Lords Sitting of 15 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Shaftesbury—Took the Oath.

BRUCELLOSIS TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many diagnostic centres for brucellosis are in operation, and how many diagnoses they carry out per week.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in all, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Agricultural Colleges operate 30 centres for brucellosis tests. Last month those centres carried out, in total, an average of 69,240 tests per week. This was in addition to tests carried out by organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board and in private veterinary practices, and the laboratory work on the human health aspects of brucellosis.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the results of these tests reach the farmers in the minimum possible time? Is he aware that a test need take only one hour, but that many farmers are complaining that a period of something like three weeks elapses before they hear the result?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have to be rather careful in answering these questions on brucellosis because, as your Lordships are aware, there are two Questions down on the Order Paper to-day and two on Thursday, and it is rather difficult not to encroach, so to speak, on the ground of other Questions. The noble
1272
Baroness is aware that there are a number of different tests on brucellosis, and although some take a comparatively short time, others take longer. Very often, when you get a positive result on the first test you have to re-check with more sophisticated tests; and sometimes when you get a negative result on the first test, you then have to wait a further period before checking again.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that all the farmer needs is some confirmation of the condition of his cow, which he has kept in isolation all that time, can the noble Lord tell me what is, after all this checking and re-checking, the average time taken for the farmer to learn whether the cow is diseased or not?
LORD DENHAM: Nine days, my Lords.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord ensure that the farmer is given at least as much information as the doctor normally gives his patient?
LORD DENHAM: I think that is probably done, my Lords.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, my information is that there are still very many cases in which a period of three weeks elapses between the time when the sample is taken and the time when the farmer is told the result of the test. I think it is very important—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, could the noble Lord frame his supplementary as a question?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is not the noble Lord's last answer to my noble friend Lady Summerskill clear evidence that there are not sufficient diagnostic centres at present? Will the Government give an assurance that they will try to increase the number as rapidly as possible?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can give the assurance that the number of diagnostic centres is being kept under review, and if it is shown that there are not enough Her Majesty's Government will certainly do what they can to increase the number. But I cannot accept the fact,

1273
either that three weeks is the average time that it takes—
LORD KILBRACKEN: The maximum time.
LORD DENHAM: —or that this is due to the fact that there are not enough facilities. The reason why it sometimes takes three weeks is that a second test, and sometimes a third, is necessary before a definite result can be achieved.

BRUCELLOSIS: CONTROL OF INFECTION
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: 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 are aware of the importance of removing animals infected by brucellosis immediately, to avoid the spread of infection and the disturbance to farm practice by the isolation of the animals concerned.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, once brucellosis has been diagnosed this is an essential precaution on the part of any owner who is concerned to clear his herd. However, as the noble Baroness will know, protracted tests may be needed to establish freedom from brucellosis. It would be wrong either to slaughter a suspect animal or to allow it to rejoin the herd without first completing the precise range of tests needed to determine the presence or absence of this most complex disease.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for that Answer, may I ask him at what time the new scheme is going to come in, so that this great complication of isolation may be avoided?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the compulsory scheme, then I can tell her that in the spring of next year the first areas in which the compulsory scheme will take place will be announced, but the compulsory scheme itself will not start before the autumn.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, do the Government realise that the sooner the compulsory scheme is put into operation the better, both for financial reasons and to avoid the further spread of the disease? Further, can the noble Lord give us any reason why the compulsory scheme should not be put into operation at least by June 1?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord reasons why. The first is that it is very important to let the voluntary scheme go forward and gain as much impetus as possible before the compulsory scheme comes into being. It is also very important to give the farmers in areas to be covered by the compulsory scheme as much warning as possible—and I think that six months' warning will not be any too long—that their area will be designated as a compulsory area.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory reply, because one of the great difficulties with the voluntary scheme is that there is this long-drawn-out delay before the compulsory scheme comes in, and the people who have entered into the voluntary scheme do not think that they are having a fair crack of the whip?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that people with clean or relatively clean herds who take part in the voluntary scheme will be in a more advantageous position than if they wait for the compulsory scheme.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of giving an alternative to the owner of an animal which shows a doubtful reaction, so that that animal can be removed from the farm and slaughtered if the owner so wishes? If, on a post mortem, the result is negative, then full compensation should be paid for the slaughtered animal. If, on the other hand, the result is positive, then the owner will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has removed a source of infection.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware of this suggestion, which has been made before, but there are two objections to it. The first objection is that one has to be absolutely certain, before

1275
there is a lot of slaughter, that there are enough free beasts available to replace those slaughtered; and the second is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in trying to eliminate this very unpleasant disease is to place greater emphasis on giving an incentive to farmers in respect of their fit animals rather than compensation for slaughtering reactors.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, if an animal is a possible source of infection, is it not rather a "dog in the manger" attitude to compel a man to keep it on his farm, with all the very great inconvenience involved, as well as the danger of infecting a valuable free herd? Surely, that is a bad position for the Government to adopt.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it would not be practicable at the moment to encourage the slaughter of all animals which react to brucellosis.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the brucella organism was discovered about 1878, does not the noble Lord think that voluntary effort has had a fair chance?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord correctly? Did he say that he did not think it was necessary or desirable at present that all animals which reacted to this disease should be slaughtered? If so, what action does he think should be taken with animals which react to the disease?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, what would be desirable is that all herds that are free, or comparatively free, of brucellosis should take part in the voluntary scheme. For herds that are badly infected, the best thing would be to try with vaccination to cure the herd and to make sure that the disease does not spread.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that a main reactor must be slaughtered; that there is no question of curing it; that the policy of vaccination is one for preventing the spread of the disease and is something quite different?
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, the Government have said that six months' notice should be given to farmers in the designated areas. In view of that can the noble Lord say why
1276
the scheme should not be started on July 1?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, what I said was that it would be fair to let farmers in a particular area know in good time that their area was going to be designated as an area for compulsory eradication of brucellosis so that if they wanted to take part in a voluntary scheme they could do so. So far as the whole question of how brucellosis should be dealt with is concerned, I know that many noble Lords are very concerned about the subject and that a number of them are meeting my right honourable friend early in the New Year to discuss the progress of the voluntary scheme after it has gone on long enough to give some idea of the results. I think that over the future wide policy field it would be best for the moment to leave the matter until this meeting with my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm one thing which he said which sounded to people like me who do not know too much about this subject to be slightly lacking in common sense? He seemed to be saying that where a herd was not seriously infected there was a policy of slaughter; but that where it was seriously infected the policy should be to try to save them.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think that I said that.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the longer the time taken to eradicate the disease the greater is the ultimate cost of eradication?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; but, on the other hand, one must make sure that all the steps taken to eradicate this very serious disease are steps in the right direction.

SHOT-GUN CERTIFICATES
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: 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, in view of the use of shot-guns, sawn-off or otherwise, by criminals, to consider asking for the following additional information on application forms

1277
for shot-gun certificates issued under the Firearms Act 1968—

(1) The maker's registered number stamped on each shot-gun; and

(2) The number of shot-guns in the holder's possession.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, to be fully effective, these suggestions would have to be accompanied by changes in the present law, which imposes a control based on the holders of shot-guns rather than on individual weapons. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales to review the present arrangements for the control of all kinds of firearms, in consultation with chief officers of police; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be associated with this arrangement. The noble Lord's suggestion will be examined as part of the review.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In view of the fact that this particular Act was tagged on to the end of the 1937, out-dated Order, does he not think that the whole of this question should, from the Parliamentary point of view, be re-examined?
LORD WENDLESHAM: My Lords, I think it is a very technical question. The Home Office have published some statisstics recently in the paper, Firearms in Crime; but it has been only one full year since shot-guns were brought under the firearms certificate procedure, initially under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which has now been consolidated in the Firearms Act 1968. A review of the type my noble friend has in mind is a first step.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government consider that their present system of Class 1—rifles and other smooth-bore weapons—is really a complete anachronism? As these weapons are used in crime, do not Her Majesty's Government realise that one of the more powerful pistols has an impact energy of about 400 foot-pounds
1278
over a diameter of half an inch; whereas a shot-gun at point-blank range has an impact energy somewhere in the region of 2 foot-tons over about a one-inch diameter? Is it not now an anachronism to try to draw a distinction between small pistols which may have rifled barrels and shot-guns which are smooth-bore and the ammunition for which can be purchased at any ironmongers?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these are considerations which might be borne in mind and which will be included in the review. The difficulty is—and this point was debated at length during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1967—the very widespread use of shotguns. There are something like two million shot-guns in use. The number of rifles and pistols is much smaller.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the Government report the results of this review—at any rate to Parliament?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to take note of that suggestion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will take careful note of the points made? Is he aware that clearly there is a great deal of anxiety in the House? Will be consider making a statement on this matter as soon as possible?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly take note of that. My right honourable friend has received representations on this subject and it is for that reason that he has asked, initially, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to make a review in consultation with the chief officers of police. These are the people who have the responsibility for enforcing control. We think that the correct step is to see what the practical implications have been in the couple of years since the law was changed.

RHODESIA: RELEASE OF BLOCKED BANK ACCOUNTS
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 blocked Rhodesian bank accounts have been released on information from South African banks that the Rhodesian holders are now resident in South Africa; and what information the Bank of England requires in proof of actual, as distinct from nominal, residence outside Rhodesia.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Bank of England has not kept statistics on the number of blocked Rhodesian bank accounts that have been released in this way since the illegal declaration of independence, but at present it receives about three applications a week for release of assets from people who have changed their residence from Rhodesia. Roughly two-thirds of the applicants have moved to South Africa. In these cases, the Bank of England requires confirmation from a local bank that the South African exchange control authorities regard the applicant as resident there for exchange control purposes.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether this is not a loophole by which many Rhodesians are avoiding the sanctions which are now applied? Is the noble Earl aware that I have evidence of Rhodesians who have blocked accounts in London and who go temporarily to South Africa and open bank accounts there; and then the London banks free their accounts and they return to Rhodesia enjoying those accounts? Could not the Minister insist that no blocked accounts shall be released without proof of at least six months' continuous residence outside Rhodesia?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord may have such facts in his possession. All I can say is that the Bank of England have no evidence that any of the applications they have received are fraudulent, or that any South African institution would assist to operate a device to release blocked funds; for example, by issuing a false statement. If the noble Lord has evidence in his possession which suggests that these regulations are being got round, he should either send the facts in his possession to me, and I will pass them on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor, or he should send them direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again I thank the Minister. May I ask whether he is aware that I shall be very glad to send him the evidence I have?

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10), Bill read 3a and passed.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS MEASURE
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. This is a very modest little Measure but one of considerable importance to the Church Commissioners. Basically it provides for up to two additional members of the General Purposes Committee and of the Assets Committee of the Church Commissioners. The reason for the change is that experience has shown that a committee of five, which is the present size of the Assets Committee,

1281
is too small to handle the very considerable and increasing volume of work which is connected with the assets of the Church Commissioners. As to the General Purposes Committee, although that is larger—it contains some eleven members—nevertheless, its work also is increasing and it seemed appropriate to ask for the addition at this time.
We have to put this proposal in the form of a Measure requiring legislation, because both these Committees are statutory bodies and no change can be made in their constitution without an amending Measure. The Measure was prepared by the Church Commissioners; it has passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly without a division and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported on it that it is expedient and should proceed. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [Scandalous conduct by Officers]:
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY, moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("with or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain the House by rehearsing the number of arguments which we had on Committee stage, even though there are now present a number of noble Lords who were not present on that occasion. Basically speaking, we were talking about the whole area of scandalous conduct as a cause for dismissal from the Armed Services, and I think we all agreed at that stage that the matters with which Military, Naval and Air Force law should deal could be divided into three categories: those that would be civil crimes under civil law; those that are military crimes, because they have an effect on something which is specifically to do with the Services—such as sleeping on guard or cowardice in the face of the enemy; and thirdly, those matters which pertain to the morale and discipline of the Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, accepted, I think, that I felt as strongly as they did about the need for this third category; that the Services are a very special case and that there should be some way of getting rid from the Services of those who offend against the ethos of the Services in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on the last occasion talked particularly on this Amendment, or the Amendment of which this is a variation, about the necessity for dealing with scandalous conduct,

1283
and on re-reading his speech, I entirely agree with everything he then said. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said of that Amendment that he saw there were difficulties in laying down a borderline of scandalous conduct, because it is difficult to know where to draw the line when the ethos of behaviour of members of the Armed Forces differs from that of an ordinary citizen.
My Amendment on the Committee stage would have sought to make scandalous behaviour—that is, behaviour which does not fall into either of the two categories of civilian and military crimes but merely offends against the ethos of the Services—subject only to dismissal without disgrace. I still hold to what I said on Committee stage. I think it is wrong that such a widely drawn clause, such a blanket offence, should be punished with a penal punishment, which dismissal with disgrace really involves.
I realise that the acceptance of my Amendment would mean that certain offences which are dealt with under this clause would have to be dealt with under other clauses, but I do not think that that is too big a price to pay for this particular point. As the noble Lord knows, I accept that the administration of this Service law is extremely good and very careful, and so far as I can see one cannot pick out any case of any serious or even minor injustice over a long period of time. Nevertheless, I think that there is something to be said for getting our law right, so that justice is not only done but (to use a cliché) totally seen to be done, and this Amendment of mine would have that effect. I think that we should take these cases, which are not crimes and which would not be crimes in civilian life, and which in terms of the special needs of the Services would merely by offences against the ethos and good order of the Services, out of the criminal category altogether and make them subject only to dismissal without disgrace, and not to dismissal with disgrace. I beg to move.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I construe this Amendment aright, and I think I do, its effect would be to require a court-martial which has convicted an officer of scandalous conduct not only
1284
to dismiss him from Her Majesty's Service but expressly to state that his dismissal is without disgrace. There is no such punishment at present in the Service Acts and the noble Lord's Amendment would require it to be written as a new item in the table of punishments. But there is a very great difference between passing a sentence of simple dismissal, which is not specifically with disgrace, and going out of one's way to specify in the sentence itself that the dismissal is without disgrace.
Your Lordships may take the view that it would be inappropriate to require a court-martial by law to add such a rider to any sentence of dismissal, and indeed that this would be especially inappropriate where the court, by definition, has just found an officer guilty of scandalous conduct unbecoming an officer. Having said that, I am not sure that the noble Lord meant his Amendment to have that effect. I do not think he thought, when he put it down, that it was in point of fact specifically ensuring that a court would say it was dismissal without disgrace. If I may answer the Amendment which I think he meant—that is, dismissal tout court, without any disgrace or anything added to it—may I just explain the purpose of the section?
The present Naval section allows a court-martial to award a sentence of dismissal or of dismissal with disgrace. The Army and Air Force Acts, on the other hand, make cashiering, which is the Army and Air Force equivalent of the Naval dismissal with disgrace, a mandatory punishment. Clause 29 seeks to extend the flexibility of the Naval Discipline Act to the other Acts and adopts dismissal with disgrace as a common punishment in all three Acts and replaces cashiering. Dismissal with disgrace will stand in the same relation to dismissal as a severe reprimand stands to a reprimand, and it is intended to be available in cases where the court finds that the behaviour in question is so reprehensible that plain dismissal is an inadequate expression of the serious view they have taken of it.
I am also not entirely sure that the noble Lord understands that dismissal with disgrace is not a punishment which is peculiar to the offence of scandalous behaviour by an officer. It is a punishment which any Service man, officer or otherwise, convicted of any offence in the

