
"a revised map in draft and statement in draft, if any".
I do not expect him to answer me at the moment, but I put it to him for his perusal.
My main objection to this Part of the Schedule is that it does not make any mention of any appeal to a court of law. It puts an administrative procedure in the place of what is at present a judicial one. That, to my mind, and to the minds of many people, is not a good thing to do in principle. It may be convenient, but it is not a good thing. The decision of the Minister is binding on the owner of the land and on the public who will use the path, and that there is no provision in the Schedule for them to object in a court
618
of law seems to me an omission. It has crossed my mind that it might happen, when a dispute over a path has gone to the Minister, that a party in the dispute could go to a court of law to try to obtain an injunction, and I wondered what would be the Minister's position then. Presumably he would not be able to adjudicate if the matter were sub judice. Again, what will the Minister do if an injunction is obtained? Perhaps the procedure in this Part of the Schedule will not work as smoothly as is suggested. As I said yesterday, the use of footpaths is a highly emotive and contentious matter. One may depend upon some parties trying to close them or trying to create them by whatever means they can, and it is quite possible that matters will get impeded.
I shall end as I began, by pointing out to your Lordships that the purpose of this Part of the Schedule is to substitute an administrative procedure for what is at present by Statute a judicial one, and that point should not go unnoticed. Finally, can my noble friend tell me whether the Minister will deal with objections personally? If not, to whom is it intended he will delegate his power? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 3, leave out paragraphs 1 to 7. —(Lord Raglan.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think it would be to the convenience of the House if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he comes to reply, would give a summary of the general effect of these paragraphs without going into every ultimate detail. I am anxious to know the answers to some questions akin to those which have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.
Let me say at the outset that I am all in favour of simplification and speeding up these procedures, if that can be effected by changes which will still ensure that justice is done to all concerned. I, for my part, hope that we shall get a much more rational system of rights of way as a result; that rights of way, where they are of value, will be clearly established and made known to everybody; and that, as a corollary, ancient rights of way which appear to have no practical value nowadays because of social or other changes may, by a satisfactory procedure, be extinguished. But I confess that with

619
this translation of a judicial to an administrative process I am not at all clear what protection there is going to be for either the owner of the land or, let us say, the farmer who disputes the legal existence of a right of way, or who sincerely believes that the authority has made a mistake over the positioning of the right of way which it seeks to establish in a map or has been misinformed about any conditions which attach to the right of way. Up till now, it has been possible to argue those matters before the magistrates, and that is a judicial protection which seemed satisfactory to all those seeking to establish what was really a matter of law: whether a right of access existed or not.
I am familiar with the differences of procedure as between ministerial inquiries and proceedings in a court of law, and I think they both have their place. But I am not at all clear what will happen if the owner or the farmer maintains that there is in fact no right of way over a particular field and is denied the opportunity to go and get that settled in the courts. I find it difficult to see how a matter of law like that can be settled by administrative procedure. It may be that I have not understood all that is in the Government's mind, but that is the reason why I think it would be extremely helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in addition to answering these questions, could give your Lordships a summary of the effect of these paragraphs.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether this is the right moment to raise it, but there is another question which I asked the noble Lord (admittedly it was at five minutes before midnight) during the Committee stage last week and which he did not answer. I think it arises again out of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. There was an undertaking (or I think it was an undertaking) given in another place that the administration of public rights of way would be moved over to planning authorities. The noble Lord did not answer the point, but I think it arises on this Amendment. I do not imagine for one moment that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment—or, indeed, that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will press
620
it—but it is part and parcel of this question about what used to be called the rationalisation of foothpaths, although "rationalisation" is now a "dirty" word, so far as footpaths are concerned. But there will come a time when, in order to get good, long cross-country routes, one may wish to do a deal and pet rid of a lot of little criss-crossing of individual fields, which is now totally unnecesary and really meaningless. This ties up with the noble Lord's Amendment, and I wonder whether the Government have any comment to make on it.
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me. What does he mean by the administration of public rights of way?
LORD HENLEY: At the moment, the public rights of way come under the Minister. It seems to me that it would be a very much better arrangement if they came directly under planning authorities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will do my best to answer that point at the appropriate moment in my reply. Before we come to the effect of this, let me remind the House that we are here talking about the revision of maps and statements; we are not talking about the making of the definitive map or statement in the first place. They are all there, or are virtually all there. What we are talking about now is simply what happens when there is reason to think that the existing definitive map is out-of-date, that there is something wrong on it and that it ought to be revised.
Some of your Lordships' questions have centred around the question: what is a landowner to do if the local authority thinks there is a right of way and the landowner thinks there is not? This situation is not parallel with what it would have been in the first place under the original provisions for the definitive map, when there was no map, or when there was no map worthy of the name, and together the local authority and the landowner were faced with the problem of making a map which would tell the truth about the existing law. There will have been a map in existence for many years. If the local authority thinks that it was wrong to omit a footpath from the original map, that there was a footpath there and it should be put in, then

621
it seems common sense that it is unlikely to press that unless it is very sure of its grounds, and it seems to me unlikely that a landlord would be in a position of being likely to be overruled by something which had not occurred to everybody concerned twenty years before, when the first definitive map was being made out.
To come to the actual effect of this proceeding, under the existing law there is a three-stage procedure. Maps and statements have to be prepared first in draft, then in provisional form and, finally, in definitive form. At each of the first two of these stages there is a period for objection and for counter-objection to the surveying authority, there is provision for an appeal to the Minister and there is provision for an application to quarter sessions. Some of your Lordships have been complaining that progress on this front has not been fast enough, and I submit that the reason is very clear from that account of the present law. The new proposal would have the effect that the draft map and statement will simply be published—and we are talking here always, I would remind your Lordships once again, about the revision of maps and statements, never about the first one—and then there will be a 28-day period for objection and appeal to the Minister. Representations and objections will be heard by a person appointed by the Minister—and this comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan—the Minister will then determine them, and the map and statement in definitive form will be prepared from the draft map as amended by the Minister's decision or decisions.
Now who is the person appointed by the Minister? I should like to tell Lord Raglan that this has been happening all the time. It is also analogous to what happens in planning law. The Ministry's inspectors hear most appeals in planning law. Sometimes there are other persons appointed by the Minister, but in statutory terms these persons are simply persons appointed by the Minister. The Minister takes good care to appoint experienced, just-minded persons. After the hearing by the person appointed, the decision is taken in legal form by the Minister; and, of course, there is no difference in law between a decision
622
taken personally by the Minister and a decision taken by a civil servant in his Ministry to whom he has delegated the authority to take decisions in such-and-such a case. That is how that will work.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if any of the parties applied for an injunction and got it at any point in the proceedings. I can only say that this can happen in any field of human endeavour. One can apply for an injunction, and sometimes one gets it, sometimes not. If one gets it, the party against whom it is given will have to consider his future course: either he will abide by it and not do what he proposed to do, or else he will have recourse to a higher court and try to get the injunction upset. This will of course apply in this field ust as it does in any other.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to say anything about the Minister's decision being substituted for a judicial one, or does he consider that he has answered that point?
LORD KENNET: I considered that I had answered it. It was so terribly cumbrous before that the Government propose to simplify it in the interests of progress, and part of this simplification is the elimination of the cumbrous appeal to quarter sessions in what are, after all, numerous and usually not very complicated questions.
Turning now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about transferring responsibility for rights of way to planning authorities, I mistook the noble Lord at first. I think he said, "From the Minister to the planning authority"; but, of course, the Minister is not responsible for the rights of way. It is the highway authority who is responsible at the moment. Perhaps the noble Lord's point was that the responsibility should be transferred from the highways committee to the planning committee of a given authority. I am sorry I am not familiar with what, as the noble Lord tells me, was said about this matter in another place, and I have not had time to look it up. I am also sorry that I did not follow it up after his remarks at midnight, but I will do so if he wishes. Or, alternatively, and I think preferably, we could wait until the Town and Country Planning Bill, which will be before your

623
Lordships shortly, which will have something to say about this.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanations, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
LORD MOLSONmoved, in paragraph (3), after "authority" to insert "and to any other person interested". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 together. They deal with a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Chorley on the Committee stage. The purpose is to ensure that in the case of a dispute about a right of way there should be the same treatment accorded to each side in the dispute. If when a local authority is preparing a map and publishes it, it omits what a local amenity society believes to be a public footpath and the society then makes representation to the Minister, then, if the Minister decides that the society's representation is justified, he must give notice to any person who is adversely affected. That is fair enough and it means that the landowner concerned is warned. There is then a further inquiry in which each party to the dispute is fully informed of what has happened.
If, however, the reverse arises, the position is not at the present time satisfactory. If the authority publishes a map including a path to which a landowner objects and the Minister decides that the landowner is justified, the question arises as to who are the persons adversely affected who must be notified. It has been the case that only the local authority has been notified. Unless there is provision for advertisement, members of the public and local voluntary bodies interested in these matters will not only have no standing but will have no knowledge of what has happened. A path which they had believed to have been safely put upon the map has been challenged by the landowner and the challenge in the first stage is allowed by the Minister. There then has to be an inquiry; and it is only fair and reasonable, in my submission, that all those adversely affected should have had warning of the Minister's preliminary decision that no right of way existed in this particular case.
624
When the Amendment was moved by my noble friend in Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary invited him to discuss the matter with him, as he thought it might be possible that the Government would put down something to the same effect on Report. I do not claim that was a promise; but, at any rate, this morning there was nothing down on the Marshalled List. Despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, on the undesirability of putting down the same Amendment on Report stage, it is necessary to do so in the event that the Government do not put anything on the Order Paper in good time. I am still not without great hope that, in view of the sympathetic attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to this matter, the Government may be prepared to meet us. I have now restated what is our case, which I think is a reasonable one: that reasonable notice should be given where on the preliminary view of the Minister a right of way which had been put on the map is in the first instance disallowed by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 41, after ("authority") insert ("and to any other person interested")— (Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wish to confirm what the noble Lord has said. My noble friend Lord Chorley and I met. I would confirm also that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the principle of these Amendments, but, as usual, when we came to reducing the matter to draftsman's language we found it more difficult than we thought and there were unexpected ramifications. I am afraid it has not yet been done; but it will be done and I would inform the House that on Third Reading—which will not be before Thursday of next week—I shall be putting down an Amendment to Schedule 3 which will cover the same ground as Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43, and which I hope and believe—certainly, I hope—will meet with the satisfaction of the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Chorley.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I should not like to be thought to be looking a gift horse in the mouth; but it would be of great convenience if

