Lords Sitting of 29 January 1970

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

EXCHEOUER GRANT FOR FLATS STRENGTHENING
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: 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 why, in view of their announcement on January 19, 1970, of an increase in the Exchequer grant for strengthening tall blocks of flats following the Ronan Point disaster from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. they resisted an Opposition Amendment on July 16, 1969 so to increase it.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, since my right honourable friend made his original offer of a 40 per cent. grant for blocks covered by the recommendations of the Tribunal of Inquiry there have been further developments. The representative rate for basic housing subsidy has been increased and further information has been received from local authorities about the costs falling on them. My right honourable friend has been impressed by the views expressed and has therefore decided that it would be equitable for central Government and the local authorities concerned to share equally the financial burden of admissible expenditure.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of that Answer and for the rightness of the Government's decision. May I ask whether he can add something of
458
substance to the Answer? What real facts have occurred since last July, apart from the overwhelming arguments adduced by the Opposition at that time, which the Government then rejected and have now conceded?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the real facts which have occured are those which I gave in my original Answer; namely, that the representative rate has been increased and that the local authorities have given us more details about the costs falling upon them, neither of which facts had occurred at the time when the noble Lord pressed us to increase it last July.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if there was a possibility of further facts coming to light, would the Government not have been wiser to keep an open mind at that time? May I ask whether the local authorities are satisfied with this decision?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think it is known to the noble Lord that the local authorities originally asked for a 100 per cent. grant.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he and his Department are aware of the recent report of the British Ceramics Research Association on this particular subject, and the recommendations it made?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not personally aware of that report, though I hope that my Department is. If the noble Earl has any particular point to put to me about it, I will go into the matter.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his Department is aware that the British Ceramics Research Association carried out very extensive tests—explosive tests, which I witnessed—on a similar building to show exactly what should or should not be done with this form of construction?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Earl is in good health, but I think that my answer to his second supplementary question is included in my answer to his first.

FORESTRY COMMISSION'S TIMBER SALES
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 can give an approximate date in the future when the Forestry Commission will cease to sell timber at a loss.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, afforestation is a very long-term investment and the full return cannot be assessed for perhaps half a century. Only about 25 per cent. of the Forestry Commission's plantations are as yet productive, but even these are only old enough to produce an interim yield in the form of thinnings. Returns from sales of timber will improve as the Commission's plantations come into full production. The full value of these plantations will not, however, be realised for some 25 or 30 years, when many of the large-scale post-war plantings will mature.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that my information is that the Forestry Commission, on an average for the last two or three years, has been selling about £800,000 worth of timber which on the calculations of the Commission has cost £2,200,000 to produce? May I ask the noble Lord also whether the Forestry Commission has any plans to increase efficiency—to streamline management, for instance, and to cut down on the building of very expensive roads, or perhaps even to dispense with the first stage of thinnings?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Viscount's supplementary question, I am afraid I am not aware of what information he has, and I rather suspect the source of it. I do not think that the facts I know bear out what he has said. Indeed, before payment of interest, the Commission pretty well pays its way even now. The real difficulty here is that of the financial structure of the Commission, which is being looked into.
460
As to the second part of his question about the administrative structure of the Commission, I agree that that is something which could be streamlined, and steps are being taken towards that end.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would the Government consider issuing, quite apart from the Forestry Commission's Report, a short statement showing the total amount of expenditure on afforestation by the Commission since 1919 and the total value of the assets which have been created by that expenditure, including the value of young trees which have not yet reached the thinning stage? Is he aware that the public is not always well informed about this matter, and it might be a help to everybody if the figures could be given separately in a short and easily understood form?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is in agreement with the objectives of the Forestry Commission and is trying to be helpful. I will see whether there is any form in which the information can be given.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUM-OCHTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that thinnings form a valuable crop in the development of our forestry industry? Can he advise the House whether the Government are still anxious to develop, and where possible protect, the chipboard industry which uses the thinnings?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as I know, the Government are very anxious to give help to the chipboard industry; but I am not quite certain how that matter ties in with the Question on the Order Paper. If there is a particular point which the noble Lord would like me to answer and he will let me know later, I will see what information I can get.

ABORTION IN COWS AND MILK INFECTION
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why farmers' veterinary advisers can

461
treat mass abortion in a herd without having to notify the local authority's health department or the Milk Marketing Board.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, such a requirement would mean compelling private veterinary practitioners to disclose confidential information. Medical officers of health already have wide powers, in cases where they suspect that milk is infected, to prohibit its sale for human consumption or to require it to be heat-treated, and there is no reason to suppose that they are slow to use these powers.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all doctors reveal the complaint from which a patient is suffering when notifying a disease to the medical officer of health, but successive Governments have refused to allow brucellosis to be notifiable? Is my noble friend aware that this is the only means whereby a reactor can be traced? Is he further aware that during the debate on brucellosis last week every speaker, from all parts of the House, recognised that what is wrong at the moment is that people are allowed to sell these infected cows secretly on the market?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the notification of brucellosis raises quite a different and wider issue, and I should not wish to attempt to add anything to the conclusive reply which my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton gave at the end of the debate to which my noble friend refers. On the narrower point as to whether a veterinary surgeon should notify the medical officer of health locally that there has been this abortion fever and that he suspects that there is a brucellosis infection, I think that my noble friend has a point here. I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services and ask whether it can be considered. Of course, it would mean that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would have to agree to this change in their code of conduct, but I have no doubt that this could be arranged.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. May I ask him whether he is aware that veterinary surgeons and Medical Officers of Health throughout the country, of, may
462
I say, the finest kind and of high moral sense, have asked for this to be done, and that I put this Question down because of the number of letters I have had as a result of the debate last week?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; and I will see that any information which my noble friend gives me is taken into account.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend have a particular look at the position of producer retailers? — because although a medical officer of health can prohibit the sale of infected milk, it is difficult to see how he can do so if he has not had notification of mass abortion in a herd. In many localities producer retailers supply a large proportion of consumers.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I think the steps that are already taken do ensure that no untreated infected milk is on sale; but I do not think that this is the point which my noble friend Lady Summerskill raised. I think that her point has some substance; and, as I say, I will follow it up.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that there is no need for further legislation to enable notification to be made compulsory?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, notification is not now compulsory.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as I heard from the medical officer of health yesterday, in Flintshire there are 174 herds which provide untreated milk for the people?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is news to me, I must say. If my noble friend will give me the particulars I will look into the matter.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Committee on Safety of Drugs

463
has not taken appropriate action since the makers of Normenon and Verton recently announced that they have ceased manufacture of these oral contraceptives.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Committee on Safety of Drugs has acted appropriately at all times during the developments arising from the decision of the Food and Drug Administration to suspend clinical trials with Normenon. The Committee immediately asked for detailed evidence from the Food and Drug Administration, which it has since been actively considering, and has been in constant touch with the manufacturers. Research is continuing into the effect of chlormadinone acetate. The Committee will advise the professions and Her Majesty's Government accordingly.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last Thursday I asked whether she would ask the Government to ban these oral contraceptives, and that 48 hours later I had a letter from the manufacturers, as did many other doctors, saying that they were no longer going to manufacture these drugs? Is she therefore prepared to say that the Committee on Safety of Drugs should continue examining this matter without announcing to the women of the country why these drugs are no longer safe? Is my noble friend further aware that we were told a month ago that 21 drugs were not safe, but that these particular drugs were safe? Should not the poor, confused women be told why these contradictory statements are made?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the question that my noble friend asked me last week was whether the Government would suspend the sale of all oral contraceptives, and I replied that the Government saw no justification for doing so. The two drug manufacturers concerned withdrew, or rather suspended, their sale for the moment. I think it is entirely natural that they should have done so, since one of the parent companies in the United States had withdrawn temporarily their own supplies. I am afraid that I have forgotten the second part of my noble friend's question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend of what I asked? Does she recall that it was only last month when the women of this country were told that 21 drugs, oral contraceptives, with oestrogen in them, were unsafe but that those free from oestrogen were safe. These two were included specifically then, but have now proved to be unsafe, and the manufacturers are no longer manufacturing them. Should not the Committee on Safety of Drugs give another statement to the women and try to clarify this extraordinary position?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lord, the firms concerned wrote letters to all doctors, and of course were in touch with the Committee. It is, I would remind the noble Baroness, a suspension and not a total withdrawal— which I think is important. With regard to the Committee on Safety of Drugs, I find it a little distressing that the noble Baroness should consider that American scientists are better than our own extremely distinguished ones. When there are wonder cures announced abroad, our own medical profession do not uncritically accept them, and I am sure the House will think that it would be quite wrong if they did. Equally, when research takes place, in any place in the world, our own highly distinguished Committee asks for expert evidence from our research bodies to confirm, or not to confirm, such findings. I should also like to stress that there is continuous research going on, day in and day out, on such matters.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Food and Drug Administration in the United States are regarded of such importance in the world that immediately they withdrew these drugs from the market. France followed, New Zealand followed, Scandinavia followed; and we had people like Professor Wynne, our expert, now over in the United States, putting the case denouncing all these oral contraceptives because he attaches such importance to the American view.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the evidence against these two pills has not yet been published? I heard that from the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Seeing that it

465
has not been published, I cannot see how the Committee can consider it seriously.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am very grateful for that clarification by my noble friend. Naturally the Committee, as I stated, instantly sent for detailed information from the F.P.A. They are engaged on investigating it. At the moment, it is not confirmed or denied. The fact that the drug manufacturers themselves took action, understandably, as I say again, because their parent companies in the States had suspended it temporarily, is something for the drug manufacturers. But we must rely on our own expert evidence and research.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is it not the case that every single one of these drugs can be obtained only on a medical prescription?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, yes: this is certainly true in this country I should like to congratulate my noble friend on being, so far as I know, the only male Member of your Lordships' House to intervene on this particular Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my final question on that point? Is my noble friend aware that the last inquest reported (I think last week, on a girl of 18) revealed that the doctor had signed the prescription for oral contraceptives which had been made out by the receptionist, but that he had never seen the girl?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am rather sorry that my noble friend seeks to criticise her own profession in that particular way. There are, of course, always exceptions to all good professions, but that ought not to affect our general investigations and, indeed, rulings.