1285
Acts which are now before us, is liable to suffer. Were the noble Lord's Amendment to be adopted, the offence of scandalous conduct would be the only offence in the Acts where a court-martial could not decide to award dismissal with disgrace, no matter how serious a view they took of the case. In these circumstances, I think it would be better if we left the matter as it is and for the noble Lord to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is quite right in his construction of the Amendment and that he is right in turning his efforts in the direction in which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, intended. The simplest Amendment would be to delete "with or without disgrace" and leave it as just dismissal. But, granting that that is the noble Lord's intention, I think that there are some considerations to be borne in mind.
I believe that what the Government are doing is an improvement on the past, and to that extent we are advancing. But I have been somewhat uncertain as to whether we ought to get rid of the conception of disgrace. The noble Lord took the analogy of reprimand and severe reprimand. With respect, I do not think that is an analogy. The important factor here is the act of dismissal following a court-martial, which appears to me again contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said—though he may be wrong—that it is a penalty inflicted by the court. Perhaps it is not a penalty. The difficulty is in construing the word "disgrace". There was a civilian case, which I may use to illustrate the difficulty, of a certain dentist who was brought before whatever tribunal the dentists come before on the ground that he had some improper relations with a patient—actually, it was a patient whom he had never attended. He was found guilty of infamous but not disgraceful conduct and was not struck off the roll. I find it difficult to distinguish between "infamous" and "disgraceful". And I am wondering whether the time has not come when we should be rid of this point.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that personal honour is something to which importance is attached in the Services.
1286
Also, there is the possibility that in certain cases—because, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State said, this applies to other offences than scandalous conduct—a court-martial might not be inclined to inflict some other, stronger penalty and would prefer instead to add the words "with disgrace". So I would say that there are arguments on both sides. For my part, rather reluctantly I would be inclined to leave it in the way the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested. It is possible that personal judgments of this sort might be dispensed with. I hope that the noble Lord and those who are responsible in the Services will continue to watch this side—and I sometimes wonder whether there is any coherent review of the results of courts-martial—to see how this procedure goes and to consider the next time round (I forget whether this Bill is for five years or is now for ever) whether this particular addendum should be dispensed with.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that when the attachment is given of dismissal with disgrace it carries with it something which is nauseating, especially when a man has to return to civil life and seek to take up employment? This young man, or whoever it is, having been dismissed, may seek to find employment but be denied the type of employment that he desires because of this particular attachment. The word "disgrace" in itself is most serious, and it is very hard for any member of society to have it attached to him. Will the noble Lord have another look at this?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, my only qualification for intervening is that I spent several years at the War Office as Minister of Defence, and occasionally cases of what were described as scandalous behaviour were reported to my section of the Defence Department. Cases of that sort were either referred to a court-martial or sometimes dealt with summarily without going to court-martial. I think that everything depends on the definition of the term "scandalous behaviour". What does it denote? Some of the cases that came before me for review were cases that had been tried by court-martial and a decision had been given; and, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence is now well

1287
aware, because of his occupation of that office, these matters often come up for confirmation.
The power of deciding whether the decision of the court-martial should be accepted or rejected is vested either in the Secretary of State for War or any other Service Minister, or in the present situation in the Minister of Defence. What is meant by scandalous behaviour? I can only say, from such experience as I occasionally had, that scandalous behaviour more or less relates to indecent behaviour, homosexual behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, dissents, and perhaps it would be useful to have his definition of scandalous behaviour.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been here for the Committee stage or had read Hansard, he would know that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, furnished me with a complete list of all the offences for which anyone had been convicted of scandalous behaviour over the last 15 years, and only a small number were homosexual offences.
LORD SHINWELL: All I can say is that there were cases (and I regret to say this) of high-ranking officers. In a situation of that kind, if dismissal was decided upon, obviously it denoted dismissal because of scandalous behaviour.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer—and perhaps the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will be good enough to reply to it. Is there not a distinction drawn in this Amendment (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong) as between the treatment to be meted out to an officer and the treatment meted out to other ranks? Of course, it is well-known as regards other ranks that frequently they are dismissed with disgrace, and hardly any objection is taken, unless it comes up for confirmation before the appropriate Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether he dissents from what I suggest, or agrees with it, because I personally could not agree to any kind of Amendment which would distinguish as between an officer and one of the other ranks.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may, with respect, remind your Lordships that this is the Report stage. I am allowed to speak only once and I
1288
can only speak again with leave of the House, for which I now ask. I made a point of not getting up immediately after the Amendment was moved so that your Lordships could say what you had to say on the Amendment before I wound up. I may say that on this occasion I agree with the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has skilfully informed the House that none of us can speak twice—it is very necessary to remind the House of that—and if that was the object, that is fine. But there are occasions when it is most helpful to have the Minister's reaction. Whereas I am all against a Report stage becoming too ragged, none the less, I think we entirely agree to the noble Lord speaking again, and he need not feel any embarrassment about asking for the leave of the House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has very skilfully spoken twice without the leave of the House. May I ask leave of the House to speak for a third time? I was saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I do not think this Amendment will do, not only because it does not really carry out the intention which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has in mind, but also because it suffers from the great disadvantage—and I think it would have a curious effect—of removing dismissal with disgrace as a punishment for the offence of scandalous conduct, and yet leaving it for everything else. This, it seems to me, would be a very odd thing for the Government to accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Slater, really argued against dismissal with disgrace as a punishment at all. But this is not what the Amendment seeks to achieve. I think one can argue that dismissal with disgrace is not a suitable punishment, although I personally do not entirely agree with that. One only has to look at the list that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to see how infrequent are the cases in which this has happened: and I do not think one need be too sorry for the people who were the recipients of this punishment.
I think one also has to remember that the Services are proud of the standard of conduct which they believe it to be necessary

1289
for members of the Armed Forces to have. If somebody breaks what they think is the proper code of conduct, then they feel—and I feel with them—that there should be, in the circumstances, a punishment which makes it abundantly clear that the man has fallen from those high standards.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I entirely accept that the Amendment that I have put forward does not achieve what I had hoped it would. The second thing that I should like completely to concede is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—although it is not entirely the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—about what other offences, if this Amendment were accepted, should come into the same category. I am not trying to remove dismissal with disgrace from Service discipline altogether. I am trying to remove it from blanket clauses. Therefore, I accept what I think is the corollary put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that if I am removing it for scandalous conduct, then I should remove it for the other blanket clause, which is conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. I accept that that would have been a corollary and that I ought, if putting forward this Amendment, to put forward that one at the same time. I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this point. I am a little disappointed in that I do not think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State has really come to grips with the argument behind the Amendment that I am putting forward, when he so sympathetically examined my arguments at a previous stage.
I hope that we have said enough on the Report stage to show that there are some people who have genuine doubts about the penalty of dismissal with disgrace for these blanket offences, which would not be crimes, either in terms of civil law or strict military security. Therefore, in asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State will do as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, and have another look at this in the course of the next year, or whatever the appropriate period may be. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.21 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
". The following section shall be inserted after section 8 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968—
"8A. A civilian convicted of an offence by a court-martial may appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence and for the purposes of such an appeal his conviction shall be treated as if it had been a conviction on indictment and his sentence as a sentence passed on his conviction of an offence on indictment; and the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall apply"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. At the Committee stage I moved an Amendment, dealing with the same subject, which received general support in the sense that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, gave support to the principle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was most forthcoming. He said that if I would withdraw my Amendment I would do so in the knowledge that he would seek at the next stage to put into effect what I had in mind. Owing to the speed with which this Bill is being hurried through this House, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been given no time at all to do anything. I find it—and I am sure the noble Lord, with his experience as a former Leader of the Opposition will understand my position—rather objectionable that at this period in the Session a Bill of this importance, introduced in your Lordships' House, should not be given the time for the consideration necessary; even enough time for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself to consider properly what was said on Committee.
I am sure he will agree that if he were in my place he would say that if we have a role in this House we ought to have the necessary time available. I fully acknowledge that when I was Leader of the House, and leading for the Government, there were occasions when we asked the House to do things and to "swallow" speeds, which were, to put it mildly, pretty undesirable. The House and the noble Lord were always very co-operative when there was a particular timetable to be met, to get something through by a particular date, when it had

1291
to be got through, or towards the end of the Session. But I cannot see the reason for the haste with this Bill, other than the fact that we know the Commons are going to be tied up on the Floor of their House with the Industrial Relations Bill. We shall not necessarily be as accommodating in the future. I am also conscious that this Bill is going to a Select Committee in another place. Having said that, I can only express my sympathy with the noble Lord at finding himself in this position.
I have put this Amendment down for two reasons. One is so that he can tell us how it is that he has been unable, as yet, to produce an Amendment. He need not go into too much detail, because we know that the answer is that he has not had time. The second reason is to give him an opportunity at least to give a progress report on his thinking in the matter. The noble Lord has been helpful and has shown an initiative in this matter, so I would not wish to twit him too much on this.
I have put down this Amendment, not in the form of my original Amendment, which we have agreed was not satisfactory, but in the form that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne (who I know would have liked to be here, but is perhaps engaged elsewhere in his capacity as a Lord of Appeal), argued rather forcefully. I do not necessarily stand by his point, but I think it is worth making: that once a civilian has been convicted by a court-martial—and we are all agreed that in certain circumstances it is right that civilians should be tried by courts-martial, for their own protection—thereafter, so far as possible, the procedures which should be followed should be those that would apply in the case of a civilian convicted in a civil court. There should be a right of appeal, both against conviction and against sentence, to the Court of Appeal, and not necessarily to the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal. A particular argument in favour of this procedure (although I am not clear on the law with regard to it) is that it might in certain circumstances be possible to make use of the probation procedures, which cannot be used under a court-martial.
The noble and learned Viscount had very considerable force in his argument that there may well be reasons of which
1292
I am not aware (I am not an expert on this) as to why this is inappropriate. For that reason I should not wish to press this if an Amendment along the lines of my original Amendment were more acceptable. There will be time in another place to deal with this, and I think it is a pity that we cannot make the Amendment in our House; but there is something to be said for taking some time about this. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he might consider consulting the Law Officers on this matter. It seems to me to be a delicate issue, one on which the Service authorities, admirably advised as they may be by the Judge Advocate General, or the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (who I think is the Naval equivalent), might find it helpful if the benefit of the advice of Sir Peter Rawlinson, or of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, were obtained as to the most appropriate way to proceed. Despite the shortage of time we have to deal with this matter—though I acquit the noble Lord of any discourtesy to the House, and I am grateful for his sympathetic approach—I shall be interested to hear any further assurances he can give, and whether he may like to consider the rather different approach which I know was in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I beg to move.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, when we discussed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at the Committee stage I said that I was in sympathy with the broad objectives that he had in mind. I promised to see whether I could find ways to do what he asked. This was—if I may remind your Lordships—that arrangements for review, petition and appeal by civilians convicted by courts-martial should be left as they are at present, but that the civilian should be given an additional option which the Serviceman would not have to appeal against sentence to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. Subsequently, as the noble Lord has said, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, intervened and came forward with another suggestion which was that a civilian who wished to appeal against sentence should do so not to the Court-Martial Appeal Court, but rather to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. I said that I would examine that suggestion.

1293
As I recall it, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he was anxious that I should not use whatever difficulties we discovered in Lord Dilhorne's Amendment proposals as an excuse to demolish his own proposals. Now he tables an Amendment which is exactly the same as the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. I suppose I may take it that he has not so much abandoned his earlier proposal—indeed, he has said so—but rather is backing two horses each way, in the hope that one of them will arrive at the finishing post in some sort of condition—
LORD SHACKLETON: Absolutely right, my Lords.
LORD CARRINGTON: —and I understand that.
To take the Amendment he has put down for to-day, I would say that it goes much further than anything that has been put forward explicitly up to now. It would have the effect of transferring appeals by a civilian against conviction, as well as against sentence, to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division of the Appeal Court. As the Courts-Martial Appeal Court already has jurisdiction to hear appeals by civilians against conviction, this would mean withdrawing that jurisdiction from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. I must say that I see difficulties, both of principle and of practicability, in this new proposal, which of course would make a very much greater change in the present arrangements than would the original proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
I said last time that I was a little nervous about some of the effects of this change. One question was whether it would be fair to a Serviceman if a civilian with whom he had been jointly charged had an additional right of appeal against sentence after the Serviceman had exhausted his remedies by petitioning the Defence Council. This difficulty looms even larger in relation to the Amendment we are now considering. I really do doubt whether it would be right for two separate Appeal Courts to sit and consider the convictions of two men who had been involved in the same crime.
Your Lordships will see that in transferring appeals against conviction away from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to the Criminal Division of the Court of
1294
Appeal the Amendment makes them subject to the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968. These provisions are geared to trial by jury—indeed, the first ground of appeal under that Act is that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unsafe or unsatisfactory. There are no juries in courts-martial and no division of responsibility as to law and fact.
Similarly—and I mention this only to show the complexity of this matter—we could not properly take jurisdiction away from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and leave the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act as it now is. There is no reason to suppose that the present system of review and appeal under the Service Acts and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is unsatisfactory in regard to appeals by civilians against convictions. Indeed, in the twenty years that the Court has been in existence only one civilian has carried his appeal to it. That was in 1960; and the appeal succeeded, not on the grounds of any irregularity in the trial, but because the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, on careful analysis, took the view that on the evidence the conviction was unsafe.
For all these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord not to persist in this Amendment. But I do of course stand by the earlier commitment I made to the noble Lord. I accept that civilians should have this additional right to appeal against sentence, but such appeals should, in my opinion, be to the court that Parliament has expressly set up to review courts-martial decisions. I also regret that I have not yet tabled an Amendment in your Lordships' House—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in a very good-humoured way, made a perfectly valid and fair point. I meant no discourtesy to the House, but the fact is that the matter is rather difficult and has proved to be technically more difficult than I had thought.
I also accept the fact that we have not had a very long interval between the Committee stage and Report stage. These are responsibilities of the Government, and although, of course, any member of the Government has a collective responsibility, some decisions are more collective than others; and I would say (since my noble friend the Chief Whip is not here) that for my part I think that this is one