625
these further Amendments could be put down in sufficient time for us to be able to examine them and their implications before we have to take them on Third Reading.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, naturally, in the light of that assurance, we shall be only too glad to withdraw this Amendment; but I should like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for the very courteous and patient way he received me last week and for the ample discussion we had about this complicated point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.37 p.m.
LORD KENNETmoved, in Part II, to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the contentious batch of Amendments which made such an unfortunately late appearance. This is the Roads Used as Public Paths Amendment which has been awaited for such a long time. I should like to remind your Lordships that although its late appearance is a matter for regret—and I think that all sides are agreed in regretting this—it was not unexpected, because in the House of Commons Standing Committee "A" on February 20 the Parliamentary Secretary foreshadowed provisions based on the Gosling Report in this matter. He said:
"I do not think I can honestly say that such an Amendment or addition could be ready by the Report stage."
He was referring to the Report stage in the House of Commons. So it was already clear that any Amendment would come in this House.
Then on April 9, in the House of Commons, he said:
"I indicated in Committee what we proposed,"—
namely, that an Amendment would be tabled—
"although we have not been able to include it on Report, because it requires further drafting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1247.]
And in this House, on the Committee stage of the Bill, I said:
"The Government intend to introduce provisions requiring the surveying authorities, which are generally county councils, to survey their roads used as public paths …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/5/68, col. 1649.]
Although the Amendment is late—and nobody regrets that more than I—its
626
appearance is by no means unheralded, and its content is in accord with what was said twice in the House of Commons and once here.
Amendments Nos. 43A and 43B give effect to the Gosling Committee recommendation that the definition "roads used as public paths" in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 should be abandoned and that, in the words of the Gosling Report:
"These roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities who should decide in each case whether the road should be designated as an unclassified road, a bridleway or a footpath."
The promise in the other place included a statement that there would be provision for public advertisement on these proposals and for an objection period, and for a public local inquiry by the Minister, if necessary, in order that they should be in line with the rest of the Bill now before your Lordships.
In spite of the great length of Amendment No. 43B, its effect is not unduly complicated. It is to require surveying authorities to carry out an expedited special review (and I shall come in a moment to the meaning of the word "expedited") of the definitive map, on the lines of the revised review procedure —that means the procedure for the revision of the map as revised in this Bill —within three years of the date of the commencement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. The authorities will also have the additional duty of surveying roads used as public paths to establish what public vehicular rights exist over them. Each of these roads will then be classified either as a highway open to all traffic, as a bridleway closed to vehicular traffic, or as a footpath, and they will be shown as such on the revised definitive map.
The objection period for the special review will not be less than four months, and if objections are made and not withdrawn the Minister is required to hold a public local inquiry in the usual manner. There is provision for a limited special review for the consideration of roads used as public paths only when an authority has recently completed a survey or a review of the existing definitive map, whether the first or the revised one. But when the survey was completed longer ago than recently, the surveying

627
authority must re-survey the lot; and the Minister has power to expedite it if they do not. During the course of that survey they will, among other things, redesignate roads used as public paths in any of the three ways that I have mentioned. This meets the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Molson, about giving the Minister power to expedite the revision review.
On the other hand, as I have said, where the surveying authority has only recently either published its definitive map or a revision of it, it need not re-revise the whole lot. It need revise only the roads used as public paths on it for the limited and single purpose of re-designating them among the three categories I have already mentioned. I repeat, the Minister has power to make directions to expedite the special review if it appears that any stage has been or is likely to be unduly delayed. All the surveying authorities will be required to carry out the special review, though of course some of them will be doing it in the context of their general review. These provisions automatically expedite reviews in any area where the review of the definitive map is already due.
My Lords, I hope that I have given a reasonably comprehensible account of what is a horribly complicated position, and that the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Molson, will agree with me that this meets their point about expediting the revision procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 7, leave out paragraph 5.— (Lord Kennet.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate the difficulty under which the House is labouring when giving detailed consideration at such short notice to Amendments which are as late as these two. They were available in the Printed Paper Office less than two-and-a-half hours ago, and it has been impossible for those of us who are working hard on this Bill to take in all that is involved in them. Let me add that I, for one, am in no way criticising the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, over this matter. He has conducted this
628
Bill with great care and with great courtesy. He is handicapped in that, quite obviously, the Parliamentary draftsmen are grossly overworked because of the load of legislation which the Government are placing on them. I can fully understand the difficulty of his Ministry in getting the Amendments on which they have agreed as to policy put into legislative form speedily enough. My one regret is that in this situation, when there was congestion in the office of the Parliamentary draftsmen, the Government nevertheless insisted on pressing on with the successive stages of this Bill so quickly. By that decision they accentuated their own difficulties.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will not take anything I say as a personal criticism of himself, because nothing of that kind is meant; indeed, we are all greatly appreciative of the care with which he has explained this pair of Amendments. So far as I can see, they are, to put it briefly, a good thing. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that they were foreshadowed. Nevertheless every good thing needs scrutiny and examination, and frankly, so far as I am concerned, there has not been the time to do this before the moment came for me to reply to the speech of the noble Lord. I must say, therefore, that we shall have to examine these Amendments at our limited leisure between now and Third Reading, and it may be that at that stage we shall have Amendments to put down to this new Part III, whether designed to alter the effect of certain of these provisions or as probing Amendments to discover precisely what is meant. I welcome the Amendments, in so far as they are designed to achieve a good purpose, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Molson will think the same. But he and I are in the same difficulty as are all your Lordships. Obviously, we shall wish to see these Amendments accepted, but we reserve the right to scrutinise them between now and Third Reading.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I need not repeat word for word what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has said. However, I should like to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary. So far as I can see, the Government have met the points which we have been pressing on them for so long. I think that

629
to-morrow will be the time to repeat the criticisms which we have made. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary showed a certain boldness in quoting his colleague in another place who, on Committee stage there, said he was afraid these Amendments would not be drafted by the Report stage. He was referring, of course, to the Report stage in another place—
LORD KENNET: I said that.
LORD MOLSON: —and they were not drafted in time for the Committee stage in this place. But I should like to repeat that it is in the Committee stage that Amendments should be put down, in order that there is ample opportunity for proper scrutiny. It is an abuse of the procedure of this House that Amendments are put down only on Report. When they are available only after midday on the second day of the Report stage, that abuse becomes an absurdity. However, like my noble friend, I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for that and I thank him for what he has done in the matter.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should like, with the leave of the House, to add one further consideration to the question of timing, in order that noble Lords may have everything in their minds.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, it is only the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, himself who can withdraw this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sometimes gets confused almost to the point when his head goes round. I apologise to the House for my procedural slip. Before I withdraw my Amendment—
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to withdraw it?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, once again I apologise to the House. Before I finally invite the House to accept the Amendment, may I say that of course it is not simply a question of drafting; it it also a question of consultation which imposes delay. This is a difficult decision for any Government to take. We could have brought this Amendment before your Lordships earlier, but that
630
would have meant we should not have consulted everybody who ought to have been consulted in the local authority world, and the associations concerned, to the extent that they ought to have been consulted. It is an extremely complex matter, as I think your Lordships know from the complications which we have found in the discussion of it. If we had done that, and if those of your Lordships who are especially linked with one association or interest or another in this field had gone to your friends, and if they had been told by their friends that they felt they had not been fully consulted by the Government, it would have been more annoying, and more time-consuming to fight it out on the Floor of the House. I hope and believe that when noble Lords ask their friends their opinion of this Amendment, they will find that there are no major remaining objections to it among those interested.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 37, at end insert—

PART III
ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS
The special review
8. In this Part of this Schedule the `special review' carried out by any authority means the first review begun by that authority after the coming into force of this Act.
9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the draft revision in the special review shall be published not later than three years after the date of the coming into force of this Act.
(2) If on the said date the authority have not completed a survey or revision begun earlier—

(a) the draft revision in the special review shall be published not later than three years after the date of the coming into force of this Act, or one year after notice is published of the completion of the survey or earlier review, whichever is the later,

(b) the special review (hereafter in this Schedule called a 'limited special review') shall be confined to a review of roads used as public paths in accordance with this Part of this Schedule:

Provided that if on a review begun before the date of the coming into force of this Act no revised map and statement has been published in draft before that date, the review shall be abandoned, and shall be begun again under Part II of this Schedule as the special review.
(3) If it appears to the Minister that any stage of a special review has been or is likely to be unduly delayed, he may give to the authority such directions as appear to the Minister appropriate for expediting the review, and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the directions.
Reclassification of roads used as public paths
10.—(1) In the special review the draft revision, and the definitive map and statement, shall show every road used as a public path by one of the three following descriptions—

(a) a 'byway open to all traffic',

(b) a 'bridleway closed to vehicular traffic',

(c) a 'footpath',

and shall not employ the expression 'road used as a public path' to describe any way.
(2) As from the date of publication of the definitive map and statement in the special review—

(a) any entry in the map describing a way as in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above shall be conclusive as to the public rights exercisable over the way, and

(b) the way so described shall be a highway, maintainable at the public expense.

(3) In this paragraph 'road used as a public path' means—

(a) a way which is shown as a 'road used as a public path' in the last definitive map and statement, or

(b) a way which is shown as a 'bridleway' or as a 'footpath' in the last definitive map and statement, and which in the opinion of the authority ought to have been there shown as a road used as a public path, or

(c) where the special review is not a limited special review, a way which in the opinion of the authority would, but for the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, have fallen to be shown, in the definitive map and statement resulting from the special review, as a road used as a public path.