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that
466
the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK) BILL
3.26 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before we pass this Bill I think I ought to say that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Donaldson indicated that he was sure that I would see that a White Paper was published on certain aspects of this matter. In fairness, I ought to make it clear that there will be no White Paper. It is not considered necessary. Indeed, my noble friend himself later on in his remarks gave the details of the

467
processes involved in the ultra-heat treatment of milk by this method. I hope your Lordships will now agree that no White Paper is in fact necessary.
On Question, Bill passed.

GENERAL RATE BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Bill is directed to the general revaluation of property for rates in 1973. It seeks to improve certain technical procedures involved in rating valuation in time for that general revaluation. It is an extremely technical bill, it is very limited in its incidence, and I do not believe it is of great interest to the majority of your Lordships. Probably the time for such major discussion as there may be of its principles—because, indeed, it has only two principles; it is a very short Bill— may be in the Committee stage. In introducing it, I propose to limit myself simply to telling the House what it is about. I see that not many noble Lords have signified their intention of speaking, but I will listen to what questions and observations are uppermost in the minds of your Lordships at this stage and then answer them to the best of my ability, leaving, as I say, the major part of our discussion to the Committee stage.
What the Bill is about is simply this. There is no clear right in law for valuation officers to look outside an extremely restricted circle of circumstances in taking evidence of the general state of rents before putting a valuation for rates on a given property. The Bill will put it beyond doubt that they may look more widely than they do at present. It will not affect the relative weight of evidence gathered from close to or from similar property, as opposed to evidence gathered from further away, or from dissimilar property—that will stay as it is—but it will protect the valuation from the risk of upset in the courts. When very good nearby evidence is not available and the valuation officers have been forced to take further away evidence, it will protect the whole valuation system from the risk of upset in the courts to which at present it is liable.
That is the general principle of the Bill. I believe it is going to make the
468
valuation process more expeditious. It is not going in any way to affect the justice of the process, and I commend the Bill to your Lordships as effecting a simple, commonsense, practical improvement in one of the necessary processes of our society. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Kennet.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the brevity of his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not demur in any way to the procedure which he suggests and has initiated, provided that he will not mind my making a slightly longer speech at this stage. He was perhaps a little too modest about the smallness of this Bill in suggesting that it might be of no great interest to your Lordships. I cannot help thinking that, if in three years' time some of your Lordships learnt that valuations of your houses were to be increased and were informed by your professional advisers that this was due to the General Rate Act 1970, your Lordships might think it would have been wiser to take a greater interest in the Bill at this time.
Unfortunately, the Government had to cancel the quinquennial valuation that was due in 1968, because they had over-loaded the Valuation Office with work. I was glad to detect the noble Lord speaking as though the 1973 revaluation was definitely going to take place. I hope he can make a categoric statement to that effect, because there have been rumours that perhaps once again the Government might postpone the quinquennial revaluation, which would be very unfair to local authorities.
As the noble Lord said, the object of this short Bill is to make the task of the valuation officers more manageable. He might have added that their difficulties in arriving at gross values for house property are aggravated because gross values are derived from letting values and by now about half of all the houses in England and Wales are owner-occupied. That is an excellent thing for the nation, but it is a bad thing for the valuers, because owner-occupied houses are not let and therefore their rental value is no more than notional. Then, of the other

469
half of all these houses, a large proportion are council houses and flats which are let at artificial rents; and another large portion are nowadays under some form of rent control. So the sector in which free market rents operate has become smaller and smaller. It is rather like Alice, who felt herself becoming smaller and smaller after she had drunk something and realised that unless she did something else in a hurry she might vanish away completely. So the Government have done something in a hurry and produced this Bill.
The valuation officers whose duty it is to carry out the comprehensive revaluation for rating every five years have a colossal task, as your Lordships will appreciate if you seek to envisage it. They face the task of estimating free market rents for every house and flat throughout England and Wales, not to mention a lot of caravans on permanent sites, too, which now are liable to rating. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that the Bill is designed to ease the task of the valuation officers in two ways. First of all, if there are not many rented houses in the neighbourhood but a lot of rented flats, they will be able, if this Bill goes through, to take the current market rents of the flats into account when trying to arrive at a notional rent for a house, or indeed vice versa if it happens to be the other way round in a particular area. I can see the theoretic case for this, but it is proper to ask in Parliament how it is going to work out in practice. In what kind of areas is it expected that flat rents or assessments can usefully be adduced in determining house assessments, or indeed vice versa?
Where there is a strong demand for flats to let but little demand for houses to let, to argue from flat rents could obviously produce an injustice to house owners. If the valuation officer were to deduce from the known rent of a flat that the gross value of that flat should be £400, and if he were then to find a house in the same road which was twice as large, could he, with the help of this new Bill, argue from that that the gross value of the house should be £800? That would surely be quite unfair, if there were a much stronger demand in that neighbourhood for flats to let than for houses to let—which might very well be
470
the case because, for example, the houses were thought by many people to be too large or too difficult to run. I cannot quite see how this new power given to the valuation officer is going to conduce to justice.
There is a strong feeling in some places, I know, that flats are over-assessed in comparison with houses, and that there-fore flat dwellers are carrying too big a share of the rates. I suspect that this provision in the Bill may be some kind of subtle concession to that feeling. But if the actual fact is that in a particular place flats are more popular than houses for renting, the feeling of the flat dwellers about the relation between their assessments and the house occupiers' assessments is not really justified, and it would not be an act of justice to make concessions to it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who expressed his willingness to speak at greater length if asked questions, would explain how the new power given to the valuation officers to compare flats with houses, or indeed with caravans, is expected by the Government to operate; and how it is expected to lead to greater justice in such a case.
The second way in which the Bill is intended to help the valuation officers is by empowering them to adduce evidence of rents and gross values from the areas covered by other local valuation panels, provided that they are contiguous areas. This is a thoroughly sensible provision to propose. Actually, in the Bill as originally introduced in another place the valuation officers could have presented evidence from Cornwall to justify assessments which they proposed for Northumberland. Though the Bill as introduced ran to only 30 lines— it was much shorter than this Bill—it was given a searching examination by the Opposition in a Standing Committee in another place for nearly five hours, with the remarkable result that at Report stage the Government, seeing that their original proposal here was indefensible, took out no fewer than 10 of the 30 lines of the original Bill and replaced them with this very much more reasonable proposal which we now have before us.
The point is that comparison with houses and flats in a neighbouring village or neighbouring town may be very useful, but it would be a travesty of justice to