1295
such case. I must apologise to the noble Lord if this matter has been hurried, but what I should like to do, if your Lordships will permit me, is to ensure that an Amendment is laid in another place which satisfies the original point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; and when we have our own Amendment ready for introduction I will gladly have a word with him and consult him about it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think there was advantage in having the argument set forth with regard to my second Amendment, because the noble Lord was not in a position to deal with the point of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the last occasion. We have now heard these arguments. I feel that I am getting slightly out of my depths on this subject, but the Cross-Benches are well filled in the legal sense at the moment, and therefore I will not seek to comment on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, except to say this. The fact that there was only one appeal against conviction by a civilian to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court does not provide to me satisfactory statistical evidence that the review of sentences with regard to civilians was satisfactorily carried out. I gave details of a particular case which caused me great concern at the time and in which, even now, I do not know whether we arrived at the right sentence.
However, the noble Lord has given a positive assurance. I am grateful to him for saying that he will consult me on the Amendment. I am content to leave it to him, because if he succeeds in moving it into the Bill in another place it will in due course come back to us here and we shall have another opportunity to look at this point. In those circumstances, I ask for the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws, may I make this remark? It occurred to me that two or three years ago an article about this subject of civilians under courts-martial, by Professor Borrie of the University of Birmingham Law School, appeared in the Modern Law Review, and it showed that there are certainly a number of real com
1296
plaints. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his advisers have had the opportunity of studying this article, because I think it would be of some value to them.
While I am on my feet I might perhaps say one other thing. The point that when a civilian and a soldier are jointly charged the civilian is given greater rights than the soldier is not, I think, a very sound one. After all, a man who joins the Armed Forces knows perfectly well that he is coming under a system of military law, and he enters the Service on that basis—that his rights under the ordinary Common Law are to a large extent sacrificed. The civilian who is involved in this connection knows nothing of the kind, and on the face of it it seems altogether wrong that he should find himself deprived of the rights he would have under the ordinary law of the land.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Charley. I will certainly look at this article. I am afraid that he has different tastes in bedside reading from mine, and I did not know that this article existed. But I will certainly look it up and benefit from it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to be asked again not to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that the noble Lord had a point to make, and it is always difficult to judge when a discussion is finished, but I do now ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 2A:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:—
". Sub-paragraph 10(a) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which provides that certain action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters in relation to service in the armed forces are matters not subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner) is hereby repealed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment No. 2A. I want sincerely to apologise for moving this Amendment in manuscript form. It arose from the fact that my Amendments were drafted by a legal friend, and in this Amendment he referred

1297
only to the Act of 1967 without giving its name, which naturally puzzled the Clerks to the House. It was only late last night that, thanks to their assistance and the asistance of the Ministry, we were able to identify the Act as the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, and that is the reason why I am now moving the Amendment in manuscript form rather than having it on the Order Paper.
The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple. It is to place the men who are in the Armed Forces in the same position as civilians, with the right, through a Member of Parliament, to appeal to the Parliamentary Commissioner when they think they have a genuine grievance. It will be accepted that the distinction between the Armed Forces and civilian life is now becoming less marked and that we are seeking to secure for the men who are in the Forces the same rights which generally apply to civilians. There used to be a very distinct demarcation. The man in the Armed Forces had to obey orders, had to obey commands; and if he disobeyed those commands he was subject to court-martial and to punishment. The Nuremberg trial destroyed that distinction. The Nuremberg trial laid it down that if a man in the Forces commits an inhuman act, even if that act has been ordered by his superiors, he can still be regarded as guilty, and a trial is now proceeding in America (to which I will not refer further) which raises this same issue.
The purpose of this Amendment is to say that just as a civilian, over the very broad field of legislation which has now been carried by the two Houses of Parliament, has the right, if he feels there is a grievance, to appeal through his Member of Parliament to the Parliamentary Commissioner, that right should also be attached to members of the Forces. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I shall be moving a second Amendment which will refer particularly to boy soldiers, but if there is a case for saying that the adult who joins the Armed Forces shall have this right, that argument is still stronger for boys who are taken into the Forces at only 15 years of age. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment in theory, though I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord
1298
Brockway, did not come and support me when I put down a practically identical Amendment at Committee stage.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I was not here.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It was discussed at Committee stage and, as the House will know, I entirely agree that the Armed Forces should become subject either to the Parliamentary Commissioner or to a special Parliamentary Commissioner for the Forces, which I think is possibly the better solution. On the Committee stage I had the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this matter was being looked at by the Government, and probably we cannot go further with it to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has no reason to apologise for having put down the manuscript Amendment, because I know he had originally put down another Amendment which was a little obscure but which had the same effect. The present Amendment goes a good deal further than that moved by the noble Lord, Lord 13eaumont, on the Committee stage. I need not go into the arguments all over again, and I am sure the noble Lord, although he was not able to be here at the Committee stage, has read what I said then about the Amendment moved by Lord Beaumont. The present Amendment goes much wider, in that it brings in such matters as discipline, and of course the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned only with maladministration, so I do not think this Amendment would do in any case. But may I remind the noble Lord of what I said on the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont? I think it will make the point clearer. I said then that the Select Committee of another place has reported on this matter and the Government are considering that report, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement about it. In that event I do not think it would be appropriate to put it in this Bill.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask him one question? In answer to a previous Amendment he has said that there will be consideration in another place; can he give the same promise in respect of this issue?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. What I said was that the Government were examining the Report of the Select Committee, and that Committee made some recommendations about an extension of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is what I said the Government were examining.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
". The following subsection shall be inserted after section 2(5) of the Army Act 1955 and section 2(5) of the Air Force Act 1955:—
(6) Where a person below the appropriate minimum age has been entered for service in accordance with this section he shall, on attaining that age become entitled to claim to determine his full time service at any time before the expiration of a period of three months beginning with his so attaining that age and any such claim shall be made in accordance with regulations made under section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a reference particularly to boy soldiers. Later we shall be having a debate on the Report by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and therefore I do not wish to enter into the issue in detail. However, I think we should be in error if we allowed this Bill to pass without seeking to amend it in a way that will not prejudice further decisions arising from the Donaldson Report. The purpose of the Amendment is again quite simple. We were all delighted to hear the noble Lord the Secretary of State say that Her Majesty's Government would accept the recommendation of the Donaldson Report by which boy soldiers, when they reach the age of 18, would have the right to decide that they should leave the Armed Forces at 21, and we welcome that. This Amendment suggests that the Government could go a little further. It proposes that these boys, when they reach the age of 18, should not have to wait three years before their discharge at 21, but should be able, within the first three months after attaining their adulthood, to seek—and indeed to receive—discharge.
These boys join often at fifteen years of age, it may be from unhappy family circumstances, it may be by the pressure of a father, it may be as a sense of release from an orphanage in which they have been kept. They joined the Armed Forces at fifteen and, under the old regulations unless they make an application within their first six months they had to remain in the Forces until they were thirty. Now at eighteen years of age they are to be allowed to make application to leave the Forces at twenty-one. My Lords, even so, it means that a boy of fifteen joining in that way may have to be six years in the Forces before he can be discharged, growing up, perhaps becoming engaged to be married, in all kinds of different circumstances. I submit to this House that it would be much more just if these boys, when they reach the age of manhood, could come to a decision which would not mean that they would have to wait for three years but that, if they did not desire to remain in the Forces as a career, should be able at eighteen years of age to leave. That is the purpose of the Amendment and I hope that it will be supported by your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Amendment, without much hope, I am afraid, that it will get very much further. I welcome the Report of the Donaldson Committee. As I said when the Government made a Statement on that Report in your Lordships' House, I think it has made a considerable step forward. But I think it is right that this matter should be raised at this moment on this Bill, because I do not think that the Donaldson Committee went far enough—or perhaps it went as far as it could but the Government should go further. The Donaldson Committee actually recommended that at the age of eighteen apprentices should be able to opt to leave the Forces immediately, and that others should not be able to leave till three years later. The Government decided that this was an anomaly, which indeed it was, but instead of levelling down, which I said at the time I thought they should do, and saying that everyone should have the option to leave at

1301
eighteen, they levelled up so that everyone would be able to leave at twenty-one.
Both the recommendation of the Donaldson Committee and the decision of the Government were decisions of expediency. How can we see that the Forces are kept at the proper level while doing the best that we can for the people who want to get out? And I entirely accept that the Forces must be kept at a proper level. But I do not think that we have looked enough at the whole question of civil rights involved. As your Lordships will know, the National Council for Civil Liberties have just started, not a campaign, but a talking point about civil rights for children. Leaving aside the wilder remarks of those who have commented on it—there were not very many wild remarks from the National Council for Civil Liberties themselves—it is, I think, important that we should draw a fairly clear line as to when someone else is responsible for a child, when the Government are responsible for him, and when he becomes entirely responsible for himself. Now that we have taken a definite step forward and made the coming of age eighteen, I believe we should regard it very seriously indeed and say that in almost every field this is the moment when a person becomes responsible for his own future, whereas before he was not entirely so. I do not believe that this question of the right of a person to opt out at eighteen has yet been looked at closely enough.
If I am asked, as no doubt I shall be, how I would look after the level of recruitment for the Services, I should like, because I know this question will arise, to give my personal answer. Because civil rights are very important, I would have an incomes policy—which, of course, the Government would not have at any price—and within that incomes policy I would make the Services one of the very highest priorities, making them attractive to people coming in. That is why, unlike a number of noble Lords on this side of the House, I am not nearly as worried about Generals getting rises in pay as they appear to be. I think the Services need an even better deal than they have at the moment and should be given the highest priority. I mention that point because this question of recruitment is a counter-argument; I
1302
think the Services should have very high priority.
I believe that on coming of age a person who has entered into an engagement while he was not of age should be allowed to leave. This is a question of basic rights, and I am quite certain that we shall get round to it in time. I hope the Government will look at this matter again, if not to-day at least over the next year or two.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is trying it on, and he knows that I know that he is trying it on. He is perfectly entitled to do so, perfectly entitled to raise this matter on this Bill, but I would remind him of this. The Government of noble Lords opposite appointed the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to inquire into this, and they reported not so long ago. One of the things that they expressly reported on was the suggestion which is contained in the noble Lord's Amendment, and they rejected it specifically. They said:
"We thought that the costs in men and money of introducing this system across the board was so high that it was incumbent upon us to think again."
The Committee, which was a very high-powered one, went into the whole question of boys' engagements very thoroughly, and I think the House will and should accept that their views carry great authority. They took enormous trouble. The Government examined their Report and I announced that with one comparatively minor Amendment we accepted the recommendations of this Committee. I announced it to your Lordships' House three weeks ago. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or even the ingenious noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—who brought an incomes policy into an Amendment on boys' service—or indeed the House, would expect the Government to upset a decision taken only three weeks ago. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and comfort himself with the thought that he has an Unstarred Question down on this matter after the Christmas Recess and can have another go.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, it is that thought that influences me now. In view of the fact that we shall be having a debate on the Donaldson Report in the

1303
New Year, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Complaints by persons subject to Naval Discipline Act 1957]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 54, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Section 181 of the Army Act 1955 and section 181 of the Air Force Act 1955 (complaints by warrant officers and below) shall each be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2) (under which a person who has complained to his commanding officer and has not received satisfactory redress, or who thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer for any other reason, may complain to a superior officer under whom he is serving), for all the words from "he may make a complaint with respect thereto" to the end there shall be substituted the words "he may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Queen's Regulations, make a complaint with respect thereto to the Defence Council", and

(b) in subsection (3) (duty of a commanding or other officer to have any complaint received by him investigated, and to give any redress appearing to him to be necessary), for the words "a commanding or other officer" there shall be substituted the words "a commanding officer or, as the case may be, the Defence Council", and the words "or them" shall be inserted after the words "by him" and after the words "to him"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage I gave notice of my intention to put down an Amendment which would give soldiers and airmen a statutory right to take complaints to the Defence Council. At present only ratings of the Royal Navy have such a right, though airmen have in fact been permitted for some years by Queen's Regulations to pursue their complaints to the Council. The right of officers to complain to Her Majesty is established by Clause 66, which your Lordships have approved, and the further Amendment I have now moved will bring the Services completely into line. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resoluion of December 10):
4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the
1304
purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place her interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time and in doing so I would say just a few words more. This is a long and complicated Bill, and it does four main things. First, it renews the Army and Air Force Acts. Second, it seeks to place the Naval Discipline Act upon the same constitutional basis as the other two Acts, the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955. Thirdly, it enacts for the first time a common code of offences and punishment which will apply to all Servicemen under any of the Acts. Fourthly, it makes a number of valuable changes in the procedural parts of the Acts, all of which have the effect of bringing them some-what closer together in various respects.
I am sure that this Bill is a good Bill and will be of benefit to the Services. I should like to add that I have been most appreciative of the constructive interest which so many of your Lordships have shown during the passage of the Bill. I think it represents a substantial step forward in bringing closer together the Statutes governing the Services, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before we send this Bill to another place I should like to make one or two short points. When the Secretary of State started his speech he seemed to feel it necessary to justify the fact that the Bill started in this House. I, for one, felt that this was the correct place for it to start, having regard to the position of the Secretary of State as a Member of this House, and I think that the discussion that we have had here has been extremely useful. The Bill is not controversial, but it affects the rights of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. I am certain that the administration of justice within the Armed Forces, which is of a very high standard, will nevertheless benefit from this Bill. I am sure that the House will agree with me in saying that the clarity with which the Secretary of State has put forward the various points of

1305
view of the Government and the courtesy with which he has treated certain Amendments are appreciated by us all.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, at a previous stage the Secretary of State most handsomely apologised for the speed with which the Bill has had to proceed through your Lordships' House. We all accept the difficulties, but I suspect that at the beginning of the production of the Bill, in addition to the pressures from the Commons there was a certain lack of realisation of the important issues involved and the interest that the Bill would raise in your Lordships' House, as indeed elsewhere. I should like to make it clear that in spite of the fact that I have put down several Amendments and obviously am not entirely happy that they have all been rejected, I think that the Bill is an extremely good one. I feel very strongly that, with the possible exception of boy Servicemen, the whole area of the rights of Servicemen is extremely well guarded by the present authorities, and that immense trouble is taken to see that injustice does not occur. But it is absolutely right that both your Lordships' House and another place should keep constantly under review this rather difficult area of where Servicemen's rights and civil rights meet. So long as we keep that subject under review and go on looking at it from time to time, I do not think that we shall come to very much harm.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the employers of certain teachers to deduct from their salaries the fees which have to be paid for registration into the General Teaching Council. These regulations would first of all apply to teachers holding permanent employment in education authority and grant-aided schools—those teachers whose conditions of employment
1306
require them to register with the Teaching Council. As your Lordships will know, the Bill was introduced into another place by the previous Government, but because of certain events before June 18 it did not reach the Statute Book. The present Government revived the Bill, and it passed through the various stages in another place without amendment or vote.
The reason for the Bill is that, while registration is already a requirement for permanent employment in the schools, the procedure to secure renewal of registration is not effective; and this Bill provides a remedy. Legislation on the lines of this Bill was suggested in a Memorandum called Review of The Constitution and Functions of the General Teaching Council which was published last year as a consultative document. Since 1968, registration with the General Teaching Council, at an annual fee of £1, has been the mark of recognition of the qualified teacher. Formerly a teacher held the Secretary of State's certificate proving competence to teach. Now, in order to comply with the Schools (Scotland) Code, education authorities have to be satisfied that teachers are registered.
Under the present system it is the individual teacher's responsibility to renew registration with the Council each year by paying the fee. This has led to a number of difficulties. For various reasons, a number of teachers have been reluctant to register, or remiss about renewal of their registration, and their employers were naturally reluctant to dismiss unregistered teachers immediately after the date when they had to be registered—that is, April 1 of each year, with the saving grace of one month. The result is a situation in which every year the process of registration has lengthened far beyond this date. This has caused considerable inconvenience both to the Council and to the employers. This Bill is designed to overcome these problems.
May I now deal with its main provisions? Under Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the employers of these teachers to deduct from their salary the fee for the renewal of their registration. Your Lordships will note that the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) relate solely to fees for renewal of registration. They do not apply to fees payable either on