(4) Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the operation of road traffic orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, or the rights of way conferred by this Act on cyclists.
Test for reclassification
11. The considerations to be taken into account in deciding in which class a road used as a public path is to be put shall be—

(a) whether any vehicular right of way has been shown to exist,

(b) whether the way is suitable for vehicular traffic having regard to the position and width of the existing right of way, the condition and state of repair of the way, and the nature of the soil,

(c) where the way has been used by vehicular traffic, whether the extinguishment of vehicular rights of way would cause any undue hardship.

Procedure on special review
12.—(1) Part II of this Schedule shall apply to a special review subject as follows.
(2) The published notices shall state that the review reclassifies roads used as public paths.
(3) The representations or objections referred to in paragraph 4 in Part II shall include representations or objections with respect to the reclassification of any road used as a public path.
(4) The time, as stated in the published notice of the draft revision, within which any representation or objection (of any description) may be made to the draft revision shall not be less than four months.
(5) If any representation or objection is duly made in respect of the reclassification of any road used as a public path, and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall hold a public local inquiry, and paragraph 4(3) in Part II shall not apply.
Interpretation and construction
13.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule refer ences to a definitive map and statement include references to a revised map and statement prepared in definitive form.
(2) This Part, and Part IV, of this Schedule shall be construed as one with Part IV of the Act of 1949.

PART IV
TIMING OF REVIEWS
14.—(1) The period covered by a review, that is to say the period between the two dates specified in section 33(1) of the Act of 1949, shall not exceed five years:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not affect the validity of any review or of any document prepared or thing done in consequence of a review.
(2) The interval between the end of the period covered by a review and the publication of the draft revision shall be—

(a) in the case of the special review, not more than two years, and

(b) in the case of any subsequent review, not more than six months.

(3) In the case of a limited special review—

(a) sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not apply, and

(b) the period covered by the next subsequent review shall begin with the relevant date for the original survey, or the date of review of the last review before the special review, whichever is the later.

(4) Section 33(3) of the Act of 1949 (which is superseded by sub-paragraph (1) above) shall not apply to a review begun after the coming into force of this Act."—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
Amemdment moved—
Page 56, line 8, at beginning insert—

"9 & 10 Geo.6. c.49.

The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procdure) Act 1946.

Section 3(2)(3) except as applied by section 15 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 and except er respects an ordas made, or notice of which was published, before the coming into force of this Act.")— (Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALEmoved, after the proposed repeal of Section 85(a) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to insert, "In Section 87 subsections (4) and (7).". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I put this Amendment down to bring to the notice of the Minister further points which stress the advisability, in my humble opinion and, what is more important, in the opinion of the Confederation of British Industry, of initiating an inquiry procedure before areas of outstanding natural beauty are designated. I would ask the Minister whether he would be so kind between now and Third Reading to have another look at this question and see whether he can put forward some formula on Third Reading which would meet the point of view of the extractive industries and the C.B.I.
During Committee stage I moved an Amendment to insert a new clause to that effect. In his reply the Minister said that
"in the designation of an area of outstanding natural beauty nobody's rights are changed."
I agree with that, but I think that the noble Lord's answer completely overlooked the fact that once a designation order is made, it operates as a blight in reverse, so far as the extractive industries are concerned, the effect being that whenever any mineral applications are put forward they are subject to the prejudice of the designation order. Local planning authorities do not hesitate, as the evidence shows, to use the existence of the order as the principal ground of refusal.
634
On May 13 the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"It seems to me that if the full protection for the economic rights of this industry can be obtained at the moment when a planning application is made, it is needless duplication to write in anything about a public inquiry and public discussion in the designation of these areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 151; 13/5/68.]
Needless duplication already occurs when the problems raised by designation orders are allowed to confuse planning applications for legitimate extensions. Would the noble Lord not agree that the existence of the industries in these areas is a matter of fact, which results either from pre-Act circumstances or from a conscious policy decision since 1948? In both cases industries operate upon an economic basis, which means that they have to be sustained in production by making the raw materials available over the economic life of the plant.
During the Committee stage, as an example, I referred to the question of the continued supply of raw materials to a large cement works in Shoreham for which planning consent was granted in the early post-war period. This was done by a local planning authority consent of October 18, 1946, by a modified ministerial consent of June 10, 1948, and by a further consent dated July 7, 1950. The relevance of these decisions seems to me that they are evidence of a policy by the local planning authority and the Minister that the cement industry should be established in the South Downs area and thereafter sustained for a period of years. I understand that the Minister has accepted a working life of 60 years as normal.
Obviously the designation of an area of outstanding natural beauty conflicts on amenity grounds not only with the fact of the existence of the industry but also with the policy under which the industries were established in the first place. It is this latter conflict which should surely be resolved at the time when consideration is being given on a matter of policy as to whether a designation order should be made. Otherwise two contrary policies are set up side by side, one inevitably to the prejudice of the other. Is it not making nonsense of the first policy of setting up these industries if they are to be interrupted by

635
a second policy which is at variance with it? In the case of the Shoreham works the local planning authority used the existence of the designation order as a reason for refusal in respect of the first planning application made by the company following the designation order. As I have mentioned, existing industries should be protected for their proper economic lives.
In the case of the gravel pit in the Cannock Chase area, to which I also referred in the Committee stage, it is proposed only to deepen the pit, so how could such work ever become "an increasingly damaging scar", as was stated by the Staffordshire County Council? Here, again, is evidence of a contrary policy whereby mineral working is permitted and then subsequently refused because of the making of a designation order. Would it not be more logical, fair and just, as established industries in these areas must from time to time obtain further consents to continue production, to ensure that any conflict should be resolved before the date of the making of the order, to avoid prejudice, with its attendant delays and difficulties? Otherwise, how can existing industries be assured of protection for their proper economic lives? In the final analysis, if all industry were to be brought to a halt in these areas, the national economy would be seriously affected.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("In Section 87 subsections (4) and (7).").—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, let me begin on a note of agreement. If all industries in these areas were to be brought to a halt, the national economy would indeed be seriously affected, but I do not think that there is much risk of that happening. The noble Lord gave the instance of a cement works at Shoreham. I am not familiar with the case, but it seems to me that his insistence that the cement works ought to be allowed to expand, without regard to the fact that this was an A.O.N.B., would not in itself be justifiable. There are conflicting factors here which must be taken into account on each decision. If the cement industry were able to make less dust and fumes, then no doubt this question would not arise.
636
There are two or three sides to this question. It is a very unpleasant industry for people to live near to, but it is a very necessary one. I feel rather strongly about this, because the people of West Thurrock, who have the greatest concentration of cement industry, certainly in Europe, and possibly in the world, keep sending bags of cement to their Member of Parliament, who keeps sending them to me because I am responsible for these matters in the Ministry. So sometimes I go with the Member of Parliament to West Thurrock, and the people of West Thurrock give me bags of the cement which they have swept up off the garden paths. Since then they have taken to sending these bags of cement to the Prime Minister, and these too come to me. I have quite a collection in my office.
I know very well that this industry cannot at the drop of a hat stop emitting dust, but I think in the case of an industry which is bound to emit dust the planning authority should pay attention to whether they wish to expand in an A.O.N.B., in a National Park, or whether they wish to expand elsewhere. It is, after all, in the nature of planning to reconcile different interests. I come back to what I said last time. An area of outstanding natural beauty must be determined according to whether or not it is of outstanding beauty. I do not think there is much difference about what sort of countryside is or is not of outstanding natural beauty. I have heard nobody say that the existing areas are less beautiful than other areas and ought not to have been turned into them.
Of course, industry is no better qualified as industry to have an opinion on this than anybody else. So I would advise the House not to change this; to let the designations be made by the Minister on the advice of the Countryside Commission, who are the right people to judge of this, and of the first motion of the planning authority, who are the right people to judge of this, and let the interests of industry be looked after when the designations are framed which is when, and only when, there is a concrete planning application to do something. If the interests of industry ought to prevail over the interests of amenity when there is a conflict, then let the normal planning