471
expect the householder, or his professional advisers, to check up on evidence brought forward by the Valuation Office from houses hundreds of miles away, as would have been permissible if the Bill had not been amended.
The other major success of the Opposition in another place was in getting subsection (2) of Clause 1 inserted at the Report stage. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) you will see that this is legislation by reference with a vengeance. I must say that these provisions look incomprehensible to the nonexpert, which includes me. But in a short Bill such as this I grant that legislation by reference is forgivable. I think that if your Lordships pursue your inquiries into subsection (3) of Section 83 of the General Rate Act, which is what subsection (2) of Clause 1 of this Bill refers back to, you will find that these lines do what the Government have said they do: they ensure that the occupier or ratepayer will be informed, at least 14 days in advance, of the facts which the valuation officer proposes to put in evidence when an appeal is coming before a local valuation panel.
My Lords, the substantial concessions made by the Government on Report stage in another place encourage me to think that your Lordships need not have great hesitation over giving the Bill a Second Reading, and that it will hardly be necessary to repeat here the prolonged examination to which this short Bill was subjected in Committee in another place.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the Government one more question. Can the noble Lord tell us what is the need for lines 9 to 14 on page 2 of the Bill? I am referring to the last few lines of subsection (1) of Clause 1. I have read carefully the debate in another place on an Amendment to omit this passage, and I must confess that the Government case as there stated leaves me unconvinced that these lines are necessary or that they improve the Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about them before we give the Bill a Second Reading.
My final word is that the Government present this Bill as an aid to the Valua-
472
tion Office in its huge task of tackling the 1973 revaluation. A far greater aid would be for the Government to abolish the Land Commission.
3.42 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, in my view the noble Lord has said something which is very important in relation to the general question of valuation. He has highlighted—which I think we all accept— the difficulties which are now encountered in seeking a proper basis for valuation, based upon a willing landlord and a willing tenant. If the landlord is willing the tenant usually is not; whereas if the tenant is willing the landlord is not, and the valuation officer has to find something in between them in order to provide a valuation. The extension of the area over which a valuation officer may operate may be helpful. Having regard to the tremendous importance of Government grants in relation to the rate support grant, and so on, it is highly important that we should have a much more even valuation over the whole of the country than we have at the present time. The intention behind taking away valuation from the rating authorities and giving it to the Inland Revenue was that there would be a proper valuation over the whole of the country. I do not think that this has yet been achieved, and I doubt whether it ever will be achieved; but what is becoming increasingly evident is that if rating is to be the main basis on which local authority revenues are to be raised, before long a more scientific approach must be found to the general question of how all properties, and certainly domestic properties, ought to be valued.
There are alternative ways other than the reference as between a willing land-lord and a willing tenant, and I hope that before long the Government will give general attention to the problem in order to see whether or not a more efficient technical system may be provided, or that we may have a better rating system than we have at the present time. Otherwise I believe that this Bill, so far as it goes, will be helpful inasmuch as it will widen the area that the valuation officer may use and will tend to reduce a little the un-evenness between one area and another. To that extent it will perform a useful purpose.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, first let me say that the Government most definitely intend to proceed to the 1973 revaluation, and indeed the preparatory work for that has already begun. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked two main questions. First, there was the question of comparing flats and houses. If the Bill becomes law, it is unlikely that flat rents will in fact be used as the only basis for valuing houses. But even if they were, proper adjustments would be made with the objective of determining the true level of the value of the houses relative to the flats.
The need to consider flat rents at all when valuing houses arises principally in areas where there are flat rents but no willing arrangement house rents and the former are the only direct indication of local dwelling rental values. Nevertheless, in such circumstances naturally the valuation officer will first use his powers under the Bill to search for house rents over a wider area; and, having formulated a basis for these, he will try to judge a basis for the area in question without house rents, having regard to any difference in the type of locality, house and general amenities. He will then examine the flat rents and consider these in relation to other flat rents over the wider area. Having done that he will compare the proposed revaluation assessment of the flats with those he has in mind for the houses. The flat rents are in essence a useful guide to dwelling values in a locality having no house rents, or only one or two house rents which are really not valid as an indication. Of course, they are not the final answer, and naturally I do not need to repeat that nothing in this Bill binds the valuation officer to take the flat rents into account if he can reach a fair assessment without doing so, because he has sufficient local evidence of house rents. I hope that meets the first point raised by the noble Lord.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for answering my question so clearly and so fully. In the light of what he has said, may I take it that it will be quite open to an occupier who wishes to appeal, to make one of the grounds of his appeal that in fact in that area the strong demand is for houses to let rather than for flats to let—or it might be flats to let rather than houses to let—and that he
474
could ask the valuation officer and the panel to take into account a consideration of that sort?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, that is certainly so. The owner can continue to contest a valuation on all the grounds formerly open to him, with the exception of those specified in the Bill. He can no longer protest that the valuation officer has taken into account evidence from outside his own district, or evidence of another type of property within his district. That is the only change.
The second point raised by the noble Lord was about the need, in effect, to protect the Valuation Office from challenge, and specifically on the point to protect it from challenge to the list if the valuation officer has used only the kind of evidence made relevant and admissible by this Bill. This is not, of course, the same thing as validating the assessments, whatever they are. As I have just explained, the ratepayer can still dispute them.
The provision contained in lines 9 to 14 on page 2 of the Bill is designed to prevent argument that the assessment is not merely wrong, but that it is so wrong as, seen with other assessments, to involve the proposition that the valuation list has been improperly compiled because the valuation officer has failed in his duty. From what we know about recent case law, the Government conclude that the limitations imposed by establishing case law are such as to necessitate this protection, and that is the reason why it is included in the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Some of your Lordships may remember that in 1964 I introduced into this House a Bill which became the Riding Establishments Act, and this present Hill seeks to amend that Act. In my opinion, it does so in some extremely important ways.

475
The 1964 Act was necessary because former legislation on riding establishments was entirely permissive, and of course local authorities could not be forced to take any action for the control of riding establishments. Control there had to be, because even in those days, as I pointed out at the time, we had 100,000 weekend riders, and the number of riding establishments was 2,000. The number of people riding to-day, especially the weekend riders, has increased very greatly; I am informed that we now have half a million weekend horsemen. It is rather odd, but the number of riding establishments does not appear to have increased in proportion to the number of horsemen. If we take the two big horse shows of the year we find that they were viewed on television by an audience of 8 million, which shows the great popularity of riding now.
One of the reasons for the 1964 Act— as I pointed out at the time, an excellent thing—was that a great number of people from an urban background were taking up riding, and quite a few of the people keeping riding establishments were of the same background, although they had not perhaps the practical experience of the pre-war keepers of riding establishments. It was then a trade handed down from father to son, and of course those people were brought up in the country.
Unfortunately, the 1964 Act has not by any means achieved the purpose for which it was intended. The purpose was to prevent suffering to horses in riding establishments and to ensure that the customers got a fair deal, inasmuch as the horses they rode were fit and that they were taught something about horsemanship if they so desired. I might mention that the Ponies of Britain Society, in conjunction with the British Horse Society, with whom they work very closely, are sponsors of this Bill. During the last eighteen months the British Horse Society have sent a very experienced horse master round a great number of these establishments. He has visited 787 riding establishments in the South of England to ascertain whether the objects of the 1964 Act were being fulfilled. Of those 787 establishments, 196 failed to meet the major requirements of the Act in at least one respect, and 33 failed in three or more respects.
476
Apart from these inspections, 35 stables were visited on receipt of complaints from the public. I will not weary your Lordships with them all, but I have a long list of cases here and perhaps I could read one which concerns an establishment with seven ponies. All were listless and undernourished; the stabling was dark, badly ventilated, badly drained and dirty. Three ponies were turned out on about a half acre of woods and two others on about the same amount of poor grass. Cabbage leaves and potato peelings had been thrown down for them; no water was provided in the fields; saddles were badly worn and patched with old pieces of material, and one saddle was totally unserviceable. All that, my Lords, at a licensed riding establishment. It would appear that the authorised inspecting officer of the local authority must have slipped up there.
I have here a great number of news-paper cuttings which tell the same story. I will read just the headings. In the Daily Express we find: "Underfed holiday ponies suffer in seashore slavery". Another, which I think is from a local newspaper, says: "Joy riding can be hell for the horses". There are a great number of these Press cuttings on this subject, and if any of your Lordships takes the News of the World (I rather doubt it, though I do not see why you should not) you may have seen a really shocking case reported in last Sunday's editions. It related to a fire which occurred at a small farm in Devonshire. Searches found a number of emaciated dogs, and dying and dead animals, and on these premises was a notice, "Riding stable". They could not find any ponies at the time of the fire. When the local authority were asked about this they did not seem to know much about it. The farm had not a riding establishment licence, and of course should not have been allowed to let out horses for hire.
With regard to the breaches of the Act, I think they are due to a large extent to ignorance on the part of the people who have these riding establishments. One reason is that we have in the London area alone 25,000 people who ride every weekend; and riding establishments in urban areas are found to be very cramped for grazing and for room generally; and stabling can be very bad. Also, perhaps some of these people who

477
have riding establishments start them with very little capital. They employ casual and part-time juvenile labour. The licence-holder is often absent for a long time from the premises. I have mentioned all these reasons, but there are many others, with which I will not bother your Lordships. The British Horse Society have interviewed every major licensing authority in the South of England and I can say that, on the whole, the licensing authorities support this amending Bill.
I come now to the Bill. Under the principal Act, by which I mean the 1964 Act, the licensing authority have only two choices: they can either refuse a licence, or if they grant one it has to be for a year. That is not satisfactory. If the licensing authority grant a licence for a year, they cannot revoke that licence. True enough, at the end of the year they can refuse to renew the licence; but they cannot revoke it in those twelve months. During that time they may receive reports of the bad treatment of horses, but they can do nothing about it. Of course, proceedings can be taken in a magistrates' court, under either the Cruelty to Animals Act or the 1964 Act; but, having regard to how heavily overloaded the courts are, there is little point in doing that because probably the year would be concluded before the court could deal with the matter.
The main object of this Bill is to empower a local authority to issue a provisional licence for three months. If at the end of those three months they are completely satisfied that the licence holder is a satisfactory person, they can then grant a yearly licence or another three-monthly provisional licence. This Bill of course has to be read in conjunction with the principal Act, the Riding Establishments Act 1964. As I have just said, Clause 1 is designed to enable the licensing authority to grant a provisional licence. In this connection, should your Lordships be kind enough to give the Bill a Second Reading I shall on the Committee stage be introducing an Amendment. As the Bill now stands, there is nothing to prevent a licensing authority from granting provisional licences ad infinitum. As a result of the Amendment that I hope to introduce they will be able to grant only two provisional licences, and if at the end of the period the licence holder is not satisfactory then
478
he will be granted no more licences. I think I need say no more about Clause 1.
Clause 2 is a long clause. Here there is a suggested alteration to the principal Act. For subsection (4) of Clause 1 of that Act there is substituted a new subsection, followed by a new subsection (4A). The only matter with which I need weary your Lordships in connection with subsection (4) is that under the Bill the licensing authority have to be satisfied that the applicant is of experience. In the new subsection there appear the words "proven experience". On the Committee stage, if the Bill gets that far, I shall introduce an Amendment to strike out the word "proven". Such persons will have to be of experience or holders of approved certificates. Clause 4 of the Bill contains a list of the approved certificates, including
"any other certificate… prescribed by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument."
May I now point out some other suggested alterations to the original Act? Clause 2(1) emphasises that the horses must be fit and that they must be in very good condition. That provision is set out in paragraph (b). The Bill also states (but I am going to move an Amendment on Committee to alter this) that they have to be of a suitable type and size. My Amendment will be designed to leave out the words "and size". Paragraph (b)(ii) is important. This provision was not in the original Bill at all. It reads:
"that the feet of all animals are properly trimmed and that, if shod, their shoes are properly fitted and in good condition."
Some shocking cases have been reported of horses and ponies turned out for a long time in a field Especially if the field is not flinty, or if it is not a hard field, their feet grow misshapen. This can be most inconvenient for them. Obviously, ponies and horses have to be properly shod. There have been cases of extremely bad shoeing.
Then we come to sub-paragraph (iii). If old buildings are to be used, they have to be up to the same standard as new buildings in relation to the comfort of horses and ponies. Another suggested alteration is that where horses are maintained at grass, supplementary feed will be provided as and when required. A number of instances have occurred where people have turned horses out into a