1307
first registration by a new teacher, or for restoration to the register of a teacher who returns to teaching after an interval. The payment of these fees will remain the responsibility of the individual teacher.
Under Clause 1(2) the regulations will apply to all registered teachers in the employment of education authorities or other managers who are required to be registered with the General Teaching Council. As your Lordships will know, two groups of teachers register with the Council: those employed in education authority and grant-aided schools, and others—for example married women who are not at the moment teaching, and lecturers in colleges of education and in further education, who are not required to register but may do so if they wish. There are in Scotland to-day about 56,000 registered teachers. Some 42,000 of these are in employment where registration is required. The 14,000 teachers in the other categories will, as at present, be left to make their own arrangements about payment of the registration fee, and are not affected by this Bill.
Under Clause 1(3) the regulations will describe the procedure for deduction and remittance of the renewal fee. The registration period extends over one year, from April 1 to March 31, and we expect that in practice renewal fees will be deducted from the April salaries of teachers; also, that their employers will send such fees to the Council as soon as possible, with sufficient details to enable the Council to identify the teachers on their register. The Council will then write to those teachers who are not required to register but do so voluntarily, inviting them to re-register. The details of this procedure will be set out in the Council's registration rules.
Under Clause 1(4) the Secretary of State will have power to vary or revoke these rules. However, as your Lordships will realise, this power will be exercised only where it is necessary to secure consistency between the Council's rules and the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 2(2) and Part I of the Schedule provide for consultation between the Secretary of State and
1308
the Council on the making of both the regulations and the Council's rules. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this power will ever need to be used.
My Lords, this Bill is a useful measure that will improve the registration procedures and reduce the administrative work of both education authorities and the Council. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has made it abundantly clear that once again she is acting as executrix on the legislative Scottish estate of the late Government. Accordingly, it will be no surprise to your Lordships that I am in enthusiastic agreement with her in support of this measure. I looked up the Report of proceedings in another place and I see that it took them barely half an hour to go through all the proceedings on the Bill. I have no desire that anything that I say will put us in the position of having taken longer to handle the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
BUSINESS: MUSEUM CHARGES DEBATE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that in view of the number of speakers in to-morow's debate on museum charges, dinners will be available.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
House in Committee (on Recommitment):
House resumed: Bill reported without further Amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As the House will have seen, the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills—and may I, in passing, say how much we are indebted to them for the painstaking work that they undertake on Bills of this sort—have drawn to the attention of Parliament the desirability of modernising the law relating to the powers of guardians in so far as it stems from Section 9 of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. I am most grateful to the Joint Committee for drawing this to the attention of Parliament, and I should like to inform the House that I am now considering whether we could not do away with Section 9 of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 as presently enacted in its ancient and cumbrous language. In particular, I suspect that the Statute Law Repeals Bill, which I introduced earlier this afternoon, might be a suitable Bill in which to do it if, after further consideration, I am able to recommend it to the attention of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. With regard to the subject matter of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Report, it would have been my hope that the Law Commission, if they could do so, would take an early opportunity of considering the matter.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON TRANSPORT (COMPENSA TION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 1970
4.16 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford I beg to move that the London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before Parliament on November 24, 1970, be approved.
These Regulations provide full compensation for any employee who might have suffered any loss owing to their employer changing as a result of the re-organisation of London Transport in accordance with the Transport (London) Act 1969. This laid a duty on the G.L.C. to develop policies and measures for the promotion of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London. The Act provided for the setting up of the London Transport Executive and the transfer to it of the property, rights and liabilities of the former London Transport Board.
Section 37 of the Transport (London) Act 1969 required the Minister, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, to make compensation to those persons described in Regulation 3. The sort of compensation to which they are entitled is set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5. The Regulations would take effect from October 22, 1969, the date on which the first of the relevant sections of the parent Act was brought into force. With your permission, my Lords, I do not propose to burden you with details which are both long and complex. The form and contents are well precedented and non-controversial, and of course are only made after full consultation with all interested parties. Section 37 (Part 5) of the Act requires that a draft of these Regulations, having been laid before Parliament should be approved by a Resolution of each House. I accordingly ask the House to approve the draft Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on 24th November last, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this appears to be an Order which is wholly

1311
acceptable to Her Majesty's Opposition. It is, as the noble Lord said, in common form, and one which we expected to be laid. As such, I am sure the House will give it unanimous approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST MIDLANDS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1970
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Order has been reported on by the Special Orders Committee of the House, and my judgment is that what is said there will suffice for your Lordships. Therefore, if no noble Lord objects, I will move formally that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1970, be approved.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMIS SION LEVY (VARIATION) SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER 1970
4.19 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM rose to move, That the Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 25 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The formidable array of agricultural and food Orders that appear on the Order Paper I should like, with your permission, to deal with in the following way. I should like to speak first on the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970—which is before the House at this moment. Secondly, I should like to take together the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, the farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970, and the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970. I should then like to speak to the Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970 by itself, and, finally, to speak to the last two Orders—the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, and the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1970—together. I hope
1312
that this will be convenient to your Lordships.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we shall be happy to accept that arrangement, which appears to be an eminently suitable one.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
The Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970 is very narrow in scope. As the House will know, the Meat and Livestock Commission is financed mainly by the proceeds of a levy on the meat and livestock industry, in accordance with Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967. Subsection (5) of that section requires that no charges under a levy scheme shall be made in respect of livestock slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. Earlier this year Parliament passed the Agriculture Act 1970. Subsection (6) of Section 106 of that Act provides that the exemption from the Commission's levy must be extended to include animals slaughtered in accordance with any scheme made under Section 106 for the eradication of brucellosis in cattle. The Brucellosis Incentive Scheme was, in fact, made under Section 106 in July of this year, so the House will see that this Order is very much a technicality and the need for it arises automatically out of the 1970 Act. All the Order does is to confirm the necessary exemption from the levy. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 25 last, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, who has explained this Order to us in suitably brief terms, that this is almost a formal matter. Indeed, it arises under the Act of 1970 and the Brucellosis Order to which he has referred. But when the Order was debated in another place, the honourable Member for Derbyshire, West asked the Minister a question to this effect. A voluntary eradication scheme was introduced under the Act in July of this year, and animals have been slaughtered under that scheme. The honourable

1313
Member asked the Minister whether, in those cases where animals had been so slaughtered, any money paid would be returned to the farmer concerned. The question I am asking is: has money been paid in respect of animals slaughtered under that voluntary scheme; and, if so, will it be repaid? When the honourable Member for Derbyshire, West put that question, the Minister replied that he would write to the honourable Member and tell him all about the matter. We do not know what he told him, so I shall be extremely grateful if the noble Lord will tell us exactly what has happened.
I know that it is rather wide of the Order before us, but I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us anything about the voluntary eradication scheme: whether it has been reasonably successful: whether it looks as though it is a useful sort of introduction to the compulsory scheme that will begin in 1971. I am sure that the Department will know something about this, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell the House exactly how this whole matter is now working out.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this Order. I should like to reply, first, to his point about the question which the Member for Derbyshire, West asked in another place. The noble Lord asked whether money would be returned to any farmer who had paid in respect of slaughtered animals. I am informed that the purpose of this Order is only to confirm a practice which is already in existence, and that up till now no payment has been requested on a reactor. Therefore no farmer has suffered, and the Order merely puts into proper form a practice which has been going on.
The noble Lord also asked about the incentive scheme, and how it had been working since it started on July 13 this year. Although it is perhaps early days to draw any firm conclusion, I can say that so far it has been very encouraging. For example, in the time between the start of the scheme in July and the end of October, we have received more than 8,000 applications in Great Britain. Obviously, this compares favourably with the 6,800 applications received during the whole of 1969 for the old brucellosis
1314
accredited herd scheme. Also, of those in the old scheme eligible to transfer to the incentive scheme, more than 80 pet cent. have elected to do so. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this voluntary scheme will certainly serve as an extremely good way of preparing the ground for the compulsory scheme when it comes into force next year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT SCHEME 1970
  FARM CAPITAL GRANT (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1970
    PLOUGHING GRANTS (VARIATION) SCHEME 1970

      PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME 1970
      4.27 p.m.
      LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, which was laid before this House on December 1, be approved. It may be convenient to noble Lords if with this Scheme I move also the Farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970 and the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970, since they are all closely related.
      The most important of the four Schemes are the two Farm Capital Grant Schemes, for these replace most of the existing capital grants. The existing grants have been introduced over a long period in which there have been many changes in the agricutural industry. We are now recasting the grants in a form which is more suited to present-day farming and which will make more effective use of available funds. We are also replacing the differing requirements of the present schemes with fewer and uniform conditions in a single Scheme, and this will reduce paperwork and be simpler for everyone. There are only minor differences between the Scheme for Scotland and that for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These differences arise because the provisions in paragraph 3 of the main Scheme, relating to smallholdings authorities, do not apply to Scotland; there is different legislation relating to drainage in Scotland; and claying and marling and hop-growing are not

      1315
      practised there and therefore do not need to be covered by the Scheme.
      Apart from these differences the Schemes cover broadly the same items as the arrangements being replaced, except that plant and machinery will not be eligible for grant. As your Lordships know, farmers are now benefiting from the new tax allowances on plant and machinery which were introduced on October 27. The standard rate of grant under both Schemes will be 30 per cent. of eligible expenditure. Higher rates of 50 per cent. are payable on certain works and facilities for the benefit of hill land and also on remodelling works which are certified as a consequence of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved under the Farm Amalgamation and Boundary Adjustments Scheme. The highest rate of grant is 60 per cent. which is for field drainage for the benefit of hill land. Applications received or approvals issued by March 18, 1972, will attract an additional 10 per cent. grant to give effect to the increased rates announced following this year's Annual Review. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the main Scheme lists the works and facilities on which smallholdings authorities may qualify for the 10 per cent. supplement payable under Section 51 of the Agriculture Act 1970. Section 51 gives effect, for a period of five years, to a recommendation of the Wise Committee that a special grant should be made available for the reorganisation of smallholdings. The total rate of grant available to smallholdings authorities on the works and facilities specified in the Scheme will be 50 per cent. on applications made by March 18, 1972, and 40 per cent. on applications made between that date and December 31, 1975.
      To qualify for grant under the Schemes, expenditure of a capital nature must have been incurred in connection with an agricultural business. Under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 the agricultural business must be one which is capable of yielding a sufficient livelihood to an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry. The intention initially is to regard a net farm income of £880 a year as representing a sufficient livelihood in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the statutory minimum wage for agricultural
      1316
      workers will be used, reflecting the different structure of farming in that country. For the future, the figures will be increased in line with increases in the statutory minimum agricultural wages. Under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4, bare land holdings will not be eligible for grant on the full range of works and facilities listed in the Schedules. An exception is made, however, where a bare land holding was created more than five years before an application is made under the Schemes; or where the land in the holding is newly reclaimed for, or restored to, agriculture; or where the separation of the bare land from an equipped holding was not contrary to the interests of good estate management.
      Agricultural businesses which fail the sufficient livelihood or bare land tests will still be eligible for grant on certain items—mainly land operations—provided that these would continue to be of benefit to the land occupied by the business if it subsequently became part of a larger unit through amalgamation. There will be no tests of whether the proposed expenditure is prudent and economically worth while. These are matters which in future will be left entirely to applicants. In this, the Schemes differ from some existing schemes. A further difference will be that the "benefit to the land" test of the present Farm Improvement Scheme has been dropped. But, as announced at the last Annual Review, grant will not be paid on expenditure totalling more than a "ceiling" figure of £100,000 in respect of any single farm unit in any two-year period. Expenditure which has qualified for the higher rate of agricultural investment grant introduced on March 19, 1970, will count towards the ceiling. The level of the ceiling will be subject to review in the light of experience. The ceiling will be applied administratively as it is under the existing arrangements for the Agricultural Investment Grant on Fixed Equipment.
      In administering the Schemes we shall require the cost of the eligible work included in any one application to be at least £100, as under the current Farm Improvement Scheme. Proposed works and facilities must not be unreasonable in cost, and applicants will be required to obtain written authority from the Ministry before starting work. Applicants will