637
law and the operation of local democracy and Parliamentary democracy make its decision. I would advise the House not to institute a system of public appeals and hearings on what is simply a question of whether a particular bit of country is pretty or not.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer, which I must say I do not find very satisfactory. He does not seem to have answered my point that there is a definite prejudice on the part of the local planning authority to grant any right of extension to existing works to draw raw materials when an area has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. It seems to me quite wrong that in the past the Government should have put forward a policy which enables these industries to be set up, the Minister agreeing that they should have a certain working life— in the case of the cement industry of 60 years—and then the local planning authority, taking advantage of the fact that a certain area in which the industry is established has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, refuse an application for an extension of the working of that particular industry. It seems to me quite illogical, unfair and unjust. I quoted to the Minister on Committee stage, and again to-day. the case of two industries where the local planning authority, purely relying on the fact that they are in designated areas, are not to permit these industries to extract more raw materials which they need to continue production. Perhaps the Minister would agree to look at these points between now and Third Reading, and with that hope I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I would say this to him. He has used very strong language. He has said that these matters are allowed to confuse planning applications. He has accused local authorities of prejudice in this matter. He has accused them of behaving in a manner which is illogical, unfair and unjust, and he has accused them of taking advantage of the fact that
638
there is an A.O.N.B. on the ground. These are the elected representatives of the people, and I think the noble Lord should not use this language unless he is prepared to substantiate it with concrete cases. If he is prepared to do that, I will naturally look with a fresh eye at his suggested Amendment, but until then I really think that such language should be avoided.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry for the strong language, but the fact is that I quoted two instances to the noble Lord. If he wants me to expand on them, I will with the greatest of pleasure do so in a letter. I feel that possibly he may then feel that some of my language was not completely exaggerated. With those few final words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the adoption by the House of the new clause which is now Clause 39 in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 29, column 3 at end insert ("Section 92(2).").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
LORD KENNET: My Lords this Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 10, at end insert ("and other public paths.").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WILLS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1968
5.9 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before the House on the 2nd of May.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain what this extraordinary body is? It sounds like one of the companies floated in the era of the South Sea Bubble.
5.10 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this Order is required to give effect to Article 12 of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation. This is a new Convention which was negotiated at the Stockholm Conference on Intellectual Property and signed on behalf of the United Kingdom in July, 1967. The Convention will provide an administrative framework for co-operation between the countries which belong to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the most important international agreement regulating the subject of copyright, and countries which belong to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the corresponding international agreement in the field of patents. It will also provide a worldwide forum for discussion, open to countries whether or not they are party to the Berne or Paris Conventions. In this way, problems of patents and copyright of common interest to the developed and the developing countries can be examined, programmes of legal and technical assistance to the emergent countries in these fields can be properly drawn up in such a way as to ensure the best value for money and effort expended, and the spread of intellectual property rights—a perhaps rather confusing term, but one which includes copyright and patents—
640
can be encouraged. Thus, the new Organisation will be the specialist body in this field to which all countries can belong, even though they are not yet ready to accept particular conventions.
The United Kingdom has since the 1880s been a member of both the Berne and Paris Unions, which are set up to administer respectively the Berne and Paris Conventions, and has supported from the outset the proposal made in 1962 to establish the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The administrative framework for the Organisation has existed on an informal basis since 1893 and it is generally thought necessary now to establish it on a firm international basis. In the view of the United Kingdom, the new Organisation will make a valuable contribution to the international protection of legally regulated property rights. The United Kingdom therefore welcomed the conclusion of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and joined fifty other countries in signing the Convention. The Headquarters of the organisation are to be in Geneva.
To become a member of the Organisation it is necessary for the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention. Before ratification can take place all measures necessary to enable effect to be given to all the provisions of the Convention must have been passed. The purpose of the present draft Order is to enable the United Kingdom to implement a provision of the Convention which requires all members to grant the Organisation legal capacity; that is to say, the power to purchase property, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued in its own name. It is general practice to give international Organisations legal capacity when they are set up, since obviously they cannot function efficiently without it. I should perhaps explain here that the expression "legal capacities of a body corporate" —this is a crucial expression in this context—does not imply that the Organisation will become a limited liability company subject to the requirements of the Companies Acts.
This Order is much more limited than previous Orders in respect of Organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. I think it important to make the point to your Lordships that the scope

641
of this Order is limited, as I have said, to conferring on the World Intellectual Property Organisation the legal capacities of a body corporate, and it confers nothing else in the way of immunities and privileges on the Organisation or on persons connected with it. It is envisaged that the Organisation will need other immunities and privileges only in its host State, Switzerland, since it is unlikely to engage in activities in other countries. The Convention therefore leaves the question of privileges and immunities for the Organisation, for its officials and for representatives of member States to be dealt with in a separate bilateral agreement between the Organisation and the host State. So, in conclusion, I should like to make abundantly clear the point that this Order does not confer any special immunities or privileges, but is simply to give this new Organisation an international legal capacity.
5.15 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I should like to know a little more about this Order. What would happen if this Order were not passed? I belong to a club. It has not, I should have thought, the legal capacities of a body corporate, yet it contrives to buy somewhere or another the food out of which it provides me with not too good a dinner. The Foreign Office, in the same way, has various cantonments (shall we call them?) abroad in the shape of Embassies and other similar bodies, and I should have thought it very doubtful whether any of them had the legal capacity of a body corporate. We are told in the Note attached to the Order that:
"It will enable the United Kingdom to give effect to Article 12(1) of the Convention.…"
Does that mean that this particular body has to be, in order to give effect to that Convention, a body corporate with legal capacities? Is that a stipulation; and, if so, what was the object of the stipulation?
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Lord replies I may say, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, that I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, despite the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for explaining in such clear and con-
642
cise form this draft Order. The Order has a somewhat formidable title, but for all that I believe that it is an Order which the House should welcome, even if some of us perhaps have doubts as to how effective the good intentions of the proposed Organisation will prove in the future.
Many of us, I am sure, were interested to learn to-day from the noble Lord that this proposed new Organisation, whose prime purpose is to protect through international agreement the rights of patent, copyright, trade marks and industrial designs and other matters, has evolved from two similar bodies both set up over seventy years ago, and both supported by the United Kingdom. One cannot help reflecting that if there was a need seventy years ago for such an organisation, there would seem a much greater need to-day for this international agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has told us that at the Conference held in Stockholm last year 50 countries, along with the United Kingdom, signed the Convention that was drafted to set up the Organisation. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us to-day whether all the countries represented at this Conference added their signatures to the Convention. The noble Lord has also told us that this proposed Organisation cannot be legally established and up in Switzerland until the 17 countries, all of whom were former members of the two former organisations, have ratified the Convention; and in turn the United Kingdom itself cannot ratify the Convention until our own legislative processes have been completed with the approval of this Order. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us this after noon how soon he expects that sufficient numbers of ratifications will be lodged to allow the Organisation to be established.
My Lords, I would finish by saying that I am sure we all welcome the concept of this new Organisation to strengthen by international agreement protection of the rights of patents and of other matters. It will, it seems, have to operate on, and indeed to depend on, to a large degree, good will and understanding if it is to succeed. I am sure we all wish it to succeed. For this reason I shall advise those of us on this side of the House to approve this Order

643
and to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I never welcome any of these particular forms of Order, but this one I have received with some relief, because, as the noble Lord has said, we are not conferring any immunity on the members of a new international body to mow down our people in motor cars and to incur debts to our tradesmen with no redress. That is presumably a delight to come in some further Order which will confer immunities. Meanwhile, I should like to ask the noble Lord why this particular Order is called the "Immunities and Privileges Order". What is the immunity; and if in fact it does not confer an immunity, why is it called that? In this House we cannot amend an Order, otherwise I should move to remove the word "Immunities" from this Motion, because it seems to me to be grossly misleading. I should like to hear from the noble Lord precisely why these words have been chosen.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, is it the case that this Organisation, when it is fully constituted, will be able to take action, legal or otherwise, to protect the rights of the owners of copyright and patent right who are British subjects?
5.22 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for the interest that has been shown in this draft Order, and I am particularly grateful for the support it has received. Perhaps I can throw a little light on some of the patches of darkness that appear to exist. Dealing first with the question of the name of the Order—the Immunities and Privileges Order—I would explain that this title is based on a number of precedents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that on the surface it seems rather paradoxical to have an Order called the "Immunities and Privileges Order" when in fact we are not proposing to confer any immunities and privileges on the body concerned. However I can assure the noble Lord that this is based on respectable precedent, and I can also assure him that this attempts to conceal no hidden threat. In fact there is no intention of conferring immunities or privileges on this Organisation. It is intended simply to give
644
it a legal capacity to enable it to perform in its own name certain legal acts in the United Kingdom, such as the buying and selling of property and the making of contracts.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I understood him to say that this is the first instalment and that the immunities will appear later. The noble Lord said that he has precedents for Orders entitled "immunities and privileges" but conferring only privileges. I have seen many Orders conferring immunities and privileges, but I am not aware that any of them confer no immunities. I shall be interested if he will quote the precedent.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we are now getting into water that may be familiar and congenial to certain noble Lords, but it is much too deep for me, We are now moving into the legal and technical aspects of this, and I beg the indulgence of the House. If there are real points of substance which noble Lords would like to have answered I will undertake to get the answer, and I certainly undertake to get the answer about the title of the Order and to send it to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I must confess that I do not have at my finger tips the answer to that rather technical point.
With regard to the question of suing and taking legal action in defence of copyright and patents, I understand that this Order will give the World Intellectual Property Organisation the legal right to sue, and indeed, as I said, to be sued —so far as that is relevant—in its own name. As to the extent to which that right will be exercised, I will again seek further guidance and information, and I will let the noble Lord know.
To go on to the wider aspects of this Order, and particularly to refer back to what my noble friend Lord Mitchison, said about the amenities of his club, I am not aware (although I should be) which club has the great honour of having the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, as a member, but I think I am fairly safe in assuming that it is not an international organisation. Orders such as this are designed entirely for the purpose of protecting the rights, and establishing rights and privileges, of international organisations, and it has always been the policy of the United Kingdom Government, when they support

645
the setting up of a new organisation, to make sure, so far as they are able to, that it can function successfully, otherwise it would seem to us to be an empty gesture to support it. This entails granting privileges and immunities necessary to enable the organisation to discharge its responsibilities.
Here I think I might clear up one point. I may inadvertently have misled the House. It is the case that under this Order no individuals will enjoy privileges and immunities. Of course by its very nature the Order confers upon the Organisation privileges and immunities—certainly the former—of the sort I have mentioned. It gives the Organisation a legal capacity, which is a privilege in itself; but the point I was at pains to make is that under this Order no individual will enjoy privileges and immunities. For example, the Order will not confer immunities such as those connected with the parking of motor cars on the part of individuals employed by this Organisation. I hope that this explanation goes, some way towards clearing up that particular misunderstanding, if indeed it existed.
With regard to the questions about ratification and signing of the Conventions—, and these were specific questions asked by the noble Lord opposite—the Convention was not signed by all the countries that took part in the Conference, and so far as the coming into existence of this Organisation is concerned, it will legally come into existence three months after ten States which are members of the Paris Union and seven States which are members of the Berne Union have either signed the Convention without reservation as to ratification—which is a concept that will be familiar to the noble Lord—or deposited an instrument of ratification, or an instrument of accession, to the Convention. That is the actual legal moment at which the Organisation will come into existence. So far, only one country has ratified the Convention, the Irish Republic, and I am afraid that I am not in a position at the moment to guess how soon it will be before the conditions for the Organisation's coming into existence are fulfilled. But I hope that in the light of what I have said the House will feel ready to approve this Order.
I have said, and I confess fully, that I am not seized of all the detailed legal
646
technicalities behind this matter, but if there are any points of substance about which noble Lords are unhappy 1 will undertake to get the information and to let them have it. In any case, I will certainly do that in respect of the title of the Order, and I will let the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, know about the precedents.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND
5.30 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER LORD RITCHIE-CALDER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to increase their contribution to the United Nations Children's Find to a figure commensurate with its new role in world development. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I tabled this Question the first part has been answered in another place. My right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development has announced an increase in the British contribution to UNICEF from £400,000 last year to £500,000 this year, Neither my right honourable friend in another place nor my noble friend who will be replying here will think that I am ungrateful or churlish if I point out that the increase is not nearly as impressive as it seems. In devalued sterling it represents not a 25 per cent. increase but about 10 per cent. Nevertheless, in present difficulties I welcome it as an earnest of the Government's good will—and, I hope, a token of greater contribution to come—towards UNICEF and a recognition of its work.
I want to address my noble friend's attention to the second part of my Question: does he consider the figure commensurate with UNICEF'S new role in world development? The operative term is "new role", which for your Lordships' benefit I should like to define. Many of your Lordships, I hope all your Lordships, are familiar with the humanitarian services which UNICEF has rendered for 22 years to the children of the world, and which was acknowledged by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965. Many of your Lordships will know that UNICEF had a predecessor in UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation

647
Agency, which before the embers of war were cold moved into the ravaged countries with first aid, to avert the famines and diseases which had followed the First World War, killing, in terms of that war, more in its wake than had been killed in terms of all the military casualities of all the belligerents from 1914 to 1918. In spite of the even greater destruction of countries and a far greater movement of displaced persons, and the dangers of pestilence that that meant, similar catastrophes did not follow the Second World War, thanks mainly to UNRRA.
When UNRRA was abruptly, and I maintain prematurely, wound up in 1946, there was a vast unfinished business, in terms of refugees and the creation of the International Refugee Organisation as a consequence, particularly among children and young people. The United Nations Children's International Emergency Fund was set up—I stress that because it is Still to US UNICEF—aS a legatee of UNRRA funds and supplies, to work with and through the United Nations specialised agencies, the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO, I.L.O. and so on, in order to bring succour to child victims of war or the child victims of neglect in other parts of the world. But it was obvious that "emergency" was an understatement, and that the world problem of children would be with us for a very long time—and to-day twenty years later it is still with us.
The United Nations reconstituted the organisation as a permanent agency, financed by voluntary contributions of Governments and by private fund raising, and I think that probably most people know UNICEF through its private fund raising, through flag days, through Christmas cards, through Danny Kaye's films and stage shows, and other fund raising activities. But only about a quarter of UNICEF's income comes from non-Governmental fund raising—and I suggest to your Lordships that it is really a blackmail of Government to insist that through people voting with their pockets they will give more in terms of Government contributions—and the rest from 122 Governments.
For over twenty years I have had an intimate and very rewarding experience of UNICEF in all parts of the world, and
648
I have personally reason to be grateful to UNICEF because as a supply agency it is mobile, and one of my desperate efforts in international relations is to remain mobile. I have been able to cadge lifts or "thumb" lifts on its trucks and on its jeeps into the most inaccessible places in the world, because UNICEF always gets through wherever its help is needed. I have been with its unsung heroes on the milk run into Afghanistan; I have been helping to deliver penicillin to cure yaws in the Hungry Hills of Java; taking supplies for malaria control into Kipling's jungle in India; making a desperate sortie into the mountains of Luzon to help the Igarots, the head hunters of the Philippines; averting a catastrophic famine in the desperate days of the Congo; and taking sulphone drugs to treat leprosy in Northern Thailand. I have seen UNICEF at work in those places and in the Himalayas, in the Middle East, in North Africa and Latin America. In other words, I can put names and faces to UNICEF'S statistics.
Not long ago I wrote an article on "UNICEF'S Grandchild", and this is really what I am talking about to-day. I had gone back to Afghanistan and had met a man whom twenty years before I had seen as a starveling brought by his mother to the UNICEF milk depot to get the protein he was perishing without. He now has a child of his own, a boy born in the maternity hospital which the World Health Organisation had helped to provide and UNICEF had helped to equip. And I recalled how two Royal princesses had been persuaded to become midwives in order to set an example in a land of purdah, where the veiled and segregated women had been previously treated as chattels and childbearing machines. To-day in Afghanistan they have been allowed to unveil. A quarter of the students at Kabul University are now women learning to be doctors, to be nuclear and electronic engineers, to be architects, to be civil engineers, to be bridge-builders.
A social revolution has been wrought in Afghanistan, and I swear to your Lordships that it dates back to that UNICEF milk depot, when the women, shrouded from head to foot in their chadaris, the humiliation of their sex, brought their children for succour to the milk depot, and at the gynæcological and

649
pædiatric clinics where alongside they met women, unveiled women, whom the World Health Organisation had recruited from many countries. The Afghan women discovered that women could be professionals, and presently they found that, (they themselves, the women 'of Afghanistan, were important because the women doctors treated them as personalities in their own right.
That social revolution has been wrought in a country. That story—and I can give many similar examples—epitomises the kind of social chain reaction which UNICEF has triggered off and which has forced upon the Fund new responsibilities and the new role to which I am referring to-day. But whatever that new role (and I will come back to that in a moment), I sincerely hope that UNICEF will never forget its origins, which began with first-aid feeding and the prevention of pestilence. It has sympathetically, and in terms of compassion, been identified with the pathetic child and the empty rice bowl—and, Heaven knows! there are still multi-millions of ill-fed children for it to look after. It has a proud, a heroic, record as the milk roundsman and the truck driver. But by its own achievement, by that direct help, first aid and so on, it has created new problems, and I hasten to add new opportunities which I hope the countries of the world will help it to meet.
One is self-evident. It has helped to keep people alive. It has helped to save mothers from death in childbirth, to live and to have more children. It has helped to save children from infantile diseases, helped to protect them against the old killer diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, dystentries, and to deliver millions from yaws, leprosy, trachoma and the like. As a result of this humanitarian intervention, children have grown up to marry and to multiply. As a result, we have the world population problem. With that problem goes migration, the movement of excess population from the villages to the towns. With that go broken homes and parentless children. With that go delinquency and the unemployed, and unemployable young people.
It is not only right, it is absolutely imperative, that UNICEF should take responsibility for the lives it saves. It is right, therefore, that, like the other
650
Agencies of the United Nations, it should concern itself with population control so that succeeding generations should be brought up in human dignity. It is right that it should help Governments in setting up enlightened welfare services for children, caring for the dispossessed children, providing youth centres and helping to train and equip social workers. It is right that, with the full and cordial cooperation of UNESCO, it should concern itself with education, and particularly with the out-of-school child. By "out-of-school" child in that context is meant children who have no schools to go to, or who drop out too early from school to retain literacy. More than half the children of the world are in that category in countries too poor to provide schooling.
This "lost generation" bulks large in rural communities. The uneducated child becomes the unemployable youth. UNICEF seeks, in conjunction with the other United Nations Agencies and the Governments concerned, to provide for the out-of-school population facilities for combining literacy and practical training. It can, in conjunction with the International Labour Organisation, help to provide also vocational training facilities for those who have to be "topped up" to take their place in a technological society.
Nowadays we talk about "investment in human resources". I think this phrase embodies the most important advance which we have made in our attitudes since the War. "Investment in human resources" means taking economic account not only of the material resources of a country but of its human potential. Historically, and in classical economics, we have assumed that what we call social services—health, nutrition, education, better housing and so on—were the spill-over of industrial prosperity. But what we have come to recognise nowadays is that industrial prosperity depends upon upgrading our human materials, so that they can become the positive instruments in creating that prosperity which is an important precondition in developing countries, which have to make a leap across the centuries if they are to take their place in a technologically advanced world. So the social services, the investment in human resource, are not the outlet pipe of the cistern of prosperity; they are now the inlet valve

651
of that prosperity. And that investment in human resources begins with the child when he is born, when, in United Nations' terms, he becomes the ward of UNICEF.
Like everyone who knows the United Nations Development Programme, under the management of Paul Hoffman and David Owen, I have a great admiration for and confidence in the work of the Development Programme. Its job is to help the developing countries to make the best use of their economic resources, including human resources. Like UNICEF, it works in conjunction with, and through, the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations in promoting international assistance in the pre-investment phase of development. I have always believed in the integration of the efforts of the United Nations family of Agencies—I am all for that; and I see the new role of UNICEF, which will include the white-collar jobs of training and guidance, as well as the blue-collar job of supply and getting the stuff through, as complementary—and it is a most important complement—to what the United Nations Development Programme is doing.
In that sense, the role of UNICEF is social pediatrics. Just as in our medical services we recognise the special nature of child care and treatment, so in this crucially important question of development, industrially and socially, on which the political stability of the world will depend from now on, there is a special need for concern for that half of the world's population who are children. I want to say more emphatically than I can say most things that this is not charity. This is investment in human resources, in those who will be the makers and the doers, the thinkers and the leaders, in the world development on which the future prosperity of this country depends. At present, the wastage of human life and talents among the young is appalling. By our present neglect we are crippling their future and making them, not economic assets but social liabilities in the future development of their country. My Lords, UNICEF is not only the guardian of the child, it is the trustee for the future. It is in those terms that I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government think that their contribution is commensurate with UNICEF'S role.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, we must be grateful to Lord Ritchie-Calder for raising this matter to-day, for, of all appeals for help, that which embraces the lives of children should surely make the biggest impact upon our sympathy and generosity. Therefore we can rejoice a little that the Government have announced that they are prepared to increase the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund by £100,000. Whether this increased contribution to UNICEF is commensurate with its new role in world development we have yet to find out.
Overseas aid in general and our contribution to UNICEF in particular are questions above Party affiliation. The problems UNICEF seek to solve are awe-inspiring in their magnitude. The struggle exists to-day to try to emancipate the children and young people of this generation from the well-nigh overwhelming burdens of illness, poverty and ignorance which threaten to submerge them. The superhuman efforts needed to turn the tide of misery and deprivation would have defeated Canute. Fortunately, they act as a spur to the more privileged boys and girls and young men and women throughout the world. Christian Aid, OXFAM, Freedom from Hunger, Save the Children Fund and Voluntary Service Overseas are some of those organisations in this country, largely aided by the younger generation, which seek to save the children and their parents from lives of unbelievable hardship which have been their undeserved inheritance. We in this country have every reason to be proud of the way in which our young people have risen and are rising to this sort of call.
Only a few weeks ago the youth organisations of the three main political Parties got together and issued a joint manifesto demanding that, among other things, the Government should be pressed to increase its aid to £300 million per annum by 1970 in respect of our overseas aid programme. That is a thoroughly good thing, for the politically-minded youth of to-day may become part of the Government of to-morrow, and if they have already recognised their responsibilities towards the peoples of the undeveloped countries of the world they will need no