479
grass field but do not appear to understand that if the grass gets poor there is little for the horses to eat. Horses cannot eat earth. It is further provided in this clause that where horses are stabled they shall be groomed. That provision did not appear in the original Act. It is most necessary for the health of a horse or pony that if it is kept inside it should be groomed. If it is outside, in its natural environment, it can roll and play about and keep, as it should naturally be kept, the circulation to the skin. If they are stabled and they are to be fit, they really must be groomed. The Bill also provides that veterinary first-aid equipment and medicines must be kept in the premises.
I now come to the last point in these numbered paragraphs, the subject of fire safety, which is extremely important. Sub-paragraph VII of the new subsection (4)(b) provides—and this is not in the original Act—that the local authority shall have regard to the need for securing:
"… that the name, address and telephone number of the licence holder or some other responsible person will be kept displayed in a prominent position on the outside of the premises and that instructions as to action to be taken in the event of fire, with particular regard to the extrication of horses, will be kept displayed in a prominent position on the outside of the premises.".
I now come to the new subsection (4A), which prohibits the working of unsound animals, and provides for responsible supervision. In paragraph (a) it is made a condition of every licence granted that—
"a horse found on inspection of the premises by an authorised officer to be in need of veterinary attention shall not be returned to work until the holder of the licence has obtained at his own expense and has lodged with the local authority a veterinary certificate that the horse is fit for work; ".
That was not in the original Act. Paragraph (b) is necessary. It lays down a condition that
"no horse will be let out on hire for riding or used for providing instruction in riding without supervision by a responsible person over 16 years of age …"
There have been instances—and I have actually seen some of these when driving along a main road—of perhaps 12 to 15 ponies or horses being ridden and no adult with them. I heard of one case where habitually a number of ponies are hired out under the control of a girl of
480
12. That is highly undesirable in these days of heavy traffic, because the average motorist appears to think that a horse has a steering wheel and four-wheel brakes, and does not appear to understand that horses can be very highly strung and nervous animals.
In paragraph (c) we say:
"a riding establishment shall at no time be left in the charge of any person under 16 years of age … ".
There may be some doubt about that, because people may say, "You may leave livestock in the charge of people under 16 years of age." You might leave cows, pigs, or poultry, but the point is that nobody is going to come along and ask to take the pig out and ride it, or anything like that. It is necessary, in the case of horses, to have somebody responsible, somebody who can judge, when the person comes into the stable yard, whether he is, perhaps, a complete novice; and the person in charge must be someone who can judge the right pony or horse to allow the would-be rider to take out.
My Lords, I am afraid that I am being rather long, but I am being as brief as I can. We then come on to the question of insurance. Under the new subsection (4A)(d) every licence holder must have third-party insurance. We did not have that in the old Act. We then come to the last paragraph of the new subsection (4A)—and this may puzzle some of your Lordships. Paragraph (e) says:
"a register shall be kept by the licence holder of all horses in his possession aged three years and under …"
and so on. We have had many instances of riding establishments that apparently have very little knowledge of how to treat young stock, yearlings and foals, with the result that they have been under-nourished and generally maltreated.
Clause 3, I am glad to say, is a short clause, and it forbids the hiring out of horses aged three years or under, or of mares immediately before or after foaling. There have been instances of a far too immature horse being ridden, and mares either just after foaling or just before foaling. This clause says that a mare may not be ridden within three months after foaling. We then come to Clause 4, which deals with the "approved certificate". This clause sets out the institutions and the approved certificates. Perhaps in

481
some ways it might be better for the Secretary of State to prescribe by Statutory Instrument all the approved certificates, but that could be a subject for amendment.
I said earlier on that we have the support of the British Horse Society and the Ponies of Britain Society, who have done a great deal of work on this Bill. We also have the support of the Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of British Riding Schools. All these organisations, in principle, support the Bill. As I have said, the object of this Bill is to tighten up the original Act, and simply from the point of view of saving time—I could speak for two hours on this—I have not told your Lordships of the appalling cases of maltreatment of these animals by some riding establishments. Some instances have been described as "diabolical", and by other similar adjectives by the Press. I do not think owners of riding establishments do it out of malice—indeed, I am quite sure they do not: it is done out of ignorance.
I hope that if your Lordships are kind enough to give this Bill a Second Reading, we may be able to improve it a great deal on Committee stage.
It is a Bill in a good cause, as any Bill must be which seeks to alleviate mismanagement and suffering of our fellow creatures. Alter all, for thousands of years the horse was man's only means of transport, and to-day gives hundreds of thousands of people great pleasure and relaxation. So I really think that the horse deserves a little Parliamentary time and attention to see that, through ignorance, he is not unduly exploited. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
4.21 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, when the 1964 Act was introduced into your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, described the great increase which had taken place in the number of people riding or wishing to ride who came from urban back-grounds with little previous knowledge of horse management. What was true in 1964 is almost certainly even more true to-day. Indeed, early in his remarks the noble Viscount told the House that the
482
number of people riding at weekends has more than doubled; and, of course, they are riding on roads which have become even more full of motor cars.
The 1964 Act aimed to protect horses in riding establishments and to ensure that such businesses were properly run. I think it was generally agreed in all parts of both Houses that that Act took a practical step in the right direction, but the noble Viscount has made it quite clear that the improvement in conditions still leaves a lot to be desired. In 1961, the Horses and Ponies Protection Society published a survey of 1,200 riding establishments, and 30 per cent. were found to be in a deplorable condition. The noble Viscount called that evidence in aid during the debate on the 1964 Act. He has told the House how the British Horse Society has recently had 787 visits made to riding stables, and that over one-quarter were not up to the standards required by the Act. Obviously, there is a need to tighten up the law and that is what the present Bill seeks to achieve.
The House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for his very clear explanation of the importance of Clause 1. Under the principal Act a licence may only be cancelled following a vet's report submitted to the local authority and after proceeding in a magistrates court, which could take months; whereas the provisional licences provided for in Clause 1 will be valid for only three months at a time.
Clause 2 proposes a new subsection (4) for Section 1 of the principal Act. I am not entirely happy about paragraph (a), which rewords a part of the 1964 Act for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, argued successfully. The wording which Lord Silkin achieved in the principal Act required the local authority to examine an applicant's credentials, but with discretion left to the local authority. The new wording will remove that discretion, for an applicant will have to be of "proven experience" or "the holder of an approved certificate", if the noble Viscount's Amendment is made. I realise that inexperience is something which can bedevil these businesses, but so can absenteeism or lack of capital outlay. As the proposed subsection (4) will still give local authorities complete discretion to withhold a licence on any grounds, I wonder whether a little more thought can