      1317
      continue to have the choice of claiming grant on either actual expenditure incurred or standard costs, and it is hoped to introduce a new set of standard costs in February to coincide with the introduction of decimal currency. In the meantime, existing standard costs will apply.
      The ending of grants on plant and machinery inevitably affects the amount of Government aid available for the installation of bulk milk tanks, for under the Farm Improvement Scheme these tanks have been eligible for a 30 per cent, rate of grant since 1967. Since March of this year the grant rate has been 40 per cent. This is a substantial grant, and dairy farmers wishing to install bulk milk tanks in the near future can still qualify for it by putting in an application before December 31. But in addition to the grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Milk Marketing Board has received an allowance of ⅜ of a penny per gallon for five years on new bulk milk. This allowance has recently been extended until September 30, 1973. The Milk Marketing Board has used this allowance, together with contributions from buyers, to pay special premiums to producers. These have enabled milk producers to offset over the first three years of operation a substantial proportion of their part of the cost of a bulk milk tank.
      My Lords, as I have already mentioned, farmers are now entitled to new tax allowances on capital expenditure on plant and machinery incurred after October 26. These new tax allowances and the allowance of ⅜ of a penny per gallon to the Milk Marketing Board provide substantial assistance for the farmer wishing to install a bulk milk tank. But it is true that the total assistance would be somewhat less than was previously available. I know that the industry has been concerned that this might affect the progress being made in switching to bulk collection. Because of the benefits brought by bulk collection to both consumer and producer, we are also anxious that this should not happen. The Minister has therefore announced in another place that he will be raising the allowance to the Milk Marketing Board from ⅜ of a penny to ⅝ of a penny per gallon for five years in so far as it relates to milk from bulk tanks installed before September 30, 1973. In broad terms, this increase, which will not apply
      1318
      where farm improvement grant is paid, will offset the effect of withdrawing the grant.
      May I now turn to the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Schemes, which were also laid before the House on December 1? As some noble Lords may be aware, the Ploughing Grants Scheme is one of those which are being replaced by the Farm Capital Grant Scheme. After December 31 it will of course be possible to apply under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme for a 40 per cent. grant on the cost of ploughing land of the type which is eligible for the £12 ploughing grant at present. We therefore need to wind up the existing ploughing grants, and the Variation Scheme makes December 31 this year the last date for receipt of applications under the 1970 Scheme. Applications must reach the Ministry's divisional offices by that date to qualify for the £12 ploughing grant. Farmers whose applications are approved will have until May 31, 1971, to carry out the work. The Farm Capital Grant Schemes have been designed to give more effective help towards profitable investment by getting rid of out-dated restrictions and by providing a single set of basic conditions instead of the differing and complex procedures of the existing grants. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this streamlining was a job that needed to be done. I know that noble Lords opposite share our views on this matter because the Schemes are of course based on legislation introduced earlier this year by noble Lords opposite. We welcomed the principles involved, and we have now given effect to them in these new Schemes. I trust they will have a favourable reception.
      My Lords, I apologise for the length of the speech with which I have introduced these Orders, but they are very complicated and I thought it best to go into them in some detail. I now invite the House to approve these Schemes.
      Moved—
      That the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
      4.38 p.m.
      LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord need not apologise for the length of his speech. This is an important matter, and there are four Orders here. They are all important and, clearly, the change that has taken place, or is taking place, is such that it is right the House should be informed of it at some length. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having made the speech he has, which will be available for us and others to read in the future.
      I see that the Minister, in discussing these Capital Grant Orders, is reported at column 135 of the Commons Hansard of December 7 as saying:
      "These replace most of the exciting capital grants with a single unified Scheme."
      I imagine that the word "exciting" was a slip of the tongue, or a slip of the Hansard pen; for clearly what he meant was that the "existing" Orders would be replaced. But, my Lords, having said that, I see no reason why we should not regard these grants as exciting—not only these grants, but all the grants that have been made for capital injection into this industry since the end of the war.
      Unless I am very much mistaken, the first big capital injection came under the Labour Government, when £200 million was injected into the industry for this particular purpose. Since then, we have had a number of different schemes, all designed to the same end: to improve the capital structure of this industry. As I look round this industry—and I do have a chance to do so occasionally—I am a little excited by the change that has taken place since the inter-war years, when I got to know this industry fairly well. My Lords, the change has been exciting, and we ought to be glad that we have had the good sense to make it in the case of this important industry within our economy.
      We on this side of the House give a general welcome to these Orders because, as the noble Lord rightly said—he gave us credit for this fact—they closely follow what was said in the March Annual Review of this year and the 1970 Agricultural Act of the last Administration which followed. Something is happening in this connection which is of some importance and the noble Lord rightly
      1320
      stressed it. It is that it is clearly part of these Orders that farmers should be relieved of some of the paper work that bedevilled previous schemes. I know what difficulties this caused, particularly with some of the smaller farmers I know in South Wales.
      This idea of relieving them of some of the paper work is wholly admirable, always provided that sufficient safeguards are left to ensure that the monies dispensed under the Schemes are properly applied. We are talking about taxpayers' money; and a lot of it. They, the taxpayers, have a right to feel that their interests are being adequately safeguarded against fraud. I remember that confidence in the Ministerial powers in this general connection was shaken by the extensive frauds that took place in South Wales not so very long ago in connection with the lime Schemes. It filled the newspapers at that time. Rightly, people came to me and said, "You have had something to do with agriculture in the past."—and I admitted that I had—"What are the Ministry doing to ensure that this never occurs again?" I was not then in a position to tell them what the Ministry might be doing. All that I say to-day is that if this relieving of the farmers of some of the paper work by any chance results in making fraud easier, blame will have to be laid somewhere. I hope that this will not be the case; that the money will go to where it is intended it should go; namely, to the farmers to do the job which they ought to be doing.
      The stringent application and approval certification is a job for the Ministry. They really must do it. I am sure that the noble Lord will convey this thought back to the Ministry, which I am glad to see he now represents in some of these matters on the Front Bench opposite. Large sums of money are involved. He told us a few minutes ago that some of these schemes can result in £100,000 being spent over two years on the same farm unit. That does not necessarily mean that all that money comes out of the pocket of the taxpayers, but a large proportion of it will; and it is only right that we should be careful about how that money is spent and that we should ensure that the nation gets value for the money that is poured out in this way. That is our job here in Parliament.

      1321
      My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that grants on bulk milk tanks and plant, machinery, harvesters and tractors will disappear in favour of a tax incentive allowance of, initially, some 60 per cent. and a writing-down allowance of 25 per cent. of the reducing balance in subsequent years. If those were not his exact words, they ought to have been—because I fished them out for myself. But while he may not have used those exact words, he indicated what the intentions were. The Minister (as reported in column 138 of Hansard of the other place) said on December 7 when speaking of the bulk milk tanks grant in operation under previous Schemes:
      "This is a substantial grant, and those dairy farmers who wish to install bulk milk tanks and can still qualify for the grant by applying between now and 31st December would do well to take advantage of it. If they apply now and if they qualify in this way, they will get the 40 per cent. grant and the 60 per cent. initial allowance on the remainder.… That, incidentally, applies to other plant and machinery including tractors and combine harvesters."
      I am bound to ask the noble Lord whether this is really necessary. Is it right that they should be able to have both the grant and the initial allowance? This brings the amount up to 60 per cent. plus 40 per cent—which is a very large amount indeed. And it will go to those people who are smart enough to read Hansard, smart enough to delve into these Schemes and to make the necessary applications for approval before the end of this year. The ordinary farmer who does not do that will not be able to take advantage of what I am bound to describe as this act of generosity. The smart boys will know of it and will get in straight away. Incidentally, I am bound to say that I doubt whether the tax allowance system will prove as helpful as the grant system on plant, machinery and so on. The small man will not benefit until long after he has made his tax returns—if he benefits at all. The grant system ensured that the money was paid to the man and was paid not long after the job was done. In some cases part of it was paid before the job was half done. Under the new tax allowances system and the initial allowance, "plus, plus", system, he will have to wait until a much later date. I
      1322
      should have thought that this was not particularly helpful to the small farmer.
      My Lords, turning to the drainage grant, I welcome the Order which appears to me to gibe effect to the 70 per cent. grant for drainage schemes approved before March 18, 1972, which was something which was promised in the Annual Review. After that date the amount will be 60 per cent. It must surprise some people that there can be substantial drainage problems on hill farms. People think that all that happens is that rain falls on the hill farms and hurries down to the valleys. It does not. There are to my knowledge vast areas of hill land where drainage is certainly needed. I think that I have previously told the House that I was associated with my brother in a hill farm in South Wales which was 1,000 ft. above sea level. About a quarter of the acreage consisted of very wet, peaty ground. I remember walking over it with my brother and discussing this matter when he perpetrated something which I thought was very much an Irish bull. He said: "We shall never do anything good with this land so long as we have this stagnant water running all over the place." How right he was. We should never do any good with that ground unless we got rid of that "stagnant" water. The fact was that it was stagnant in part but the rest was moving to some extent through the ground. Certainly the ground badly needed a drainage scheme of the kind which would have been possible to us under the Scheme now before us. I think that if we could somehow manage to persuade the hill farmers to find the 30 per cent. they will have to find over and above the 70 per cent. which they can get, it will be a good thing for them and the country as a whole.
      Finally, my Lords, on the whole matter of grants, I have not attempted to cover every aspect of them for obvious reasons. The ploughing grants appear to me to carry on from the old system to the new unified system, and as such appear to me to call for no special attention by the House. They are worthwhile alterations, always provided that the system will permit the grant to be earned and received by the farmers; and I believe that in this case there is no question of their waiting for the tax allowance to benefit. I am happy to welcome these grants and with

      1323
      the noble Lord I commend them to the House.
      4.50 p.m.
      EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies and has too much of a free run, I wonder whether I might ask him a question. In doing so I should like to say how very much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said at the beginning of his remarks, when he paid tribute to the Capital Grant Schemes. Of all the grants paid to agriculture, it is the Capital Grant Schemes that have enabled agriculture as a whole to move forward and to become the competitive industry which it is now. I have always felt that these have been far and away the best grants ever given to agriculture. If the present Schemes result in a saving of paper work they are greatly to be encouraged. I have always taken the view that it would be far better if the Schemes were designed to be a little less accurate and a lot less cumbersome, rather than going for complete precision with a tremendous amount of paper work.
      One point I was concerned about (I may have misheard my noble friend) was when I thought he said that when a capital grant, or any grant, is paid there is to be a minimum standard beneath which a grant cannot be paid. In other words, if the holding is not considered to be a viable unit it will not attract a grant. Under the old system the viability of a unit was determined by the man-days required to work the unit. As I understood my noble friend, this is now to be changed, and the test will be not the amount of man-days required but the net income that may be obtained from the unit. This seems to be an extraordinary system, and I should be grateful if he would enlarge a little on what he said. I think my noble friend said that the net figure was to be £880 per annum. How is that figure arrived at? Is the individual who is applying for a grant to come with his previous year's accounts to show that he has made £880? He may be an extremely good farmer, but during the previous year, because of circumstances, he may well have made a loss. Would that mean he would be unable to have a grant which otherwise he would have had?
      1324
      I entirely accept that there must be some form of arbitrary level beneath which a farmer may not receive a grant, but I am concerned about what appears to be an extraordinary figure of £880. Why that figure? I think my noble friend said that it would be altered as conditions alter. Is there to be a formula on which the figure is worked out? Will it go up another year by £100 or £150? If so, how and why? It my noble friend could enlighten us a little it would be helpful.
      4.53 p.m.
      LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, for the welcome they have given to this Scheme—I felt it was a somewhat qualified welcome in the case of my noble friend—and I should like to deal with the various points which they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked whether we were confident that the rules have been framed in such a way as to avoid the possibility of fraud. I am advised that fraud has never been a major problem in administering the Schemes under which grant is paid on capital investment. This is because, in general, farmers and landowners have to obtain the Ministry's approval to their proposals before starting work; and approval is normally given only when the Ministry is satisfied that the cost of the proposed work is reasonable. Farmers must also make clear at this stage whether they intend to claim grant on the actual cost of the work or on the basis of the standard cost laid down for various types of improvement.
      When grant is claimed on the basis of actual cost, the applicants must support their claims with receipts or accountants' reports showing the expenditure actually incurred. Any variations from the approved amount, or any discrepancy between the amount claimed and supporting documents is carefully investigated. In many cases the completed work will also be inspected to see that it has been carried out satisfactorily. When grant is claimed on the basis of standard cost, the specification and cost on which grant will be paid are laid down by the Department; that is, for example, £43 15s. 0d. for a standard cattle

      1325
      grid. No opportunity for fraud will arise.
      It is important to keep a balance between the cost of checking against fraud and the risk of fraud occurring. Under the Capital Grant Scheme we shall be streamlining our checks where this can reasonably be done. Where there is other satisfactory evidence of expenditure we may be able to reduce the proportion of finished cases which we inspect at claim stage. However, I can assure your Lordships that in reviewing the various checks on grant claims we shall move cautiously at each step so as to secure the most economical result and to ensure that no unjustified risks are taken.
      My Lords, the noble Lord also asked about the ceiling of £100,000. That ceiling of grant-aided expenditure on any separate farm unit over two years will apply to the total expenditure on works and facilities grant-aided under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme and to expenditure qualifying for the higher rate of agricultural investment grant which was introduced on March 19, 1970. The ceiling applies to the total grant-aided expenditure before deducting the amount received in grant. Thus the maximum amount of grant for which a separate unit can qualify over any period of two years is less than £100,000. If the expenditure is all on buildings and other items which qualify for the 40 per cent. grant rate, the maximum amount of grant payable for that two-year period would be £40,000. The amount of grant would, of course, be somewhat higher if some of the expenditure was in respect of field drainage or improvements benefiting hill land which currently attract a 60 per cent. grant.
      In deciding for the purposes of the ceiling whether the land is separately farmed, we shall consider the farming facts in each case. For example, we shall have regard to whether the unit has its own labour, livestock, machinery and feedingstuffs store; whether it is physically separate from other land on which grant-aided expenditure has been incurred; whether it has its own manager or farm account. A ceiling at the same level is already applied to the 30 per cent. agricultural investment grant. Only experience in operating it will show
      1326
      whether or not it is set at a reasonable level. It will therefore be kept under review. We are anxious to safeguard grant from disproportionate demands from very large enterprises; but, equally, we do not wish to restrict the development of modern specialised units which can lead to greater productivity and stability; nor do we wish to discourage investments on large arable units.
      I had hoped, my Lords, having managed to use the term, "bulk milk tanks" without any accident three or four times during the course of my speech that I was through with it. But the noble Lord has raised it again. As noble Lords are aware, the new tax allowances for plant and machinery, which the Chancellor announced on October 27, apply to expenditure incurred from that date. At the same time, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that plant and machinery would not be covered by the new Farm Capital Grant Scheme. From January 1, when the new Scheme comes into force, no fresh applications for the Farm Improvement Scheme will be accepted and any further proposals will qualify for the tax allowance only.
      This switch from grant to tax allowance raises a difficult transitional problem. Many farmers and landowners will have entered into contracts before October 27 on the assumption that they would get grants; or even if they had not actually placed an order, would have planned their farming on the assumption that fixed plant and machinery was eligible for grant.
      Farming differs from other industries in that orders for agricultural plant and machinery are more often placed orally. Another difference is that the cycle of production is longer and it may be more difficult to make rapid changes in production plans. For these reasons, the Government decided that it would be both impracticable and also unfair to confine grants on plant and machinery to those cases where written contracts had been entered into before October 27. Farmers will, therefore, have until December 31, 1970, to put in their applications for grants on plant and machinery under the Farm Improvement Scheme or, if they intend to go for the agricultural investment grant, to make the actual payments for the plant and machinery they have in mind.