653
convincing that it is their duty, when in power, to give help. Lord Ritchie-Calder implies in his Question that UNICEF is assuming a new role in world development. On April 18 of this year the Executive Director of UNICEF published his general progress report. It makes fascinating reading. From reading it one emerges with a picture of what UNICEF has been achieving in the past and what it hopes to achieve in the future.
I have not had the advantage the noble Lord who introduced this has had of travelling about the world and seeing this help and succour being given on the spot, but one is still conscious, even if one is looking at it academically, of the weight and volume of work that has to be done, and this work will be done only if—and this is a very big if—the financial support is forthcoming to sustain it.
It is clear from this Report that the present financial position is critical. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a mass of figures. They are all contained in this Report, which is available to anyone who would be interested to read it. What is clear is that the real income does not measure up to the target income of 50 million dollars by the end of 1969, which target was endorsed by the General Assembly.
The estimated income for 1968 is some three million dollars less than that anticipated a year ago. As a result, allocations for this year have had to be recommended at the lower level of 45 million dollars. This means that good new projects and programmes have had to be postponed, and the rate of implementation of successful projects already under way has had to be slowed down. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships that 1968 has been designated by the General Assembly as the International Year for Human Rights. The part that UNICEF has chosen to play in this particular year is to base itself upon a re-dedication to the Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of the Child made in 1959. This affirmed that "mankind owes the child the best it has to give;" he is "to be among the first to receive relief" and protection against neglect, and the right to tolerance and understanding.
654
If UNICEF's work merited the award of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1965, its work in 1968 and hereafter merits increased support at least to the extent of 10 million dollars a year above its present level of income. That, after all, is less than the world is currently spending in one hour for military purposes. The knowledge of the excellent work that is being done in many of the programmes which UNICEF is helping tempers a little its concern over the plight of the unhappy and unhealthy children who are born into this developing world.
As I have said, there are a great many programmes in which UNICEF is participating. As is so often apparent it other spheres of work, it is sometimes necessary to go much wider afield than the immediate problem in front of one. When we try to analyse the major problems which the developing countries are facing as far as their children are concerned, we realise at once that to help the children it will be necessary to attack problems that affect the whole community.
In this attack seven targets present themselves: Population growth and child welfare; food supply and child malnutrition; the flight to the cities from the countryside, which entails new settlements around the cities which continue to outrun the development of the basic services for children and their parents; human resources and child development, for the world has not yet seriously come to grips with its responsibility for preparing to-day's children to become tomorrow's citizens; children as the innocent victims of violence—and there is direct evidence of this in the large increase in the demands on UNICEF for emergency relief in disasters brought about by political and military disturbances; the dearth of external aid—for support for UNICEF has lagged behind the overall increase in support for the assistance programmes of the United Nations family of Agencies; and finally, the crisis in understanding—the lack of understanding and concern for deprived countries or for deprived communities. There are too many of us all over the world who should know better than to pass by on the other side.
But, my Lords, what about this new role in world development? Is it a new role to embrace new programmes for aid, new schemes for education, or are

655
we to expect a more intensified pursual of projects already in train? Is the future emphasis to concentrate upon countries already in the pipeline for help? Have the new curricula introduced into some of the schools been successful; the science, mathematics and the new teaching methods? What about the prevocational training schemes? What results are to be expected from the establishment of the agricultural clubs in the rural areas? Is it probable that this development will slow down the flight from the country to the towns? Has all the work that has been started all over the world helped to bring about a new attitude of mind in the various Governments of the widely differing undeveloped countries so that future generations of children can hope to have a better, happier, healthier start in life?
Is the help being given by UNICEF creating self-help in the countries it penetrates? Will these countries have an increasing corps of their own people trained to maintain and develop constructive work in education, social welfare, and health, that has been introduced from outside? Can we be sure that not only in the beginning but also in the continuing of these projects a better life is starting which will blossom and expand in the enlightenment of the knowledge and experience that have emanated as a result of the coming of outside aid?
The problems are so immense—the numbers to be helped seem almost incalculable. Our responsibilities are as great, and so is the need to educate ourselves in the knowledge of what can be done, if we have the imagination, the mind, and the warmth of heart to do it. For every second of happy, healthy life that we enjoy and that we watch our children enjoy, thousands elsewhere are living wretched lives of misery and utter degradation, are starving and dying of curable diseases. Surely we must not rest content until all we have inherited has been shared with those whose inheritance has been of a very different kind.
5.58 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has set down this subject, an important one, for discussion, and that he introduced it in his usual effective and colourful way. I rise for a few minutes to support him in his desire
656
to secure further aid for UNICEF in its growing and future role. I greatly welcome the fact that the noble Lady rose from the Front Bench on the other side and offered her own solicitous remarks. As she so rightly said, this is not a matter of Party any more than it is a matter of race or religion. It is a job that we have to do.
I, too, join her in welcoming the increase which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, whereby the Government's contribution of £400,000 has become £500,000. The only snag is that it is not really a £100,000 rise at all, because devaluation swallows up so much of it. To cover devaluation one would have needed £467,000; so this is really a rise of only £33,000. However, I realise all the difficulties that the Government of the day have, and have had all the time, in finding so much money for so many things, but I am sure that the Government recognise that the amount of money that we are giving is not commensurate with the future needs which UNICEF will have, even if it is sufficient for to-day. It is certainly not sufficient for UNICEF's future role. I should not be so unwise as to urge an increase upon the Government to-night, in our own difficult days, but more than anything I rise to put on record for future thought and consideration some of the facts of which those of us who go to the United Nations are so conscious when we are meeting our colleagues.
Some of us were there when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in New York on September 26, with pride, and properly with pride, that in the economic and social fields Britain is still the second largest overall contributor. That is true, but it is not true about UNICEF. In this case we are only a very bad fifth, preceded by the United States, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany and France. In fact, the United Kingdom Government have never at any time in the last ten years done anything very much to help. We have stuck at a figure giving a contribution averaging over those years—as your Lordships will find if you look at the balance sheet—3·8 per cent. of total Government contributions to the Fund.
We are low in the list of contributors whatever method one applies in the examination. On a population basis we

657
are sixteenth in the world and in Europe we are eleventh. We give 2d. a head of the population in every year—the cost of one cigarette—for this worthy object. Little Iceland can give 5½d. per head, Denmark 9d., Norway Is. 4d., and Sweden 1s. 10d. per head of the population. In case any of your Lordships go on to say that Sweden's population is very much less, let me say that the total amount of money represented by what Sweden gives is much in excess of any thing we give. Her cash payment last year was 1,705,000 dollars and ours was 1,120,000 dollars. If we look at it another way, by examination of the national incomes in the world we come out twenty-fourth. We give 14 dollars per million dollars of our national income and Sweden tops the list in this, as in every other comparison, with 98 dollars.
May I trespass on your Lordships' time for two minutes, to remind you that here we have the same position as that to which I referred when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, last raised a Question on the United Nations, with which we are both so much concerned, on January 25 last. I ventured then to say that there is a two-way traffic in nearly everything that we do in these matters. That day we were all feeling very proud that we had stepped up our contribution, but, as I pointed out, we had received millions of dollars in orders for equipment and so on, and much help in United Kingdom territories.
In the case of UNICEF, this two-way traffic is even more pronounced. Last year, as I said, the Government gave 1,120,000 dollars as a Government, and the people of this country by voluntary effort gave 252,000 dollars. That is a total of 1,372,000 dollars. But UNICEF expenditure within the United Kingdom last year was twice that, because the balance sheet shows that it spent 2,856,000 dollars. In earlier years it spent even more. What is more, an amount equal to one-fourth of the contribution which Her Majesty's Government are to make this year has already been recommended by the Executive Board of UNICEF, in allocations to UNICEF-assisted projects inside United Kingdom territories. So I repeat that there is a two-way traffic which cannot be ignored.
658
Of course, we should all like to see the United Kingdom's contribution brought up to £1 million towards the £50 million to which the noble Baroness referred as the total budget to which the General Assembly, including ourselves, and the Economic and Social Council, including ourselves, agreed last year. But we can give only what we can afford at the moment towards the limited £40 million which must be raised by the end of the year. I shall not be so foolish as to urge any sum on the Government. I am only trying to urge facts which can be looked at in the year that lies ahead. I know that the Government are conscious of the need of this, as they are of the other Development Fund which we discussed in January. Indeed, in that debate the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, told us in telling phrase after telling phrase just what it was that the Government realised. He said that the United Nations family together represented a machine which was capable of a major attack on the degradation of world poverty, and UNICEF is part of that machine.
The noble Lord said that the creation of that machine:
"… is perhaps the greatest single achievement of the United Nations in the fist two decades of the existence of the Organisation."
He said that he realised that:
"So far the advance has been much smaller than we should have wished. But … Enough has been done to convince us that this is the way."
He said latex:
"… we cannot fail to be constantly aware of how little has been done in comparison with the extent and the urgency of the need." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/1/68; col. 477–478.]
That, of course, is the point of the Question and the reason why I rise: not just how much money will be given this minute, this day, but what is the Government's assessment of the future role of UNICEF in the world of to-morrow.
6.7 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for inaugurating this debate. We are equally grateful, I am sure, for the way in which the noble Baroness opposite amplified the categories in which the new role of UNICEF has to manifest itself, and to my noble friend who has just spoken for the way in which he has exposed to us the paucity of our contribution—2d. per head per year—for this