483
be given to the wording of paragraph (a) at the next stage of the Bill.
Many noble Lords who are knowledgeable about the management of horses will, I am sure, be pleased to see the additions to the principal Act which are made in paragraph (b)(i) to (viii). But may I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that these new sub-paragraphs (i) to (viii) of paragraph (b) can be coped with by the veterinary service. Under the principal Act certain matters have to be investigated and reported to the local authority by vets before a licence can be granted. But except for sub-paragraph (viii) all of these are adding new provisions to the 1964 Act; and, indeed, as the noble Viscount explained, sub-paragraph (ii) is completely new. I wonder whether the Government have information on how the veterinary service has been managing to cope with Section 1(4) of the principal Act, and whether they can reassure the House that vets will be able to cope with these extra duties laid on them by this amendment.
Lastly, I wonder whether the new subsection (4A)(c), at the bottom of page 3, is in fact workable. What happens if no one is in charge? No mention of this possibility is made, in which case a licensee proceeded against under paragraph (c) might simply deny the presence of anyone in charge during his absence. The thinking behind this new paragraph is perfectly understandable, but is it possible that the wording is defective? Those are a few points which I submit do not affect the principle of this legislation. The noble Viscount has made a strong case for this amending Bill, and I hope that the House will be unanimous in giving it a Second Reading.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill very strongly. Enough has already been said about it to eliminate the necessity for my saying anything very extensive, but I should like to say that I agree entirely that it is a very necessary Bill. My noble friend who introduced it said that the principal Act, of 1964, was almost entirely permissive, and I agree with him. It is high time we had something a little less permissive. During the past few years we have become a little too used in many
484
walks of life to permissive methods, and it might be a good thing to dispense with them.
In case some of your Lordships think I am trying to plug one of my favourite subjects a little too hard, I should point out that the horse is deserving of consideration, more than are other domesticated animals. They all are, of course; but, after all, the horse works for us. Certain dogs work for us, too, but not the majority, whereas the entire purpose of the horse is to work for us. Therefore he deserves particular consideration, and that consideration this amending Bill will provide.
I took the point of my noble friend Lord Belstead about subsection (4A)(c). There is nothing there to say that anybody at all need be in charge, but that omission can easily be remedied at the Committee stage. I must say also that I should have liked to see the figure of "18" instead of "16" in both paragraphs (b) and (c). It is often said that to-day young people are much more mature than they used to be. But what is maturity? It is not only factual knowledge; it involves an ethical sense as well. I think that few boys of 16 have developed quite the sense of responsibility which is necessary in a position such as this. I should like to see the age raised to 18; but that will be a matter for the Committee, and we can discuss it at that time. Meanwhile, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I support it strongly.
4.31 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I should like to support the Second Reading of the Riding Establishments Bill which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has introduced. I think that, after the 1964 Act, this amending Bill is overdue, and we are grateful to the noble Viscount for having given your Lordships' House an opportunity to discuss it and, I hope, give it a Second Reading. But as the noble Viscount said when introducing the Bill, and certainly in the light of the questions which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I imagine that certain Amendments will be necessary on the Committee stage.
As the noble Viscount has said, these ponies and horses give a great deal of

485
pleasure to a large number of people by way of recreation and exercise, and particularly to children; and I think it is right that those in control of the establishments from which these ponies are let out for hire should be competent people. Unkindness to horses, as the noble Viscount said in his speech, can be caused through wrong feeding, lack of feeding, lack of pasture, no shelter, no grooming, poor shoeing and so on; and also through using overage ponies. Often, the horses or ponies which are taken into these riding establishments are rejects, and probably unfitted for the hard work which they get when out on hire. I think it is right that these establishments should have competent and proper veterinary inspection, though I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said: that is, whether the veterinary service will be able to cope with this, in view of the many duties which have been put on it in recent years through certain measures which have gone through this House, is another matter. Nevertheless, I do not think there is a great number of riding establishments in each town, and it should not take a great deal of time for a competent vet and his assistants to go and inspect the stables, the horses and so on.
I would emphasise that one of the most important parts of this Bill, as I think, is that which insists that competent people are in charge. I am not sure whether 18 or 16 is the right age at which to be in charge of ponies going out on our overcrowded urban roads; but what is important, I think, is that the riding establishments themselves should be in the charge of a responsible and competent person. Most of us have seen heavy and inexperienced riders hacking on undersized ponies, drumming them, kicking them, jagging their mouths; but I suppose it is another payride to the riding establishment. Most of these establishments are, I think, properly run —they have to be if they are to be successful—but as the noble Viscount said in his speech, I hope that competent veterinary inspection will also take into account whether some of these seaside ponies are being given far too many rides at the busy seasons, the holiday periods, so that they arrive back at night having had insufficient feed and absolutely tired out. That is the kind of thing which has happened, as has been mentioned,
486
through lack of capital and through trying to make the business pay without having had enough capital to start in the first place. That is why I place great emphasis on the inspection not only of the ponies and the establishments but of the people in charge, I most sincerely hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, that Amendments will be brought forward in Committee, and that it will eventually find its way on to the Statute Book.
4.36 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I did not mean to speak on this Bill, because I have to attend a meeting tonight concerning sheep, but I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention certain aspects of horse-management. I have had six years' personal experience of looking after horses, and I know that to-day it is doubtful if one can keep a horse indoors, in a fit condition— groomed, shod, with saddlery looked after, et cetera—at under £10 a week. It seems to me that the major demands on these establishments are made at the weekends, and that therefore these horses have to be over-ridden at the weekends to make up for the lack of custom through-out the week. If they say, "Very well, we will let out a horse at £1 an hour for two hours a day, six days a week", then the establishment is just breaking even. But that is not what happens. What is most likely to happen is that the horse will be let out one hour a day for five days—that is £5—and five hours on the Saturday. That makes £10, and then they are breaking even. So I think it should be brought to the notice of all proprietors who want to set up riding establishments that it is not "all beer and skittles". With those few remarks, I wish to support the Bill to the full extent.
4.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for speaking on three sitting days in succession, in one week. I promise not to do it again. I had not intended speaking to-day, but the noble Viscount has made such a careful statement about the objects of the Bill that I think a word from this side of the House would be opportune. I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Viscount for having introduced

487
this measure, and for having realised that his original Act is defective. It requires a certain amount of courage and greatness to recognise that one has perhaps not been entirely successful in one's efforts. I hope he will have better luck this time.
The present Bill will require a good deal of amendment, and I hope it will receive the most careful consideration in Committee. These are not formal words: this matter really does require careful consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whose speech we greatly appreciate, has indicated a number of points which require careful thought; and so has the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I promise that I myself will also go through the Bill carefully to see what can be done. It occurs to me that the Bill is virtually an entirely new measure. It so revolutionises the existing 1964 Act that I wonder whether it would not be possible to scrap the original Act and start all over again. Whether it is possible within the confines of this measure to do that, I am not sure. I should like to think about it. I know it has been done on certain occasions when a Bill had been so revised as to become virtually a new one; but I also know that it was not entirely satisfactory to the House when it was done. I think that to have two Acts in existence on a matter of this kind, requiring so much legislation by reference to the original Act (it is impossible to follow the terms of the Bill without reference to the 1964 Act) is a complication which if it is at all possible I should like to avoid.
There is one other point. I wonder whether the noble Viscount has consulted the local authorities. After all, they have to administer the Act once it is law and they will probably have certain views about it. It would be worth while between now and Committee stage, or at any rate in the next week or two, to see whether the local authorities or their organisations have any views or suggestions. In the meantime, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
4.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am sure that this Bill will get a Second Reading and that it will get on to the Statute Book; but I am doubtful whether it is
488
necessary. All the cases that my noble friend mentioned appear to be matters of pure oversight or dereliction on the part of the local authority in administering the existing law, which is most Draconian. I wonder whether it is necessary to have any fresh legislation; but I feel that a lot more administration is required. Whether it would help matters if a little more information about horses and ponies was available, I do not know. I suspect that, to start with, Her Majesty's Government have no idea how many horses and ponies there are in the country. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he will be kind enough to give that figure to the House. I personally have never noticed it in any of the forms that I have had to fill in; yet as one goes about the countryside one sees field after field inhabited by ponies and horses eating the forage of the country. I feel sure that, from their own point of view, Her Majesty's Government ought to know the equine population of the country in the context of preparation for war and so on.
I hesitate to suggest that there should be a licence fee payable on horses and ponies; but since they are no longer a source of necessary power on the farm, but are pets or a source of pleasure, and since one pays so much per head on a dog, I do not see why one should not pay so much on a horse, a pony or a donkey. But I am looking forward with great interest to hearing the figures of the total equine population.
4.45 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, may I say at once that I welcome this Bill completely; but I think it does not go far enough and I have one or two suggestions to make. The problem is that during the lifetime of many of us the horse has degenerated from an animal of use into an animal of pleasure. This has been due to the invention of the internal combustion engine. At the same time, the supply of competent horsemasters from the cavalry regiments and the gunner regiments has gone down to practically nothing and the standard of horsemaster-ship in this country has become deplorably low. The pony clubs have done their best to improve this standard and have achieved some success; but, at the same time, the veterinary profession, although they may be extremely good with sick

489
horses, have little personal experience of horsemastership and are already over-burdened with their ordinary duties and the duties which have been thrust upon them under the old Riding Establishments Act.
What I suggest should happen is this. In the first place, a provisional licence should be given to suitable applicants, and thereafter licences should be renewable at least once a year. At the same time, every local authority (the members of which have probably little if any experience of horsemastership) should appoint a panel of competent people to inspect and advise about these renewals. I do not think there is any reason why the competent panel should be selected from a lot of specified institutions, but one can think of half-a-dozen, starting with the Pony Club and the Masters of Hounds Association, many of whose members would gladly give their services for nothing on a part-time basis, just to inspect a small number of riding establishments each year in order to make recommendations for renewal of licences. I proffer the suggestion that all licences should be renewable and that inspection should be done by an authorised but not necessarily a professional body.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I say one word in support of the Bill. I think that its appearance before the House is very timely, in view of the present enormous increase in riding throughout the country. This is an excellent trend; for it means that the great pleasure that one has had all one's life from being able to own and ride a horse is now passed on to people in all walks of life and of all generations, from Pony Club age upwards. This is an extremely popular and valuable form of exercise and sport. I hope very much that the points raised will be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, thinks that horses are no longer used at all on farms; but in the hill farms in the areas where I belong several shepherds are mounted; and this makes their life easy, for they have great distances to cover. I agree that the carthorse has almost completely gone; but horses are used occasionally on farms for special purposes.
I hope that the House will support the Bill. Obviously, Amendments will
490
be proposed. I think it would be a pity to try to scrap the Bill in order to have one Bill which incorporated everything, which is what Lord Silkin suggested. That is only going to delay matters. The matter is urgent, since the Society for Ponies of Britain has been working for a long time on the Bill and has produced some excellent proposals. I should regret it if we had to hold things up and to start all over again in order to amalgamate two Bills. I can understand the legal view-point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; but I think it would be a mistake. It would delay the passage of this Bill and its effects, which are of great importance to all of us who care about horses and riding and who want to see the sport encouraged throughout the country. I should like strongly to support the Bill.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, if I may bother the House for a few moments, may I say that I know where there is a field in which there are a hundred donkeys in perfect condition. These donkeys are used for hire during the summer on the beaches and for various events, and they are admirably kept in every way. I do not want to oppose what has been said—I arrived in the Chamber rather late and did not hear the first part of the debate—but I think that if we are going to consider riding establishments we should also consider the rather large business of the use of donkeys for races and on the beaches during the summer.
4.51 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, will be gratified by the general support which he has received for his Bill. I sympathise with the objectives which the noble Viscount seeks to further in the measure which he has brought before us. As I understand it, the Bill has two main objectives: first, to make better provision for securing the welfare of horses kept at riding establishments, and, secondly, to ensure that the public using the facilities offered by riding establishments get a square deal. As I say, I have sympathy with these objectives and, again, the attitude of the Government towards this Bill is one of neutrality. That is not to say, however, that the Government have no objections to any of its provisions. As