      1327
      Your Lordships may ask why, having accepted that there should be this period during which grant could still be obtained, we did not make a special exclusion from the new tax allowances. The answer is that one of the aims of the new system of tax allowances is to simplify administration. To have made special arrangements whereby farmers who receive the grants were disqualified from the new allowances would have run counter to this objective. It would have meant more checks and fewer administrative savings.
      It is not often, my Lords, that I have heard complaints that the Inland Revenue have been too generous, and complaints that they have been too generous to farmers must be rare in the extreme. I believe that their generosity on this occasion is amply justified by considerations of administrative simplicity. Moreover, their generosity is by no means excessive, since the tax allowances apply only to the farmers' share of the cost, after deducting the grant, and there may well be a balancing charge at the end of the day, if the farmer trades in a machine whose secondhand value exceeds its written down value in his accounts.
      The noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers were worried about the effect on small farmers of replacing grants with tax allowances. The extent to which any farmer, large or small, will benefit from the new tax allowances depends, of course, on the amount of his taxable income. I would accept that the small farmer is less likely than the larger one to derive much advantage from the new allowances, but I think it is a mistake to look at this aspect of the arrangements in isolation, for there are several changes in the new scheme as compared with the existing one which will be very much to the small man's advantage.
      First, and perhaps most important, we have dropped the benefit to the land test. This means that there will no longer be a requirement that the farm must be large enough to produce at least half the food for the livestock. Small farmers with livestock will be free to become more intensive, if it is in their business interest to do so. Secondly, there will be no requirement that all the land occupied by a business must be in single ownership
      1328
      or occupation. In future, therefore, the producer who owns part and rents part of his holding may qualify for grant on the whole of his expenditure, instead of on just the proportion relating to the land he owns.
      Finally, even the very small farmers who do not satisfy the sufficient livelihood requirement will now be able to get grant for many items, provided these would continue to be of benefit to the land if it subsequently became part of a larger unit. In addition, small producers, as well as large ones, will benefit from the simpler requirements of the new and unified scheme. Indeed, they may well benefit more, as they do not always have the same access to advice as the larger producer and so may find it more difficult to understand the complications of different schemes meeting different needs.
      My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked about the minimum limit of a holding to attract grant. Under the present Farm Improvement Scheme, the limit is in terms of a sufficient livelihood, which is taken to be the minimum agricultural worker's wage. Under the agricultural improvement grant there is a different minimum in terms of standard man days. The new Scheme will use the sufficient livelihood concept. My noble friend asked how the figure of £880 was arrived at. This figure is roughly the average earnings of an agricultural worker to-day. In principle we think that there is a case for regarding anything less than that figure as being below a reasonable standard of viability, remembering that it is the test of viability after the investment has been made, not before it. In practice, we are not applying the principle fully. With the minimum wage going up to about £770 a year, it would be reasonable to suppose that the average wage will be at least £1,000 a year. We do not want to make too abrupt a departure from previous standards of viability, which would put sufficient livelihood at £684 now and £770 next January, and so £880 represents a compromise between the current rule and a strict standard of viability. I must again apologise, my Lords, for the great length of time I have taken over moving these Orders.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME 1970
5.5 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we have had an interesting and, I think, useful debate on the Farm Capital Grant Schemes. I should like now to direct the attention of the House to their horticultural counterpart. I beg to move that the draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved. This is the fourth Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Each Scheme in its time has made a valuable contribution to the development of the horticultural industry.
Since the first Scheme was introduced in 1960, improvement schemes to the value of ·70 million have been approved for grant. Since January, 1965, over a thousand acres of new glass has been erected in England and Wales, and there has been a 9 per cent. increase in the area of heated glass, with continuing gains in the use of fully automatic systems for the control of temperature and irrigation in glasshouses. By any standards this amounts to very substantial progress in the modernisation of the glasshouse industry in this country; but the glasshouse sector is not of course the only one to benefit from the Schemes. Fruit growers, in particular, have taken advantage of the assistance that is available for the provision and improvement of temperature-controlled stores, for which works lo the value of nearly ·2 million have been approved in England and Wales during the last four years for grant under the 1966 Scheme—a development of very great value in lengthening the marketing season for home grown fruit.
Grant has also been approved under the 1966 Scheme on investments totalling three-quarters of a million pounds for plant and equipment to control pests and diseases on fruit growing holdings, nearly half a million pounds on fork-lift machinery and other equipment for the movement of produce and materials, and ·379,000 on grading equipment. The vegetable sector has been no less active, particularly in the provision of harvesting equipment, of equipment for grading produce and preparing it for market, and in equipment for pest and disease control; and the growers of hardy nursery stock
1330
have invested quite considerable sums in stores and packing sheds and other buildings and in harvesting equipment. These are, of course, only a few of the items which can qualify for grant. But, broadly speaking, they are where most of the money has gone, and I think that noble Lords will share my satisfaction at this evidence that growers are devoting a very particular part of their attention and resources to ways of improving the handling and marketing of their produce, as well as to the primary operations of actually growing it.
It is, then, against the background of an industry which is constantly progressing, increasing its productivity and making a substantial investment in its own future that I take pleasure in introducing this new Scheme, which continues and furthers the basic policy of encouraging and assisting the horticultural industry to increase its competitive efficiency. The Scheme does not introduce any major shift in policy. Rather it is designed to make life a little easier for the growers who apply for grant, and to streamline the official procedures for dealing with the applications, though it also introduces some new items which recent experience has suggested should be made eligible for grant.
The aim has been to cut out unnecessary restrictions, to reduce paperwork and, within the limits of the eligible facilities listed in the Schedule to the Scheme, to leave it to growers to make their own investment decisions without having to satisfy officials that investment will be worth while. In the same spirit, we are dropping the former requirement that the applicant must provide evidence that he has sufficient security of tenure to make it worth his while to invest in the proposed improvement. This again is something he will obviously consider himself, and the responsibility for the decision is, and should be, his own.
When the new Scheme comes into operation, we shall also modify the administrative requirements relating to the prior approval of expenditure on plant and machinery. Hitherto, grant has been payable only where the applicant has had prior approval, in writing, for the expenditure on which he wishes to claim grant. We propose to introduce simpler arrangements which will allow growers to claim

1331
grant on their investments in plant and machinery without going through all the arrangements for seeking prior approval which have applied in the past. I should emphasise that this applies only to plant and machinery; but these items are of course of particular importance to horticulturists. Prior approval will still be needed where expenditure is to be incurred on improvements to land, or on building works, or on the provision of services for buildings. With these more long-term, and usually more costly, improvements it is necessary to make sure that their construction is technically sound, and that any safety or amenity considerations have received full attention.
In drawing up this new and simpler Scheme, we have taken the opportunity to drop the provision allowing grant to be paid by instalments. It was very little used, apart from the grants made to horticultural co-operatives which now qualify under the Co-operation Scheme, and for which therefore provision is no longer made under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Lastly, we have taken the opportunity to bring up to date the list of items eligible for grant. None of the items covered by the 1966 Scheme is being withdrawn, but a number of new items have been added, to bring the Scheme into line with advances in horticultural practice during the last four years. Under the new Scheme, the grower will, for instance, be able to claim grant on structures of approved design for cladding with film plastic, together with the necessary equipment to furnish these structures; on some new items for use in the mechanised bulk handling of produce, and on plant and equipment for pre-packaging.
There has been full consultation with the unions over the changes proposed, and I have no hesitation in saying that the new provisions will be welcomed by the horticultural industry and will contribute to the industry's efficiency. It is as important now as it ever was in the past for growers to provide themselves with the best and most up-to-date equipment that is available. The new Horticulture Improvement Scheme both frees them from past restrictions and reflects the most recent developments in horticultural
1332
practice. I confidently commend the Scheme to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved. (Lord Denham.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord need not have apologised for answering at some length points put in the last debate. They were important. We are grateful to the noble Lord for taking this trouble to secure the necessary answers to the points that we put to him then. I was going to raise something of the same sort of thing in connection with this Scheme—namely, the removal of restrictions on applications and the way in which they are made—but I am bound to say that the noble Lord has convinced me that the Ministry have good answers to the points that I made in connection with the other Schemes.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for his report on past Schemes related to this important industry. I think it shows the value of those Schemes and the advantage that has been taken of them by the horticultural industry. Generally, I welcome the additions that have been made under this Order to the previous items that were available for the grant. I think this is right. If I do not make a long speech on this Order, I hope no one will think that I am not interested in the horticultural industry or that the Opposition are not so interested. Indeed we are. We think that this Order is absolutely right, and for this reason, we give it a welcome.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should be the last person to look a gift horse in the mouth. I learn that this is the fourth Horticultural Grants Scheme, and therefore one assumes that they are doing a lot of good. The object of such Schemes must be to produce more and better produce and, so far as the consumer is concerned, to produce it at less cost. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can give us, in addition to the figures that he quoted, of over a thousand acres more under glass, and various other impressive facts, any evidence that as a result of the Horticultural Grants Scheme the grower is producing more or that the housewife is able to buy more cheaply. I very much doubt it. Therefore I would ask why we go on

1333
with these Schemes, improving them, and making it, as he said, somewhat easier for the grower to get the money, unless we are convinced that they are doing what they are basically required to do; that is, to produce more at less cost.
I think it was a good apple year this year, and again we had the spectacle of large quantities of apples being, if not given away, certainly thrown away. With lettuce, we have again seen them being sold in the market at virtually give-away prices, yet high prices are still charged in the shops. I do not believe that the full benefit of this Scheme, in a national sense, will ever come about until the Government make up their mind that they must have a proper central scheme of distribution. I hope the noble Lord will not regard me as in any way dissenting from the general support given by my noble friend Lord Champion, but perhaps he will try to provide answers to these questions, which I submit are by no means unimportant.
LORD HOY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words on horticulture, having refrained from taking part in the agricultural discussions this afternoon. I would pay tribute to the noble Lord who introduced this Scheme, because, after all, he is saying that we now have, as a result of past policies, a thousand acres of new glass in the horticultural industry. If one can claim some little credit for this, it is a tribute to the previous Government. Horticulture was planned (if I may say this to my noble friend who has just spoken) so that it would be able to hold its own competitively with any other country. I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Apple and Pear Development Council, because in this respect I cannot think of any other section of the horticultural industry which has done such a good job in promoting the sale of British apples and pears. And a tribute is due to Sir Richard Boughey and his committee for the work they have done in this respect.
I am pleased to know that the procedure is to be streamlined. We had hoped to do that, and I am certain that the noble Lord who is now carrying it out was aware of the success of the plans that were made before the present Government took office. I did not quite
1334
understand his statement that horticulture could go on and make changes without proving that they were a worthwhile investment. This seemed to me to be a little peculiar, and I should like the noble Lord to explain what he means. Does it mean that any horticulturist can decide to adopt a certain line of action, with Government money involved, and that no Government official or anyone else will have anything to say whether it proves profitable or not; that the decision will just depend on the horticulturist, and that the Government will then be expected to pay their share of the money? That seems to me to be an extraordinary statement. I may not have heard the noble Lord correctly. Perhaps when he replies he can tell me whether that is what he said, because I regard it as somewhat peculiar that anyone can go on spending public money without any responsibility shown to the Government of the day.
The noble Lord went on to say that in respect of plant and machinery regard would not be paid to the old rule of prior approval. I always understood when I was at the Ministry—and I was there for a long time—that before anyone invested money in plant and machinery it ought to be proved that it was going to do good to the person making the application, to the industry, and, eventually, as my noble friend said, to the consumer, and also that they had to prove that it was going to be worth while. What the noble Lord has said seems to be contradictions of all that has gone before. There may be very good reasons for it, but if that is so then the noble Lord ought to spell out what the reasons are. I am not objecting to them, because I do not know what they are, but before we give approval to them I hope that the noble Lord will give an explanation to your Lordships' House.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am again most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the welcome he has given to this Order. I am most grateful, also, for the constructive criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. Basically, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, were really making the same point: we are paying out this money; are we getting anything

1335
for it? In the opinion of my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's Government we are.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I was not saying that. I was convinced that we were getting a return for our investment. I was questioning the changes by which people were allowed to invest without approval of any kind. I wanted to know the reason for the change.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I may direct the first part of my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, these Schemes are intended to encourage increased efficiency, and growers' readiness to invest in capital equipment is surely evidence that they are doing so. Investment in improvements in preparing produce for the market is eligible for grant, and we all know the disadvantages suffered by apple producers when there is a particularly good year. Her Majesty's Government are confident that these schemes are not only worth while, but absolutely vital to horticulturists and to the country.
I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. It was the last Administration who paved the way for the withdrawal of the worthwhileness test by an Amendment which they themselves made in the Agriculture Act 1970. Under earlier Schemes the Minister had to be satisfied that the cost of carrying out approved proposals was not unreasonably high in relation to the benefit derived from them in carrying on the business. Provision for this test of cost-benefit was contained in Section 1(4) of the Horticultural Act 1960, now repealed by Section 31 of the 1970 Act. In considering the rationalisation of the capital grant schemes it was concluded that the decision as to whether or not investment was worth while for the farm business could now reasonably be left to the farmer or grower himself. He would be contributing the major part of the cost; and advice is obtainable from the advisory service. My Lords, I may not have quite satisfied the noble Lord, but I hope that I have gone a little way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS SCHEME 1970

  FARM STRUCTURE (PAYMENTS TO OUTGOERS) SCHEME 1970
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on December 1, be approved. With permission, I hope it will be convenient to consider also the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1970 at the same time, as the two are very much linked together. The Amalgamations Scheme is made under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967, and the Outgoers Scheme is made under Section 27, in both cases as amended by Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1970. By virtue of an order which has been made under Section 29 of the 1970 Act these amendments take effect on January 1, 1971. The draft Schemes would come into effect on that date and would replace the current 1967 Schemes, making several improvements in the existing provisions.
  There are two main reasons for the amendments in the 1970 Act and the new Schemes before us to-day. First, we are intending to pay all our agricultural capital grants under the new Farm Capital Grant Scheme, which your Lordships have already approved, and a new Amalgamation Scheme is required to enable grant on remodelling works arising from amalgamations to be paid under that Scheme. This should make life easier for the farmer who wants to get grant on items in addition to remodelling works, because he will be able to get grant on the lot under one scheme. On the Ministry's part, the unification of the grants will, as I have alreday explained, enable us to save time and reduce paperwork. The second reason for the new Schemes is that a number of defects in the original provisions have come to light and the opportunity has been taken to correct these. The previous Government gave notice in another place that they intended to make it easier for some prospective outgoers to qualify for relaxing the income test. The object of the test is to make sure that the outgoers' payments

  1337
  go only to people who have been mainly dependent on their farm for their income and do not, for example, go to hobby farmers. The test requires that three-quarters of the income of the outgoer and his wife must come from the farm, but before calculating this proportion a certain amount of non-farm income is disregarded. At present the amount of annual non-farm income which is disregarded in deciding whether an outgoer is eligible is £400, and with this low figure some deserving cases have been excluded. The revised Outgoers Scheme increases the amount from £400 to £750.
  We are also making several minor improvements in the Schemes, but perhaps I need only draw your Lordships' attention specifically to the provision which the new Amalgamations Scheme makes for amalgamations which absorb part only of an uncommercial unit—because, for example, the rest is going for amalgamation elsewhere—and also to the additional provision in the Outgoers Scheme to help widows whose husbands die while their applications are being dealt with. I should also mention the new provisions in paragraph 9 of the Amalgamations Scheme, which apply to England and Wales only and which make grants available to local authorities for amalgamations involving the creation of a certain number of permanent intermediate units. These are amalgamations which are not being carried out as steps towards the eventual formation of commercial units, but are, nevertheless, among those which give effect to approved proposals for the reorganisation of smallholdings estates. I think I should add that although the 1967 schemes met with a fairly encouraging response at first, this has not been maintained. In an attempt to encourage more amalgamators to take advantage of these grants the previous Government reduced from 40 to 15 years the period for which amalgamated units are subject to the restrictive conditions of Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act, which are designed to prevent such units from being broken up again. This was a step which we on this side supported.
  The changes which have been made, taken together, should encourage a greater response from amalgamators and outgoers. It is in any case necessary to revise the Schemes at this time so that we can carry through the unification of
  1338
  the farm capital grants. But I must confess to your Lordships that we are not completely confident that the changes made in these Schemes will be sufficient to get the results we want. There must be a much better response than there has been from the current Schemes before we can declare ourselves satisfied. As the Minister of Agriculture has already announced, we are carrying out a fundamental review of the structure schemes to see whether we can give more effective help for amalgamations. If it is decided as a result of that review that further changes are needed, we shall bring forward the necessary provisions, but, in the meantime, I feel sure that the revised Schemes represent an improvement on the 1967 ones. I have pleasure in moving that the Motions now be approved.
  Moved—
  That the Draft Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved:
  That the Draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to the 1967 and 1970 Acts in this connection. Clearly, what was done in those Acts was the right thing to do; namely, to try to secure a condition in which some of these farms which clearly are not viable units are merged into larger ones. We in this country are not as bad as some. Some of the Continental countries, with which we may well find ourselves being closely associated eventually, have farm structures that are positively laughable. I am thinking of the very small units I happen to have seen in South Germany, and certainly some in France, where clearly the size of the farms was such that they could not possibly hope to be viable units. That was partly due to the laws of inheritance. But never mind about what it was due to: the fact was that they were not good farm structures, either for the men trying to farm them or for the country as a whole.
  I am sure that what has been done up to now in this connection was the right thing to do, and I am glad that the noble Lord and his Government have