659
imperative piece of work. I could have wished that there had been possible in this Chamber a re-showing of the Danny Kaye film. There are those who regard Danny Kaye as sentimental. I shall never forget the clip in the film in which were shown a number of Arabian children already suffering from the terminal stages of blindness from glaucoma, and the other little children—and this was terrifying and horrible and most moving —who were being infected by the flies which were clustering about their eyes and bringing on that inevitable disease. If I am guilty at the moment of endeavouring to make more out of a particular sentimental episode than it is entitled to receive, I make no apology for it, because, ultimately, the consensus of your Lordships' House about this particular problem of UNICEF is one that speaks more from the heart than, I suppose, from any other organ.
I am quite sure that this is a work which should be more generously supported, and I suppose the role which I would for a few moments endeavour to fill is one to which I am acclimatised in my profession. I should like to appeal for an offertory; in fact, if you like, for a second offertory. We in the Methodist Church have a habit of taking a collection half-way through the service, taking it to the vestry and there assessing its value, and if it is not enough coming back and asking for a second collection before the last hymn. I see no reason whatsoever why such an addition to the very sparse amount of money that has yet been provided should not be given in larger measure. If we can waste our treasury on sophisticated weapons which turn out to be obsolete before they are out of date, then it seems to me a matter of eminent common sense as well as eminent morality that we should consider this imperative duty to see to it that the children of the world, so far as we are able so to succour them, are in the first and second stages of their need succoured.
I am the more grateful that my noble friend has distinguished between the first and the second stages of UNICEF. When I think of what is likely to happen in Biafra—what is indeed happening there to-day—and of the initial problems which will arise of just keeping children
660
alive when this pestiferous holocaust is over, and when I think of what rehabilitation must mean in Vietnam when that horrible war is brought to an end, as I hope it will be soon, I am quite sure that the continuing role of UNICEF must be first aid for those who continue in this world to have a very poor chance of even surviving. It is also true that the new role which has now come to UNICEF is one in which the responsibilities, and continuing responsibilities, of this first aid have to be appreciated. I should like to illustrate this point, if I may, in a particular field.
One of the great concerns of UNICEF is the provision of protein for those who are protein starved in the age group of 1 to 6. In the hundred countries and territories which are designated as developing territories, the mortality rate of the post-weaning period, 1 to 6, is 40 times greater than it is in the Western World. Furthermore, those who suffer from protein deficiency add up to 70 per cent. of the total population of children in those particular areas. Lest these words of mine should be loose and imprecise, I have taken the trouble to find out from somebody who knows much more about it than I do what in fact are the details of this condition, and I should like to read them to your Lordships:
"It is estimated that 70 per cent. of the children in those countries are suffering from protein malnutrition in varying degrees, from marasmus (the walking skeleton), hunger oedema (the famine belly), kwashiorkor (the disease which turns the hair rusty, splits the skin like crazy paving and, neglected, leads to lingering, miserable death), xeropthalmia (dried-out eye, infantile blindness), etc."
These are not words which have just a medical significance. They are the conditions which prevail among 70 per cent. of those children who now are beginning to live with such a precarious chance of holding on to life in these underdeveloped countries, euphemistically sometimes described as "developing" countries.
Now what can be done for them? In the first instance, UNICEF can provide dried milk, can instigate various proposals for the provision of milk from herds of cattle, and can extract from local flora such protein as can be made available on the spot. This is, so to speak, the rescue work. This is the kind of work which will keep these children

661
alive. But what happens when they have survived the 1 to 6 age group in which they have been in such peril? My Lords, what happens is this. Even if they are treated with the utmost care, the best that can be hoped for them is a kind of convalescence in which they will require, as they grow older, even as children, continued succour, continued nourishment, of a kind which would not be expected or required for those more healthy. It is the discovery which UNICEF now makes, and to which it addresses itself, of adding to its first aid those continuing services to which my noble friend has so eloquently referred to-day, which is perhaps the more peremptory reason for requiring from a country which claims the civilisation of our own a much greater contribution than that to which it has been prepared to give itself hitherto.
I, too, believe in the conservation of human resources. This is an investment in human resources. It is the true cybernetics; but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to offer an even more superlative and essential reason for the care, the continuing and the increasing care, of those who are little children. It is sometimes argued that the word in the old Book which suggests that we shall see the Kingdom of Heaven only if we become as little children has its reference to the qualities which belong to little children—their simplicity, their love, their kindness and so forth. This is not probably what the original meaning conveys, May I humbly suggest what seems to me to be a meaning which is at least consonant with the facts, and which can perhaps add some little weight to the appeal that I make to my noble friend who is to reply to increase the help which we can give to this admirable project—in fact, this imperative piece of work. I believe that if you find a world which will suit the needs of little children, if they become the first priority, you have probably found a world which will suit the needs of everybody else as well.
I remember that after the First World War we were invited by Mr. Lloyd George (was it not?) to discover and to enjoy a world fit for heroes to live in—and many people felt that only the heroes could live in it. I do not believe that if you succour those who are already in positions of privilege or authority you have provided a world which will safe
662
guard the interests of little children, but I do believe (and it is not a sentimentality) that if you provide the kind of world which will care for the genuine needs of little children—whoever they are, wherever they come from, whatever the colour of their skins—you have in fact begun to build on the rock of true social justice. Of all the things which the United Nations seek to do to-day, and of all the things your Lordships' House would seek to have put into effect to-day, I can think of none more imperative, none more morally satisfying and none more economically and socially productive than vastly to increase the help that we give to those who, for no fault of their own, are disadvantaged from their earliest moments and who yet, if they are succoured, can contribute to the world which we all desire to see.
6.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak because I felt that the debate would be occurring later and I have an imperative engagement, but I should like to add to what has been said. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that I was not even here while he was speaking, but we have had some discussion and I know his attitude of mind. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, how delighted I was to, find an occasion when we were in agreement? That does not occur very often, but this is a great human issue which does not reside on any one Bench. From my noble friend Lord Crook we had the devastating comparison between the contributions of different countries. I appreciated the fact that the largest contribution came from Sweden. I think Sweden is the most civilised country in the whole world to-day. Then from my noble friend Lord Soper we had the moving appeal which he always makes to us.
My Lords, I am intervening only because I want to put a rather different point of view from those which have so far been expressed. UNICEF has so far concentrated on the problems of hunger, the problems of disease, and the problems of the material needs of the children in the developing countries. As was suggested by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, I believe that now we not only have to do that, but we have

663
also to think of the needs of the children and of the youth in these territories in the new world. I should like to speak of children in many parts of the world. I was born in Asia, and I know the conditions there. I am going to speak of Africa, not of the whole of Africa but of Black Africa rather than of the conditions of the Arab North.
The children in the Continent of Africa are now passing through a stage where their childhood and youth are almost lost. They lived in very small, clanned communities. It was a family society. The whole society went to the assistance of anyone who required it. The children did not have education in our sense, but in those small communities they were taught the need for service to this larger family to which they belonged and the need for identification with it. That society has now been destroyed and a new society has not been created; and it is the children and those who are young who will be sacrificed in this transition. They have the opportunity, very often, of going to school; but fees are charged in the schools. In many of those African countries—in Kenya, for example—there is now extensive unemployment. Children reach 12 years of age, and the parents must send those children out to work—and there is no legal minimum age which can prevent them from going to work. So we are finding that, while in the schools in a large part of Africa the number of children who attend is large the number who go through the whole period of education is very small; and that at 12 years of age these children are going out to work.
Perhaps it may relieve my noble friend the Minister if I say that I am not expecting him to give a reply to the rather bigger and deeper issue which I am now raising. I want to urge to-night that the international action of UNICEF for the children in these developing countries, while continuing its splendid work against hunger and disease, must now embrace a broader picture of their needs and must seek to give to these children, during this transition from one society to another, the mental and spiritual opportunities which they are now being denied.
664
We have our own problems of youth; there is a need here for youth clubs and all that goes with them. But youth all over the world has the same desires, the same impulses, the same emotions. There is the specific desire for athletics; there is the desire—which could be so well satisfied in many of these countries —for adventure. The youth of these countries has all the opportunities for the study of animal life, for the study of archœology, and could also have, if this transition from one society to another became the concern of ourselves, all those opportunities which belong to an international community. We could create for them the opportunity to pass through this stage of transition into the new kind of life which we hope is going to be established in the future. I have intervened in this debate to-night merely to make that appeal, because I believe it is in that way that we have to see the future needs of the health and welfare of the children and youth of the developing countries.
6.24 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for asking this Question and for emphasising the role of UNICEF in world development. Originally the activities of bodies such as UNICEF were regarded as of an emergency character. In fact, the very word "emergency" is contained in the title. But I think that it is becoming increasingly clear that the need for a body concerned with children's welfare is a continuing, long-term need and that the scope will expand rather than contract. To take one example, which I think is relevant to an implication in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I will read one sentence from the Afric edition of UNICEF News:
"Not so long ago in Puerto Rico the infant mortality rate was halved when a piped water supply was laid into the villages."
Again, if one looks at the reports of recent UNICEF activities in Burma, Jamaica, Peru, Syria and Tunisia one finds that nearly all are concerned with child nutrition, health services and the reduction of infant mortality.
I think it is clear that a humanitarian attitude towards children results in there being more children in the world. I certainly would not suggest that one