491
I shall explain, there are one or two aspects of the Bill which cause some concern, and if it proceeds to a Committee, as I expect it will do, it will be necessary to look at the wording a little more closely.
My Lords, it is a little over five years since the Riding Establishments Act 1964 was passed, and rather less since it came into operation—which was on April 1, 1965. It is probably not quite so well established as the noble Viscount made out that the experience gained in the operation of that measure over this relatively short period has been sufficient to allow a proper assessment of its value and its defects. The noble Viscount has told us of consultations with various bodies having an interest in the welfare of horses and ponies; but he did not tell us about any consultations with the local authorities. And, after all, local authorities have the main responsibility for operating the 1964 Act. If there is general agreement that the 1964 Act needs strengthening it would seem sensible for appropriate changes to be made; but I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that it would be wrong to precipitate action which might not fully meet the case and might lead only to pressure later on for further changes in the law. I am sure we all agree that we do not want to have repeated amendments of the law. That would lead to confusion and would not be in the best interests of riding establishments; nor would it be in the best interests of the horses kept in them.
My Lords, under the 1964 Act no person may keep a riding establishment without first obtaining a licence from a local authority. Before determining whether to grant a licence the local authority is required to obtain and consider a report from an authorised veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner and to have regard to a number of factors designed to provide for the welfare of the horses and the proper management of the establishment. Perhaps I ought to say to the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, that licences are already renewable now. The licence, for which the Act specified a fee of 10s., is renewable annually. The amount of the fee was raised to £10 by the Miscellaneous Fees (Variation) Order 1968, follow-
492
ing representations from the local authority associations who were anxious to cover the administrative costs involved. I understand that they say the average cost of vet fees is about £8 per establishment.
The Government are aware that the effectiveness of the Act has been criticised, but they have no evidence that the local authorities are not carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. Undoubtedly the great majority of the riding establishments are well run. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether I had any information about the possibility of the veterinary surgeons being able to cope with the present inspection required under the 1964 Act. My information is that they have been able to cope. I accept what the noble Viscount has said about his consultations with the organisations concerned, from which I assume that the veterinary organisations are of the view that the vet service can cope with the new and rather more stringent requirements which the noble Viscount is proposing in this Bill.
My Lords, Clause 1 of the Bill would empower local authorities to grant up to two provisional licences, each valid for three months, to keep a riding establishment if, having regard to all the circumstances, the authority were satisfied that they would not be justified in granting a full licence. Conceivably there is a little inconsistency between this provision and those in Clause 2, in which more stringent conditions are now provided. On the one hand, the Bill seeks to raise the minimum standards in the licensed establishments; on the other it proposes to permit the licensing, albeit for a limited period, of establishments which may not measure up to the stanwards which the noble Viscount is setting. He may care to ponder that.
I appreciate that the object of the clause is to give a measure of discretion to local authorities not to delay licensing, or continuing a licence in respect of an establishment where the shortcomings are of only a minor nature and where there are prospects that the defects will be remedied in the near future. On this point, therefore, Her Majesty's Government are content to be guided by what is said by your Lordships; but I suggest that the noble

493
Viscount might care to look at that point again.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Lord?—he is very good to give way to me. He has just said that it appears that the vast majority of riding establishments are very well run. I do not think my noble friend ever claimed anything else. What he is trying to do is eliminate the quite substantial minority which is badly run.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think there is any argument between us: I accept what the noble Lord says. I was going on to say that 1 also feel that the noble Viscount may care to look at the fee prescribed for the provisional licence. The local authority associations represented that issuing a provisional licence would be a more expensive business than issuing a full licence. A provisional licence would relate to a marginal case where extra inspection would be required and where the veterinary surgeon would spend more time, and his bill might be a little higher as a result of the extra work he would have to put in. There is an argument for another look at that point, and I have no doubt that the noble Viscount will wish to look at it. One remedy might be to allow the full fee to be charged for the first provisional licence, and to provide for a subsequent provisional licence, or an annual one, granted immediately following the provisional licence, to be issued for a reduced fee. That point might be considered later.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends Section 1(4) of the principal Act. It requires the local authority to be satisfied that an applicant for a licence is suitably qualified in the management of horses. It amplifies and extends the factors to which a local authority must have regard in considering the granting of a licence and it imposes additional obligations on persons licensed to keep riding establishments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I am not too happy about the requirement in paragraph (a) of the new subsection (4) that the local authority shall, in considering an applicant's suitability, have regard to his experience, proven or otherwise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the words in paragraph (a) seem likely to be a source of trouble. For example, what
494
would be the position of a relatively inexperienced person who proposed to run an establishment with the assistance of a highly qualified manager? I appreciate the reason behind this amendment, but the noble Lord might care to have a look at these words again.
I do not think that the factors to which the local authority must have regard in considering the grant of a licence, as amplified by the new subsection (4)(b), are unduly onerous or restrictive, and a well-run establishment should have no difficulty in measuring up to the required standards. But one small point which mystifies me is why the local authority, which is empowered to impose discretionary conditions for securing the objects specified in paragraphs (i) to (vii) of the new paragraph (b), has no such power in respect of the requirement in paragraph (viii). Again, I do not invite the noble Viscount to tell us now., but he might care to look at this point before the Committee stage.
The new subsection (4A) which it is proposed to add to the 1964 Act would impose a number of additional obligations on a person licensed to keep a riding establishment. If the Bill proceeds to Committee stage, I suggest, as did the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Belstead, that it will be necessary to look rather more closely at the wording of some of the provisions in this new subsection. The drafting of the provisions which follow also seems to need a little tidying up.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, spoke about the possibility of making the age in subsection (4A) 18, rather than 16. I suggest that some Amendment will be necessary, since in subsection (4A)(b) reference is made to the requirement that the person should be over 16 years of age, whereas in subsection (4A)(c), the requirement is under 16 years of age. I suggest that this ought to be brought into line, and at the same time the noble Viscount might well consider whether 18 might be better than either under or over 16. In any case, the Government will be prepared to accept what is agreed by your Lordships.
There is one further point that I should like to mention before I sit down. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has considered the need for reviewing