  1339
  taken on the task of continuing this work and making the minor improvements that appear in the two Orders that are before us to-day. I sincerely trust that the hope he expressed will be realised, that there will be a greater response from some of the small farmers and people who will be interested here to this new initiative on the part of the Government. This is certainly a well worth while thing to do, and I sincerely hope that the money which will be spent on it—and that will be considerable in the end—will have the effect that we desire; namely, of securing that the farms in this country are viable units from which a man can get a decent standard of living and also enjoy the fruits of his labour, as he clearly should do. My Lords, I am glad to welcome these two new Orders.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION (No. 2) ORDER 1970
5.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970. Both this Order and the following Order which I shall be moving afterwards relate to the remuneration of the Judiciary. The second of the two Orders—the Judicial Office (Salaries) Order 1970—relates to what is called the Lower Judiciary of England and Wales; that is, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the county court judges and the Metropolitan magistrates. With the leave of the House, I propose to discuss both these Orders together, although of course any individual points relating to the second Order can be raised on the second, when I move it separately.
The first Order, the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, relates to the so-called Higher Judiciary, and not merely the Higher Judiciary of England and Wales, but also that of Scotland and Northern Ireland; namely, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President
1340
of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, the Lords Justices of Appeal, the Judges of the High Court of Justice, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice-Clerk and ordinary Judges of the Court of Session, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the Lords Justices of Appeal for Northern Ireland and the Puisne Judges of the High Court of Justice in the same Province.
Both these Orders are in some sense a result and a necessary corollary of recent announced increases in the salaries of the Civil Service and chairmen of nationalised industries. But whereas the Lower Judiciary and those concerned with the following Order have since the war followed conventionally more or less automatically on the increases in Civil Service pay, the Higher Judiciary have not; and in this case direct comparability with the Civil Service is neither suggested nor desired; although comparability with the Lower Judiciary is, I should have thought, inevitable and therefore some indirect comparability with the Civil Service is unavoidable. The history of the matter is therefore of some importance in discussing both the scales and the timing.
In March, 1969, the National Board for Prices and Incomes published proposals for increases in the salaries of chairmen and members of nationalised industries' Boards. That is contained in their Report No. 107, Cmnd. 3970. Almost immediately afterwards the so-called Plowden Committee, the statutory Advisory Committee on the pay of the Higher Civil Service, published proposals for similar increases in the pay of Permanent Secretaries and higher civil servants. These proposals represented increases respectively of 60 per cent. and 63 per cent. It was accordingly then proposed that these large increases should be made in three stages. The previous Government accepted the increases as regards the first stage, but at first reserved their position as regards the remaining two.
The Permanent Secretaries received the first of their increases in July, 1969, and their second in July, 1970, under, I think, arrangements made by our predecessors. The third was due on July 1, 1971, but by a considered decision of the present Government, announced last August, this

1341
was made effective as from January 1, 1971, instead of July. Under the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the chairmen of the nationalised Boards followed suit.
Since 1957 an increase in the salaries of the Lower Judiciary has been dependent on Orders laid by the Lord Chancellor and subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. As I have said, in the case of the Lower Judiciary increases have since the war been related more or less automatically to any increases in the Higher Civil Service. This was the case in, I think, 1967. Accordingly it has always been assumed that Orders to give effect to increases corresponding with the Plowden recommendations would follow pari passu with the Civil Service increases, and that parallel action would be taken administratively to keep other members of the Lower Judiciary, who do not need Parliamentary Resolutions, in step.
My Lords, it is at least my opinion that for many years the Higher Judiciary have been less well treated than either the Lower Judiciary or the civil servants. This is largely because until 1965 a special Act of Parliament was required to increase their salaries. But even since 1965 an Order in Council, backed by Affirmative Resolution, has been necessary in their case, though such is not the case with the civil servants. Since no comparability has ever been established between the Higher Judiciary and the Civil Service, the effect has been gradually to erode the position of High Court judges both against the Civil Service and against the Lower Judiciary, with the latter of whom, of course, as I have said, there must be a certain comparability.
Thus, to give an example, a High Court judge's salary was not increased from £5,000 until 1954—no pay rise for more than a century, although of course the standards of living generally had risen very much indeed. It remained at £8,000 until 1966—that is to say, it did not rise for more than 12 years. It remained at £10,000 from 1966 until this year, when it was raised to £11,500 to take into account the first stage in the Plowden recommendations. By that time the Civil Service pay of a Permanent Secretary, which had been only 60 per cent. of that of a High Court judge in 1938, was £400 more than
1342
that of a High Court Judge as at July 1, 1970.
The effect of implementing the third stage of Plowden on January 1, 1971, would have been to give the Permanent Secretary a £2,500 lead over a puisne judge of the High Court. The differential between the higher and the lower Judiciary was also eroded. At the begining of the period—that is to say, before the war—a county court judge received £2,000. but by 1954 the figure was £2,800 and it will now be £7,850. In other words, they have climbed from just over one-third of the salary of a High Court judge to just over two-thirds.
It is not proposed by the present Order to restore the differential, but it has been abundantly plain that to maintain the standards in the High Court Bench further erosion must be prevented. High Court judges are normally recruited from members of the Bar of a class whose earnings may be expected to be very high indeed, and county court judges are often only a little lower. They are all lawyers who can easily obtain employment in the City, either as salaried legal advisers with "top hat" pensions, or on boards of directors or as partners in merchant banks. They have lost whatever advantage used to be obtained by the exemption from income tax on post-retirement earnings.
I now come to the House and seriously say that the rate for the job is certainly not less (and in my judgment ought ideally to be higher) than that now proposed. In spite of the increase in the numbers of judges the volume of work transacted has greatly increased. Criminal appeals (or applications for leave) have risen for the four years 1965 to 1969 by 221 per cent.; appeals heard by 119 per cent.; sitting days in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division by 31 per cent.; the number of criminal trials by 42 per cent.; and the number of civil and divorce proceedings (the latter excluding undefended divorces) by 86 per cent.
I should have liked to give the total number of sitting days in this period in the High Court, but the figures are not comparable since in 1965 (though not now) the sitting days in the High Court were swollen by the presence of county court judges sitting as divorce commissioners, which of course now they no

1343
longer do. Increases in Northern Ireland and in Scotland have, I am told, been greater than in England. Being a High Court judge involves long periods away from home, undertaking onerous duties such as chairmen on commissions, committees and inquiries. Apart from anything else, I must stress that much of the day to day work of the High Court judge has to be undertaken after he leaves his court.
My Lords, percentagewise the increases for the higher Judiciary after allowing for tax—which at that level of income seems to me the fair test, being virtually their take-home pay—is less than 5 per cent. for a Lord Chief Justice (on the assumption that he is married and without young children); 9·16 per cent. for a puisne judge (married without young children), and rather larger figures for the lower Judiciary, who of course have not had a rise as recently as May 15, 1970. In each case these percentages make allowance for the increase in the standard rate recently proposed.
I have not so far mentioned the fact that the higher Judiciary have voluntarily agreed to forgo these increases until July, 1971, which presumably will halve these figures. I do not myself feel that in making these proposals, which will cost £304,650 for the higher Judiciary of the three parts of the United Kingdom, and £172,900 for the lower Judiciary of England and Wales, I am asking the House to spend money unwisely.
My Lords, there is one thought uppermost in my mind as I move these Orders. It is that by this process judges, unlike the chairmen of nationalised industries or civil servants, being compelled to submit to ordeal by Affirmative Resolution, are put in a singularly invidious position as regards other comparable employment. The time has surely come to get rid of the present set-up altogether and to substitute the proposed review body which the present Government have undertaken to set up.
There is only one other thing I should like to add. When the salary increases were announced, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, hinted that the salary of the Lord Chancellor is not affected, with the result that for the first time in history he will be paid less than the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of
1344
the Rolls, or a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. My Lords, I do not complain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, laid before the House on 8th December, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.45 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining this Order to us. I agree that it is convenient to discuss both Orders together, although I appreciate that for technical reasons they will have to be put separately. In view of the fact that these are the last items on the Order Paper to-day and that there are not many noble Lords in the House, and I believe the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, or had, a committee to go to—although it is probably over by now—I was tempted to take these Orders as read and to say little about them, but I think that would be wrong.
We live in times when there are those who both think and say that although for many years the Electrical Trades Union has been a moderate and well-conducted trade union, and one which, probably more than any other union in the country, has made notable contributions to increased productivity, the psychological effect of an increase in their wanes of more than 10 per cent. on other persons who have claims pending would be such that it ought not to be allowed. The question has been, and I think is bound to be, asked, what is the psychological effect likely to be if men, however distinguished, who had an increase of 15 per cent.—£29 a week—on their then remuneration as recently as May 29 of this year, now get a further increase of another £48 a week?
My Lords, these Orders are being considered in the other place to-morrow and I think this House would make a mistake if it ran away from, and did not seek in any way to answer, that question. While I do not propose to repeat, because I agree with them, the things which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I think there are some even wider considerations. We, the people, had a long fight to obtain the independence of the higher Judiciary from the Executive, and as many of your

1345
Lordships know, if one goes to the central lobby of the Central Criminal Court the brass plate which is there in tribute to Mr. Bushell, the foreman, and other members of the jury who tried William Penn, the Quaker, for seditious libel (he afterwards went to America and founded Pennsylvania) was well deserved. They were a good, strong, contumacious British jury. They went to prison for a principle, and in the end the fight was won.
It was enshrined in the Act of Settlement, by which, as your Lordships know, the higher Judiciary could no longer be removed by the Executive but only by Parliament, and their remuneration could be determined only by Parliament and not by the Executive. While none of us would wish to change that, in my opinion it has had the effect that to-day the remuneration, particularly of the higher Judiciary, has fallen markedly behind the remuneration received by the leaders of other professions and persons occupying a similar status in the Public Service, and I think it is right that the reasons for that should be realised.
Of course it is nice to say that the remuneration of the higher Judiciary can be determined only by Parliament, but the first thing to observe is that it has never got before Parliament unless the Executive has put it there; and secondly that the Executive, whatever Party is in power, has in the past shown some reluctance to put before Parliament proposals for increases. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, it has happened only three times in our history, and the last Government was in fact the first Government in our history to propose to Parliament increases in remuneration for the higher Judiciary twice in one Parliament.
The reason why the Executive has shown reluctance, I think, to put such a case before Parliament is this. In the case of the surgeons and doctors in the National Health Service; in the case of the Armed Forces; in the case of Chairmen of boards of nationalised industries; in the case of the Civil Service, and in the case of Ministers and Members of Parliament, every Government which has come forward in recent times with proposals for increases has always been able to say, "We have submitted the question of what is the right remuneration for this group to a wholly independent board or
1346
committee, and these are the rates of remuneration which they recommend". But in the case of the higher Judiciary—and in the case of this group only—the Government has to take the responsibility, because their remuneration has never been so inquired into by any independent body. The Government has to get a figure as best it can, and justify it. I believe that for these reasons the remuneration particularly of the higher Judiciary has been prejudiced in the past.
It is I think known that the previous Government had it in mind to amalgamate the Prices and Incomes Board and the Monopolies Commission into a Commission on industry and Manpower (a title which, if I may say so, I never thought the happiest), because they felt it unsatisfactory to have so many different Committees inquiring into remuneration in the more sensitive fields, and that it would be right to have one overall body, a special panel of which would consider all these five sensitive areas.
I should not myself have agreed to any proposal to change the way in which the remuneration of the Judiciary was arrived at without their agreement. But I took the proper steps to ascertain the opinion of the judges, and they were in favour of such a review applying to them. About what is to happen in the future I am not at the moment at all clear, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he will be good enough to explain this a little further. The right honourable gentleman, the Lord President, was, I thought, very clear in what he said on December 4, but he was followed by the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister on December 8, and I am quite unable to reconcile what they said.
The Lord President was, if I may say so, quite clear when he said—and I am new quoting from column 1723 and 1724 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for December 4—that the Government intended:
"to establish three Review Bodies to advise on the remuneration of certain groups for whom, for one reason or another, no negotiating machinery was appropriate. One of these"—
that is to say, one of the Review Bodies—
"was to advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the

1347
Armed Forces, and, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby mentioned, such other groups as might appropriately be considered with them. This Review Body, along with the others to be set up, would be serviced by an Office of Manpower Economics which would not be part of the Government machine. Its reports would, therefore, be entirely independent."
He went on to say:
"… such a body would perhaps be better placed than any specially constituted body could be to study this difficult question of the remuneration of Members of Parliament … it would be the Government's intention, when this Review Body has been set up early in the new year, to refer to it the whole question of the emoluments, allowances, expenses and pensions of Ministers and Members of the House of Commons."
That seems clear, my Lords. So far as the Judiciary are concerned, they, with all these other sensitive sectors, are to have their remuneration reviewed by one of these three Review Bodies. What the other two Review Bodies are to do we were not told.
But I cannot reconcile that statement with what the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, said four days later, on December 8 (col. 255). He referred to the Judiciary, senior officers of the Armed Forces, other public servants, the chairmen and deputy chairmen of nationalised industry boards; and he said:
"Following this announcement, members of the Judiciary were given an assurance that Orders would be laid before Parliament…
Then he said:
"I have to inform the House that senior members of all these four groups"—
and he went on to refer to the offer to forgo the increase for six months. Later, in col. 257, he said:
"Future reviews will come under the group of Review Bodies being set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but no detailed arrangements have yet been made as to the particular Review Bodies before which they will appear … They will include the doctors. There will be a number of review panels"—
the Review Bodies have now become panels—
"but we have not yet settled the different review panels which will consider the situation of these four groups of public servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 257.]
Apart from the fact that there are five groups, this seems to conflict with the clear previous statement that one of the
1348
three Review Bodies would consider all these five groups.
I am more puzzled when I see that, at the bottom of col. 259, he says:
"That was the purpose of all the Government's actions; but I thought it right and appropriate, in view of the publication of the Prices and Incomes Board Report on the position of the Judiciary",
and so on. I am not clear what that meant at all. I do not know of any Prices and Incomes Board Report on the Judiciary. I would invite the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, to tell us what he can further about that. Have the judges been consulted? If they have been consulted, have they agreed? Will it be one of the three Review Bodies which considers their remuneration as well as that of the four other groups; or will it be a review panel? Does a panel envisage a selection from a larger number? And, if so, what sort of number; and what are likely to be their qualifications?
I took steps to satisfy myself that the special Commission proposed by the last Government would have had on it one or more persons who were familiar with judicial life: the long weeks and months spent away from wives and adolescent children—and judges want to see their children growing up, as much as any other father does; the difficulties of a job in which a judge cannot afford to let his attention wander for a moment, but where everything he does in court is done in public and before the Press, when any incautious observation may be repeated and criticised in every newspaper in the country on the following day. I should have thought it most essential that if, for the first time, the remuneration of judges is to be considered by some Review Body or panel there should be on it at least some who are familiar with judicial life.
Lastly, will the noble and learned Lord be approving the terms or reference? Will these simply extend to remuneration, or will they include pension? It is, I think, well known that the Treasury have never been too happy about conditions of judicial pensions. May I express the hope that advantage will not be taken of this by the Treasury to try to obtain worse terms?
My Lords I think there is an answer to the question which has been asked,