665
should not be humanitarian for that reason; but I think we must be realistic. Having reduced infant mortality, we cannot leave it at that. It creates many new problems: the problem of increased population, of education, of the welfare services. So it seems to me that one United Nations Agency tends to merge into another. Certainly there must be increasing co-operation between the various Agencies. That is no reason for lack of support; in fact I think it suggests increased support. I think it is abundantly clear that UNICEF and the United Kingdom Commission (and I hope the noble Lord may have something to say about the United Kingdom Commission when he replies) require support both from the Government and from individuals, and the least the Government can do is to avoid penalising charitable effort in that respect.
My Lords, may I therefore come to one practical point that has not so far been mentioned in this valuable debate? I would support the plea that UNICEF Christmas cards should be exempt from purchase tax. I should like to see Christmas cards which are sold for other charities exempted in the same way; I would not make this plea solely for UNICEF. There are some who regard Christmas cards as a "racket"; but if we are to send Christmas cards, then I suggest that we might send those which would bring in some money for charitable purposes. I think the Government could help by reducing or eliminating their liability to purchase tax. Finally, my Lords, on the specific Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I do not think there is very much to add to the eloquent contributions that have been made, but I hope that the outcome of this short debate will be increased support from Her Majesty's Government.
6.29 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am greatly obliged, as I am sure is the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for enabling us this evening to discuss, however briefly, this extremely interesting and important subject. In answering his Question I should like also to thank the noble Baroness opposite for the sympathetic and moving contribution she made to this debate. If this were simply a straightforward Starred Question I could answer it by saying that
666
Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the part which the United Nations Children's Fund plays in world development, and, as has been announced in another place, we propose to increase the British contribution to UNICEF from £400,000 to £500,000.
These are the simple, bald facts of the matter, and before going on to fill out this rather bald statement perhaps I may say that I have been asked by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development to repeat an apology, which I understand he has already sent to the noble Lord, that for constitutional reasons which I am sure your Lordships will understand he (the Minister) felt it necessary to make this announcement in another place, thus anticipating the discussion that your Lordships were planning to have on this matter. I hope that your Lordships, and my noble friend especially, will accept that apology from the Minister.
I think, my Lords, that my noble friend has given us a very moving and impressive account of the achievements of UNICEF in human terms from his own experience, and that is an experience which I think few of us can match—I certainly would not attempt to match it. He has in a very vivid way put faces to statistics of the United Nations Children's Fund. I am sure that noble Lords will have been as impressed as I was by his account of the effect of the work of the Children's Fund on the lives of ordinary families all over the world. I am sure that the House will agree that the Government are right to do all they can to support this organisation.
I have already said that Her Majesty's Government intend to increase their contribution to UNICEF to half-a-million pounds. This increase brings our total contribution to a higher figure than ever before, both in terms of dollars and in purchasing power. I say in terms of dollars because, as your Lordships are undoubtedly aware, the UNICEF budget, like that of most United Nations Agencies, is set out in dollar terms. Some of your Lordships may be wondering—in fact, there has been mention of this in the short debate this evening: I think it was my noble friend Lord Crook who mentioned the point—what effect devaluation has had on our contribution. Of

667
course one must admit immediately that devaluation does mean that our increased contribution is, as my noble friend said, worth less in dollar terms than it would have been had we not devalued. There he had a very valid point.
But I might also point out that, despite the effect of devaluation, we are still contributing more in dollars than we have ever done before; and I think noble Lords will agree that in our present financial circumstances this is not ungenerous. We have, after all, a great number of demands upon our resources which, to say the least, are not unlimited. We have to assess priorities as best we can, and I believe that what we have now decided to do represents in present circumstances an extremely generous increase to our contribution to this very important Fund.
At this stage perhaps I might read to your Lordships a very brief extract from a letter which the Minister for Overseas Development received within the last week from the Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund. I will just read two sentences from it:
"Thank you very much for your letter of the 10th May conveying the very encouraging news that the contribution of Her Majesty's Government this year to UNICEF will be increased from £400,000 to £500,000. We are indeed grateful for this evidence of interest in our work and sincerely appreciate the efforts which were made to lift the level of support."
I do not suggest, my Lords, that a letter of thanks, however sincere, from the Executive Director of UNICEF answers the question whether this is enough to be giving to the Fund. But I do suggest that, in the eyes of UNICEF at least, there is gratitude and appreciation of what we have done in making what is, after all, quite a large percentage increase in our contribution to the Fund.
I turn now for a brief moment to the development role of UNICEF. As your Lordships know, and as my noble friend has already pointed out, UNICEF originated as an emergency relief organisation for children in war-devastated areas; and it was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 purely to fulfil this function. In the early 1950s, the General Assembly was able to change the organisation's role, altering its emphasis to the provision of support to programmes of long-term benefit to children in
668
developing countries—or under-developed countries, as my noble friend Lord Soper prefers to call them. Since then the organisation has developed its new role so ably outlined by my noble friend and has evolved its own policies and priorities for the benefit of the oncoming generation. It has developed special programmes designed to meet the special circumstances and the differing possibilities that exist for effective action in different countries and for different peoples.
It is perhaps unkind of me at this hour and so near to the end of the day, to burden your Lordships with figures and statistics, but I think that it would be useful were I to say, at least for the record, what are some of the basic figures and statistics of UNICEF'S revenue and expenditure. In 1967, the revenue of the Fund amounted to 38½ million dollars, which is something of the order of £16 million. Of this total just over 28 million dollars—28·4 million dollars, in fact—or 73·8 per cent, of the whole came from voluntary contributions from 123 separate Governments; 14·4 per cent. from non-Governmental contributions and 7·8 per cent. from the UNICEF greeting card fund. If I may in passing refer to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about purchase tax, I think that he and all your Lordships will agree that this is a subject we had better leave to be discussed in another place. Those noble Lords whose mental arithmetic is quicker than mine will have noticed that I missed out 4 per cent. of the total, and I can only say, for what the information is worth, that that comes from other sources.
Here, my Lords, I should like to break off from the statistics for a moment and pay tribute to the devoted work of the United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF. This has played a most important part in raising funds from this country. Your Lordships may be interested to know that in the year about which I have been talking, 1967, the efforts of the United Kingdom Committee raised over £14,000 in contributions to the UNICEF general fund; over £27,000 to meet the cost of three health projects in Commonwealth countries and for emergency aid to the Middle East, and very nearly £98,000 from the sale of greeting cards. In this context, I should like also to pay tribute to the United Kingdom Freedom from

669
Hunger Campaign Committee, who last year transferred over £48,500 to UNICEF for two applied nutrition projects in India. I feel sure that your Lordships would want to endorse my thanks and the thanks of Her Majesty's Government to these organisations for their splendid efforts and for their generosity. I should like to make the point that this, of course, is all in addition to the Government's own contribution—which will now, as I say, be £500,000 to the actual funds of UNICEF.
Turning to the expenditure of UNICEF briefly, and simply for the question of facts on the record, in the year 1967 UNICEF spent 40 million dollars, the balance over its revenue being made up from its accumulated funds. Of the allocation made for programme assistance 51 per cent. went on health projects, 13 per cent. on nutrition, 5 per cent. on welfare, 24 per cent. on education and vocational training, 2 per cent. on other long-range aid and 5 per cent. on emergency aid. As I say, I am sorry to burden your Lordships with a string of figures, but I think from the facts behind the figures one can see very clearly the altered emphasis of UNICEF's work which I mentioned in my opening remarks, and which my noble friend brought out when he introduced this debate.
I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, so I will not comment in further detail on those figures. I will simply say that they illustrate the diversity of UNICEF's valuable work, and add that Her Majesty's Government are, on the whole, satisfied with the work that this Fund is doing. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which UNICEF is fulfilling its mandate to improve the lot of children and prepare them to play a constructive part in the future of their country.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder was oniy applying a salutary spur to us when he opened this debate. However, there was one phrase in his admirable and moving speech with which I find myself in some disagreement. When he used the words "present neglect", I am sure that he did not mean to indicate quite such a deplorable state of affairs as those words might reflect.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I was not suggesting that it was our neglect, but that it is the total world neglect of the problems of young people.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take that point, and I am clear in my mind what my noble friend's intention was in saying that. However, I think that even this is going a little far. I know that he was not referring in those remarks particularly to the United Kingdom Government, but I would pay tribute to UNICEF for what it has done. I do not suggest for one moment that anybody can afford to be complacent on this subject. Like any other international organisation, UNICEF is not perfect, and the British Government have drawn attention in the past, I hope in no carping spirit, to certain weaknesses of administration and have not hesitated to suggest to UNICEF changes in fields of assistance which are financed by the Fund when it seemed to us advisable to do so.
For example, we very much welcome UNICEF assistance to family planning, provided that it is given within the maternity and child welfare services, which are a relevant part of the United Nations' work. On the other hand (and this refers to something which the noble Baroness said), we have expressed doubts about what seems to us to be a disproportionately sharp rise in expenditure on educational projects, which seem to us to be more appropriately the task of UNESCO. I can assure my noble friend and the House that we propose to continue pressing for the avoidance of overlap and duplication between the United Nations' Agencies and for the most efficient possible use of their available funds.
We have had this afternoon some interesting and, on occasion, extremely moving comments about the work of UNICEF and about some of the problems that UNICEF and the other United Nations Agencies, and indeed all the Governments of the world, must try to solve. They are terrible and sometimes apparently insuperable. We heard that many children go to bed hungry every night, and that thousands in the underdeveloped countries are starving to death and dying of disease. These are terrible problems and they are at the heart of a good deal of international life at the moment.

671
This is not simply a question of children, although I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of looking after our children and investing in their future. To my mind, it is also a question of the gap that exists, and is growing, between the poor people of the world and the rich. This is a problem that we must face and solve, and solve quickly, because in this matter time is not on our side. I should prefer not to go on now to review any of the future plans of any of the United Nations organisations, or of any Government of the United Nations, or to review in detail the future plans of UNICEF. For in doing that, I would be anticipating the discussions which will take place in New York next month.
I have tried to give your Lordships an up-to-date summary of the finances of UNICEF and of recent developments in its work. As I say, I can answer the Question asked by my noble friend directly. We have increased our contributions to this Fund. In saying this, perhaps I may take up something that my noble friend Lord Brockway said, possibly in the full flow of his oratory, which I thought was arresting. He said that Sweden was the most civilised country in
672
the world. This is a very large claim to make for any country. I know that Sweden is an extremely civilised country. I know it well, and I know its people. I do not think that we can construct league tables in a civilised world in quite such a vivid way as that, but if we were to do so, I would put in a plea for our own country, which I believe still to be one of the most civilised countries in the world. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that it is as the Government of a civilised country, with an interest in the future of the world, developed and developing, that we appreciate the work that UNICEF does and declare our earnest desire and determination to continue to assist it in the future as we have in the past.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.