495
the penalty prescribed in Section 4(1) of the principal Act, but it seems to me that a fine of not exceeding £25 may be on the low side, particularly now that the fee for an annual licence is put up to £10. If the noble Viscount agrees that there may be a case for increasing the maximum fine, Her Majesty's Government suggest for his consideration that something of the order of £50 may be appropriate.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, whether I could tell him the equine population of this country. I am afraid that the figures do not appear to be in the archives of the Home Office, the Department responsible for this Bill, but I will see if I can find out from the Department of Agriculture and let him know later. I do not want to detain your Lordships by going into further details. I would simply say that if the noble Viscount would like to consult with me and my advisers before Committee stage, I shall be glad to give him such assistance as I can.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the sympathetic manner in which he has dealt with this Bill. Regarding the noble Lord's point on local authorities, may I say that although we have not contacted all of them, we have contacted a great many. We have consulted with them, and generally they are favourably inclined to this Bill. I think it was my noble friend Lord Hawke who said that the principal Act would surely be sufficient if the local authorities carried out their duties; but I cannot really agree with him. The Bill we are now discussing gives the local authorities far more bite.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, questioned the granting of provisional licences and said that this might lower the standards. Obviously, the local authorities want to be fair, and it is difficult for them to decide if a man ought or ought not to have a licence. Where there is a borderline case, why not give the applicant a trial period? The noble Lord also mentioned the question of experience under subsection (4A).
I hope to put down an Amendment on Committee stage regarding the fee for a
496
provisional licence, which will have to be the same as the fee for a full licence, but I would agree with the noble Lord about considering whether there should be some rebate. I take the noble Lord's point about the age being over 16 in paragraph (b) and yet under 16 in (c), and I will certainly look at that point. Of course, we may even consider 18, which I think is probably better. The noble Lord suggested that the maximum fine should be increased. I am all for increasing fines—provided, of course, that they do not apply to me. But considering the effect of inflation, I think that a maximum of £50 would be excellent.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I am sure that your Lordships would not want me to comment on the speeches individually, but I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Camoys. I understand that this was his maiden speech, and I should like to congratulate him and hope that he will address the House many times more, and not always on the subject of donkeys. On this point I would put my noble friend's mind at rest by saying that the Bill does cover donkeys. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, answered the points raised by my noble friend Lord Fortescue. I do not think that there is any more that I need to say, except to thank the House for its reception of this Bill.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, before the Question is put, I wonder whether I may be allowed to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Camoys. In my igorance I had not been aware of the fact that this was his maiden effort, and I, too, should like to congratulate him.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I was rather cheating, because I was handed a note informing me that my noble friend was making his maiden speech.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SHIPS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
5.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It marks a further stage in the development of policies which are aimed to bring about a more balanced distribution of industry throughout the country. Policies with this aim date back to the mid-'thirties and the desire to alleviate the position of the then depressed areas, and they grew in the post-war years to a national determination to see that we must never go back to such a gross imbalance of job opportunities as had previously existed. Nobody who remembers the social decay and human despair in the pre-war distressed areas will question the Tightness of that national determination, or the wisdom of ensuring a reasonably balanced spread of economic activity. I hope that the provisions of this Bill, which aim to introduce a further degree of flexibility into our policies, will equally commend themselves to the House.
The present Government have already taken a number of steps to extend the assistance available to promote industrial development in those parts of the country where job opportunities fall below the number of workers. The Industrial Development Act 1966 introduced broad contiguous development areas in place of the former more scattered and more narrowly defined development distriots. In 1967 the regional employment premium was introduced. This is for regional employment directly related to the provision of jobs, as is the assistance given under the Local Employment Act, and there-fore to some extent counter-balances on supplements those forms of development area assistance—such as the 40 per cent, investment grant—which depend on the level of capital investment. The Government have moreover created the special development areas, parts of the country expected to face high and persistent unemployment—for example, through colliery closures—unless some special measures arc taken and additional incentives are provided.
And now to-day we have the present Bill which proposes the creation of inter-
498
mediate areas. In September, 1967, the Government established an independent Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Joseph Hunt, with the purpose—and I quote the Committee's terms of reference:
"to examine in relatior, to the economic welfare of the country as a whole and the needs of the development areas, the situation in other areas where the rate of economic growth gives cause (or may give cause) for concern, and to suggest whether revised policies to influence economic growth in such areas are desirable and, if so, what measures should be adopted ".
The situation was that the increases in assistance to the development areas in 1966 and 1967 had increased the differential between those areas and those parts of the country which had difficult economic problems but which still did not qualify for the status of development areas. A basic source of the economic problem of the development areas them-selves—that is to say, the rapid decline of traditional industries—was being reproduced in certain other parts of the country. Coal mines were closing down in South Yorkshire and in the Nottinghamshire and Derby coalfields. The run-down of the textile industry was continuing in North-East Lancashire. There was the prospect of the loss of job opportunities at the Royal Naval Dockyard at Devonport. It was such issues as these that the Hunt Committee was primarily examining and of which they made an analysis which is thorough and valuable.
The Government have accepted and embodied the basic contention of the Committee that there are parts of the country outside the development areas whose economic problems qualify them for some, but not all, of the measures of assistance which are available in development areas themselves. For reasons to which I shall come back a little later, we have differed from the Hunt Committee in some respects, but we have departed from their recommendations only after the most careful consideration.
Perhaps I may now briefly describe the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 gives the Minister of Technology power to specify by order intermediate areas. This is the same procedure as is adopted in the designation of the development areas them-selves. The criterion for designation as an intermediate area is that while the economic problems of the locality may not be as acute as those of a development

499
area, there are, in the opinion of the Minister of Technology, special measures necessary to encourage the growth and proper distribution of industry. If Parliament approves the Bill, the Government's intention is to designate the following areas, broadly speaking, as those qualifying for intermediate area benefits; North East Lancashire; the Yorkshire coalfield; North Humberside, parts of the Notts Derby coalfield; South East Wales, Plymouth and Leith. Maps showing the development areas and the proposed intermediate areas have been placed in your Lordships' Library.
In addition, Clause 1 allows the Minister of Technology to exercise in the intermediate areas certain functions which he exercises at present in relation to development areas. Very briefly, these functions include: the payment of building grants; the provision of Government built factories; payments for the resettlement of key workers and their families; financial assistance for the improvement of basic services, and the payment of grants to local authorities towards the clearance of derelict land. In addition already, by administrative action, there has been made available in the intermediate areas the full range of development area training assistance. The Hunt Committee in fact recommended that the whole of the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside regions should qualify for a 25 per cent, building grant not linked to the provision of new jobs. The Government took the view that these regions include a number of relatively prosperous places whose claims to assistance in relation to the worst-hit parts of the country were not particularly strong, and that it would be wiser to concentrate the limited supply of mobile industry— and incidentally the funds available to assist industrial development—in those areas whose need was greatest.
If North East Lancashire and the York-shire coalfield had to compete on equal terms with Manchester and Leeds—as would have been the case if the Hunt Committee recommendations had been implemented in their entirety—chances of getting additional industry might well, in the Government view, have been substantially weakened. Financial assistance to industrial development will enable certain local projects to go ahead. It
500
will also encourage developments to take place which otherwise would have occurred in other parts of the country where industrial expansion is less beneficial. To spread assistance to industrial development too widely in intermediate areas would mean either the diversion of projects away from the development areas themselves, which have more urgent needs, or the spreading of assistance so thinly as to bring little or no benefit to those places in the intermediate areas with problems that are particularly severe.
Further, the Government have taken the view that assistance for factory building in the intermediate areas should be linked to the provision of new jobs. We do not underestimate the importance of modernising industrial premises, but we feel that it is a lack of job opportunities, whether that lack is reflected in high unemployment, or in migration from the area concerned, which is at the root of many of the most pressing economic problems of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and' that we should concentrate our efforts on the provision of employment. 1 fully accept that it is undesirable for men to have to work in old-fashioned and inefficient factories, but it is a much more serious matter for them to have no job at all. Nor, of course, would it make sense to abandon the employment link in the intermediate areas while retaining it in the development areas.
Clause 2 of the Bill gives to the Minister of Technology the power to designate by Order derelict land clearance areas in which can be exercised the powers available in Section 20 of the Industrial Development Act. These powers allow the Minister of Housing and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to make grants to local authorities towards the cost of acquiring and improving derelict land where this would be appropriate with a view to contributing to the development of industry in the locality. The powers also allow the Minister of Technology to acquire derelict land and carry out work on it for the purpose of contributing to the development of industry. As the Government have already stressed in another place, it is our intention to interpret"contributing' to the development of industry"in the same broad sense in relation to intermediate areas as has been done already in the development areas.

501
Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the withdrawal of the selective employment premium of 7s. 6d. a week for men, with corresponding rates for women and juveniles, which is at present payable in the development areas. The Government have decided that the cost of the various measures of assistance to intermediate areas ought to be met out of the very substantial and growing sums being spent on assistance to the development areas and that this saving should be secured by the withdrawal of the 7s. 6d. additional payment. I should like to make it clear that this will not in any way affect payment of the regional employment premium of 30s. in the development areas and that in this and other ways the development areas will continue to enjoy a very substantial margin of preference over the rest of the country.
Before I conclude I should like to refer shortly to two other issues which are not specifically the subject of this Bill but which arise in considering the Hunt Committee's Report and the distribution of industry policy. The first relates to the issue of industrial development certificates. The Bill does not deal with the operation of the industrial development certificates control. As has been made clear already, i.d.c.s will be available in the proposed intermediate areas on just the same basis as in the present development areas. The i.d.c. control is, in our view, an important supplement to the positive measures of assistance proposed in the Bill and there was of course considerable discussion on industrial development certificates in another place. Accordingly, I should like to make a reference to it.
The Hunt Committee were strongly in favour of retaining the control. As they said in their Report (paragraph 482), after pointing out the contribution which i.d.c. control made to creating new employment in the development areas:
"we therefore concluded that the maintenance of the control is a necessary instrument for pursuing a positive location of industry policy ".
The Government considered very carefully the recommendation (from which, incidentally, one member dissented) that the exemption limits should be raised to 10,000 sq. ft. It is not, of course, possible to say precisely what level of exemption limit would give greater flexibility without endangering the supply of indus-
502
try for the assisted areas and the overspill towns. But on balance the Government felt that there was a real risk which we would be unwise to take of losing projects in these areas where we want industry to go if the exemption level were raised significantly.
We should not expect that this decision would adversely affect small firms which might be particularly concerned. We shall continue, as the Committee have recognised has been past practice, to operate the control flexibly and sensibly and to recognise the particular difficulties of small firms. I understand that this is one of the matters on which the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms, appointed by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, are receiving evidence and will no doubt be covering in their Report. The Government will certainly take account of any recommendations they may make on this point.
While I am on i.d.c.s I should like to say a word about the time taken to decide applications. In areas where the control is operated fairly loosely decisions are given in a matter of days or at most weeks. Where the control is operated more stringently decisions often take longer, particularly on large or difficult cases. I do not believe that it would be practical or helpful to set an arbitrary time limit for the determination of applications. The control can be operated sensibly and fairly only if full consideration can be given to all the circumstances and applicants afforded an opportunity to discuss their proposals. This is bound to take time. But I should like to emphasise that the Ministry of Technology is very conscious of the need to settle applications quickly and we will continue to keep the position under review.
The second general point relates to the results which are being obtained from the Government's development areas policies. It is not, of course, easy to distinguish the effects of policies of a specifically regional character from the effects of national policies and from all the other factors which help to determine the investment decisions of industry. At the same time, there are some clear pointers to the impact of our regional policies. On the basis of estimates given by the firms themselves, projects for which industrial development certificates are currently being approved in the development areas