1349
but of course I cannot congratulate the Government on their timing. It does seem very extraordinary just at the present time, when we have been hearing about other men, some of whom have take-home pay of £18 15s., and a wife and three children, and who have taken quite exceptional steps in the field of productivity. I know it is said, and rightly said, that the employers have made a great contribution to productivity by the purchase of the necessary machinery—and of course that is true. But then you have to get your employees to agree to work the new machines. Mr. Cannon, whom I knew well, and whose death I am sure we all deplore, was an outstanding trade union leader who realised that much the best basis for increased pay is increased productivity. I think I am right in saying that, out of a work force of 150,000, their productivity agreement was such that the employers were enabled to dispense altogether with the services of 26,000. That, I should imagine, takes some "selling" to a trade union. It does seem a very odd time, just as this is before the public, and just as it is said, "They may have a very good case; they may have the best case in the world. But inflation, you know! And look at the effect on subsequent pending pay claims if men are to get as much as 11 per cent, at this time!" to introduce these Orders, having regard to the percentages here in question.
6.2 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I wish to pursue a little further the thoughts to which my noble friend Lord Gardiner has given utterance. The announcement of the increases in these salaries has been received, generally speaking, with a sort of congratulatory, and to some extent a self-congratulatory, glow. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, they derive, albeit indirectly, from the National Board for Prices and Incomes. That Report to which allusion has been made was, in my opinion, one of the less fortunate productions of the Board which the Government have decided to abolish. But I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that in those days the Board was in charge not only of salaries but also of prices. This makes an enor
1350
mous difference when we are discussing these problems, because the whole ambit of life at that point was different from that with which we are now confronted.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that that Report on top salaries was one the most unfortunate things that has happened in this country in the last few years, and certainly one of the most potent causes of the type of inflation which then of course, through the Kindersley Report, generally established itself in all professions and gave the most unfortunate impression to everybody else. The salary rises with which we are now confronted are, roughly speaking, of the order of 9 to 10 per cent. per annum in the past four years; that is to say, more than was the average in those years, though of course very much less than the current average. Surely, something which has been condemned ought not to be accepted.
The historical review by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which we have listened with great attention and interest, reminded me, and probably some of your Lordships, of the wrangle between the higher and lower engineering workers as to which of the differentials ought or ought not to be preserved. I feel that a tone which should not really creep into the Judiciary has in this way been adopted. There is, move-over, an implication that the relative remuneration of people, such as dustmen and Dukes, at a certain previous point of time was right and ought to be restored. I cannot possibly accept this. I do not think it is acceptable if we are to have consensus in this country. I do not believe that a consensus is possible except by a much more equal distribution of the national income, which must include salaries.
This leads me to my second point. If we are to prosper in this country, these questions must be settled by consent and consensus, and not by crude forces emanating from unemployment and the mobilisation of public opinion. However, the Government have established three separate bodies. The leapfrogging of salaries which inevitably this will involve is going to have the most unfortunate possible effect on wages. It has been said that the Government are setting up these salary determining bodies in

1351
circumstances where no satisfactory negotiating machinery exists. But is there any trade or industry in which a satisfactory negotiating machinery can exist when you are confronting two highly powerful monopolies? Of course there will have to be an arbitration of one kind or another. What the Government have now decided is that the arbitration should be by ordeal of force—of market forces. And they have decided on an incomes policy. Let it be quite clear that we have an incomes policy at this point in this country, though no prices policy. It is determined by the pull downwards of unemployment and the pull upwards of the monopoly power of the combined industry and trade unions. This cannot lead to anything but bitterness, and the need for permanent deflation, which will put this country permanently behind the other countries of Europe and the industrialised countries of the world, as it has happened in the last twenty years.
I am sorry that the judges and their colleagues have not gone much further than they have gone; and if they could not accept the precept noblesse oblige, at least have acted on the precept of sagesse oblige.
6.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, nearly twenty years ago the judges were due for a rise in pay, very much more modest in those days than it is to-day, and I remember writing to The Times saying that it was not proper to give them a rise in pay and that surtax should be reduced. Needless to say, the letter was not published. But just imagine how things would have improved had that letter been published and the Government of the day had taken advantage of it, because we are now dealing with one of the most ridiculous anomalies that I have ever heard of. The nationalised industries and the top Judiciary are being given rises, the top portions of which are going to be removed by the Government of the day as to 91¾ per cent., and put straight back into the Treasury. It is increasing the overheads of these industries, and it is increasing the cost of the Judiciary. The only person who benefits in the end is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a stupid anomaly and yet we perpetuate it because Government after Government are afraid to tackle surtax.
6.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two in reply to the speeches that have been made. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, very sincerely for the earlier part of his remarks; I thought they were very much in point. It cannot have been an altogether easy speech to have made from that Bench. I welcome very much indeed the implied support which it gives me. I hope that he will take that as a sincere tribute both to his courage and to the integrity of his remarks.
If I may, I will come to some of the other remarks he has made in logical rather than chronological order. In the first place, I was extremely glad that he made no bones about what people will be saying outside about the comparison between, for instance, the claim of the Electrical Trades Union and the other unions and what is now being proposed. I deliberately omitted that from my opening speech because I thought it was inappropriate to my opening speech, and that I should stick strictly to the Orders and the material for them. However, it does enable me to say one or two things which require very much to be said about it.
I do not want to go into the merits of that particular dispute, because in the present context it would be inappropriate for a person of my office even to refer to the kind of thing which the Government and Parliament have been discussing in the past few days. I will say that I share his sorrow at the death of Mr. Cannon, which was almost universally deplored. He was a great servant of his own movement, and he was very widely loved outside his own body of friends. I do not think I ought to allow my remarks to trespass any further on that particular matter, although I think the noble and learned Lord went further than I propose to do.
What I want to say quite plainly to the House, and to the noble and learned Lord, is that when you are dealing with increases in pay you have really to compare like with like. I do not shrink from this any more than the noble and learned Lord did; this sort of thing has to be brought out into the open and discussed quite openly. What is like with like? I

1353
am not talking about wages in the electricity industry, because if you start talking about the pay structure of an industry you do not know a great deal about you obviously make errors of detail which deprive your remarks of the value which they are intended to have. Broadly speaking, over industry as a whole, take home pay consists of wages and a certain amount of money earned by overtime. The lower paid workers do not attract much, and sometimes do not attract anything in the way of direct taxation, but they sometimes make up on a basic salary, or some equivalent, by way of Overtime. Take home pay is, therefore, the right way of judging from the outside of an industry, although it may be wholly inappropriate for the purpose of a Court of Inquiry, or for the purpose of negotiation between employers and employed, who are concerned with the details of the structure. However, take home pay, from outside the industry, is not an unfair yardstick to take when you are discussing the question of wage increases from time to time and their possible effect on inflation.
Take home pay, when you are dealing with the higher Judiciary, or any of the other higher paid posts which we have discussed marginally in connection with this Order, is something very different. Judges do not get overtime or special responsibility pay if they have to head a Commission. I do not know whether the actual Court of Inquiry will be headed by a judge, but one may well be asked to do so, and the noble and learned Lord knows even better than I that almost every few days a Lord Chancellor is being asked by one of his colleagues to provide a High Court judge to chair an independent inquiry.
I will come back to that point, if I may, when I come to deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The only point I am making about it at the moment is that the judge does not get overtime for doing it, and does not get anything extra, although he may have extra responsibility and extra time to work. The take home pay for a judge is not basic rate plus overtime; it is basic rate minus surtax and income tax I come back here to my noble friend Lord Hawke. I pointed out, I think accurately, that even if he had not forgone half of it, the Lord Chief Justice, to take an example, assuming he is
1354
married and without young children entitling him to children's allowance, gets less than 5 per cent. on this wage increase. I think it was very much less than generous of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, not to recognise that when you are talking about salary increases you are bound to talk realistically; and if you are going to talk in terms of percentages you must compare like with like.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if he wants to talk realistically about higher salaries, should take into account other things than the surtax and the income tax. I am sure he is far too learned a judge, and far too sceptical in his knowledge of mankind, not to know what high salaries mean in regard to surtax. We know very well what surtax means in this country. The national income of this country has increased tenfold, and the surtax rates have trebled, and the surtax takings have increased twice. I do not wish to imply anything, but if he talks realistically we ought to take into account these facts also, and also the pensions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord was not listening accurately to what I was saying. Obviously, if we are going to discuss the whole question of differentials in industry we must choose another debate to do it. All I said was, and I stick to it, and it was a perfectly fair criticism of the noble Lord's speech, that if you are going to talk in terms of crude increases, in terms of money and in terms of the percentages, you must compare like with like, and not like with unlike. That is the only proposition I was making, and it seems to me to be an indisputable one.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am exceedingly sorry, and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I do want to compare like with like. The pay of a top-salaried person, after surtax, is not comparing like with like when dealing with the take home pay of a worker.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is getting away with this at all. What I was saying to him, and I say it now for the third time and I hope that this time he will accept it, is that if you are going to talk about percentage increases you

1355
must take percentages on comparable figures; otherwise you are misleading people. The Lord Chief Justice and his puisnes are in fact getting very much less than the 10 per cent. which was offered to the unions by the employers in a recent dispute, if you take like with like; my contention being that, for the purpose of calculating a percentage increase, you ought to take take-home pay as a good yardstick if you are outside the industry. I am not discussing, although I will say a word about it in a moment, the general question of surtax, incomes policy, or prices policy, in connection with the present Order. I doubt whether the House would have much patience with me if I endeavoured to enlarge upon the various philosophical concepts which the noble Lord voiced when he came to criticise what is now being done.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I think quite fairly, from his point of view, criticised the timing of this proposal. I greatly sympathise; but the timing really was not, with great respect, of our choosing. Obviously we had to time it to get the increases at the point of time at which they will be effective when they have been promised. It is, therefore, largely as a result of the functioning of the Special Orders Committee of this House, and of the Affirmative Resolution procedure, that we have to do it before we break up for Christmas. The time really was not of my choosing. Therefore, although the criticism is a perfectly sound one from his own point of view, I think he will take it that I do not view the timing with any more pleasure than he does. I would only say this to him—and he has considerably more experience about this problem than I have—that there seldom is a time which is convenient from that point of view for a Government to propose higher salaries for the higher Judiciary. Frankly, I acknowledge the courage of the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues in having twice done it during their term of office. But I venture to think that their memories are not altogether happy ones about the moments they chose, any more than my present experience is a happy one about the moment to which I am driven. But I do not think that the timing point—although it is a fair one, or would have been fair if I had not frankly acknowledged that it was disagreeable to
1356
me—is a point which should trouble the House when it looks at the realities of the situation.
Before I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, I should like to deal in a little more detail with a question which I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He found difficulty in reconciling the statement of the Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary on December 8, with an earlier statement by the Lord President as part of a more considered set of remarks on the same subject. I sympathise with him, but I must tell him, from experience of another place, that the atmosphere in which one answers supplementaries is not quite as easy as it is in this House; and even in this House I have known Ministers, of both political persuasions, sometimes get their answers to supplementaries a little wrong, when their original Answers were quite right.
The right answer to this point is, of course, that the Lord President was accurately reflecting an earlier statement, which should be treated as the governing statement, by the Secretary of State for Employment who said the following on November 2:
"The Government intend … to establish at an early date three Review Bodies with a degree of interlocking membership. One will advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the Armed Forces and such other groups as might be appropriately considered. … Another will advise on the pay of the Armed Forces generally. A third will advise on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. These three Bodies will have at their disposal and working to their directions a secretariat provided by a new Office of Manpower Economics."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, 2/11/70; col. 668.]
In other words, that, and neither of the statements to which the noble and learned Lord referred, should be looked at as the fountain of wisdom for the moment of Government thinking on this general subject.
That earlier statement in fact answers a few of the questions, though not all of them, which the noble and learned Lord quite properly asked me. Of course I shall consult the Judiciary. I have taken certain steps already, and I have every reason to believe that it will be agreeable to them that the higher group Review Body will be the one to undertake the

1357
reviews connected with them. I am grateful for the points which the noble and learned Lord raised about the desirability of my being concerned as to the composition and the terms of reference. I cannot give him any answer about the matter now, but I am sure that his remarks will be noted as coming from an authoritative source, and I will certainly bring them to the attention of my colleagues. I think that is as far as I can take this particular point.
I come back for a moment to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The truth of the matter is that I want these salaries because I want to attract the best men, and men of suitable calibre, to the job. It is vital to the present existence and honour of this country that we maintain the standards of our higher Judiciary and of the new Judiciary—the county court judges as they are now; the Circuit judges as they will become, if and when the Courts Bill becomes law—at an adequate level. Law, and the administration of law, is, in my opinion, the first of the social services and the basis of social morality, without which nothing else can be done. The fact of the matter is—the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, as a devoted Socialist, may deplore it—that earnings at the Bar are very high, and they are even higher in some of the ranks of the solicitors' profession. The fact is that I have to recruit judges from the Bar, and even if the full desires of the solicitors' profession and of the Circuit Bench were met I should have to recruit from an equally high group of men and women, and I have to have a properly paid Judiciary if I am at all to discharge my functions as Lord Chancellor.
The salaries which are being put forward in this Motion are not based on some elaborate theory of comparability with the Civil Service, although I gave my reasons for saying that they have a certain connection both as regards content and timing. They are not based on any profound philosophy about free market forces, or the suitability of a private enterprise system or the wrong-headedness of Socialism. They are based fundamentally on pragmatic considerations. We need a fine Judiciary in this country—we have the best in the world, in my opinion—and I do not believe that
1358
we would get it if we did not pay it properly.
We find—and I said that I would come back to this at the end—that, time and time again, when this country is in trouble of one sort or another, when it wants to set up a commission of inquiry, when there is a scandal in public affairs, when there is a dispute in which absolutely impartial chairmanship of the first water is required, politicians of all Parties come to the Lord Chancellor and say, "Find me a judge." Now, my Lords, what sort of a Lord Chancellor would I be if I were to allow that profession to run down, and how much gratitude would I earn from Parliament if I were to submit to the kind of specious talk that people are only too ready to indulge in—particularly in another place—about the level of salary of the Judiciary? I should be unworthy to sit on the Woolsack. I hope that this Motion will now be passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES) ORDER 1970
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order be approved. I think that I can deal with this Order formally, since I explained in my former speech what it was about. But of course if there are any particular questions which noble Lords wish to raise about the lower Judiciary, they are now absolutely free to do so and I shall endeavour to answer them.
Moved, That the Draft Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1970, laid before the House on December 8, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, there is one point I should like to raise. As the noble and learned Lord knows, the remuneration of some judges can be dealt with administratively. I have never been able to make any sense out of, or see rhyme or reason in, the distinction between dealing with the lower Judiciary and those whose remuneration can be increased administratively, and those for whom an Order is necessary. I will not ask the noble and learned Lord to deal with this matter now, but I wonder whether he will agree that at some time

1359
or other this point really ought to be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think that some steps towards this are to be taken in the Courts Bill. There is, I think, no contemporary reason why the line of demarcation should be drawn where it is. There is no reason why, for instance, masters and county court judges should require this procedure, and I absolutely agree that an opportunity should be taken to bring the two classes together.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.