503
are giving rise to between 60,000 and 70,000 new jobs in these areas, about two-thirds of them jobs for men.
There has also been some narrowing of the gap between the level of unemployment in the development areas and in the rest of the country. In 1966 unemployment in the development areas was more or less double the national rate. During 1969 the average rate for wholly unemployed in the development areas was 4·1 per cent, as compared with 2·3 per cent, for the country as a whole. This improvement is not spectacular, but it has to be considered against the back-ground of continuing loss of jobs in coal mining, in heavy engineering and other traditional industries of the development area. In these circumstances, it is no inconsiderable achievement if the unemployment gap between the development areas and the rest of the country gets no wider—and, as I say, it has in fact narrowed.
Furthermore, unemployment is not the only criterion by which to judge the success of distribution of industry policies. They have other important objectives, too. Some areas are over-dependent on one industry or on a narrow range of industries and there is a need to diversify the industrial structure. Other areas have suffered from heavy outward migration. Yet other parts of the country suffer from excessive congestion and inflationary pressure on resources. Distribution of industry policies are designed to alleviate and, in the end, to cure these varied symptoms of regional imbalance in our industrial structure. They are aimed to enable firms already in the development areas and in the proposed intermediate areas, and projects moving into those areas, to compete in efficiency and productivity with firms in other parts of the country and abroad.
The success which many development area firms enjoy in markets both here and abroad, the figures of new jobs created and other varied indications show convincingly that these policies are succeeding, and I am convinced that they will also show valuable results in the intermediate areas dealt with in the present Bill, to the substantial national advantage. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to give your approval to the
504
Bill, which is designed to reinforce success. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
5.30 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure the House would like me to begin by thanking the noble Lord the Minister of State for the comprehensive and lucid way in which he has introduced this short Bill. As he said, the antecedents of the Bill go right back into the thirties—the depressed areas of the 'thirties—but the Bill actually arises from the Hunt Report. The origin of the Hunt Report was complaint from certain areas about the bad effect that the regional policy of the Government was having on their particular localities. So, like the noble Lord, I will start with the Hunt Report and compare just briefly the Hunt recommendations with the Government's proposals.
The Hunt Report recommended that the whole of the North-Western, York-shire and Humberside Regions should have 25 per cent, building grants, not linked to jobs, and training grants as in the development areas. In contrast, the Government proposed that the assistance should be confined to seven selected intermediate areas, some of them in those regions. The Hunt Report recommended selected growth zones in the North-Western. Yorkshire and Humberside region, for Government industrial estates and factory building, with supporting investments, including link roads. In contrast to that, the Government selected certain areas for assistance strictly by criteria of need, unemployment and net outward migration—quite a different set of criteria. The Hunt Report recommended 85 per cent, grant for the clearance of derelict land; the Government plumped for 75 per cent.
As the noble Lord explained, there is also a wide divergence between the members of the Hunt Committee and the Government on the way in which i.d.c.s were to be controlled. The Hunt Committee recommended that the Merseyside development area was to be de-scheduled; the Government rejected that recommendation. The Hunt Report made further recommendations about dealing with air pollution, and the Government, so far as I can see, do not propose to act on that.

505
The Hunt Report suggested that the time was overdue for a comprehensive review of the whole of the Government's regional development policy, and I should like to hear from the noble Lord at the end of this debate what the attitude of the Government is to that suggestion. I make this point because that lack of harmony between Her Majesty's Government and a Committee of their own appointing is in itself an omen that all is far from well; and I would say that the approach of Her Majesty's Government to this problem has been fragmentary, inconsistent, intermittent and, considering the large amount of money now being spent, probably wasteful, although just how wasteful we cannot tell.
My Lords, this is a Local Employment Bill, and I am now going to confine myself briefly and strictly to the subject of local employment. I am going to do so all the more because my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is going to dwell at length and in much greater breadth, and with far greater eloquence, on the whole field of the Government's regional development policy. But, my Lords, at the heart of regional policy, as the noble Lord the Minister of State said, is the creation of jobs—work, employment—for it is far too expensive, far too wasteful and plainly wrong to have large numbers of able-bodied men and women in certain regions of our land willing but unable to find worthwhile work to do. So employment—the creation of jobs—is the criterion by which these policies ought to be judged.
The present position is this. This is what has happened in the past three years between March, 1966, and March, 1969 —the latest figures available in the December issue of the Department of Employment and Productivity's Gazette. These are the figures of the numbers of jobs that have been lost in that period in certain regions. In the Northern Region, the whole of which is a development area, and parts of which form a special development area, there has been a loss of 66,000 jobs. In Scotland, all of which is a development: area, and parts of which are special development areas, there has been a loss of 66,000 jobs. Incidentally, in one three-year period from 1959 to 1962, when the Conservative Party was in power, at a time when 76,000 jobs had
506
been lost through colliery closures and so on, there was, due to our policies, a net gain of 50,000 jobs.
But going back to the three years from March, 1966, to March, 1969, in Wales, all of which is a development area, and parts of which—the valleys in the South —are special development areas, in those three years there has been a loss of 49,000 jobs, and that despite the expenditure there of £38 million in investment grants and £14 million in regional employment premiums per annum. In the Yorkshire and Humberside area, most of which is now scheduled as an intermediate area, there was in that three-year period a loss of 106,000 jobs. In the North-West, which contains the Merseyside development area and now some new intermediate areas, there was a loss in that three-year period of 111,000 jobs.
To look at it in another way, my Lords, the National Plan of 1965 forecast a manpower shortage of 400,000 people— an absurd condition to exist side by side with local and regional unemployment. Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Brown at the D.E.A.. looked ahead in 1965 to having all this adjusted under the National Plan and by means of the Government's regional policies; and Mr. Callaghan was talking of the regions"absolutely booming ahead ". "Absolutely booming ahead "was the phrase he used on television in April, 1965.
Let us look at what the effect of"absolutely booming ahead" for four years under this Government has in fact been—and I am now comparing September, 1965, with September, 1969. If 1 were to compare it with January, 1970, the figures would be worse still, but I do not think that that would be quite fair. But comparing September, 1965, with September, 1969, in the Northern Region in 1965 there were 32,000 people unemployed and there are now 65,000 unemployed, an increase of 33,000 unemployed. In Scotland in 1965 there were 58,000 unemployed, whereas; in September, 1969, there were 77,000 unemployed (there are now 95,000), an increase up to September, 1969, of 19,000 unemployed.
In Wales in 1965 there were just under 26,000 unemployed. Four years later there were 42,000 unemployed, an increase of 16,000. In the North-West

507
there were 48,000 unemployed and that went up four years later to 74,000 (it is now 79,000), an increase of 26,000. In Yorkshire and Humberside the number went up from 22,000 to 54,000, an increase of 32,000 unemployed. That is what it is like to be in a region "absolutely booming ahead" with the Labour Government.
I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government will say—in fact the Minister of State has already said it—that unemployment has gone up all over the country: and so it has. But this is also the Government's responsibility. In fact, unemployment has worsened by 31 per cent, in three years. But more to the point in this debate on local unemployment is what has happened to unemployment in particular areas and localities. And here we find that one of the effects of what we would call this rather misjudged and wasteful regional unemployment policy is that unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside has gone up by 79 per cent, in three years, whereas in the rest of the country it has gone up by 31 per cent. No wonder there has been complaint and criticism and the Hunt Committee had to be brought into being to look at the position. Let us hope that this Bill marks a change back to the flexible, simple and precise arrangements which were first introduced with the 1960 Local Employment Act. We believe that it does mark such a change, and for that reason I can assure the noble Lord the Minister of State that we on this side welcome it gladly.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask one or two questions which I think arise on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind. They refer to the question of whether we are getting value for the money—the large amount of money we are putting into this policy. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale will be saying something about the need to make an entirely new and comprehensive diagnosis of our regional economic problems. I certainly agree that it is due, and it was one of the most important recommendations of the Hunt Committee.
Meanwhile, it is welcome news that some partial inquiry is being made into the value we are getting for the money we are spending, particularly on regional
508
unemployment premiums, a sum of £100 million a year. I hope that the Minister can expand on the brief announcement we saw in the Press the day before yester-day about a study that has been set up to look into this question—when it is likely to be able to report and so on— and also whether he can tell the House what progress is being made by those who are already studying the value we are getting for the money we are spending on investment grants, £80 million in the development areas alone.
A useful figure for comparison and assessment as to the value of these policies as a whole is the cost of each new job created by the combined effects of all the aspects of this policy. Under the Local Employment Act 1960 the cost worked out at well under £1,000 per job, and in fact in the five years between 1960 and 1965 an expenditure of £141 million (that was the amount expended in regional development policies in that period) led directly to the creation of 190,000 jobs. It would appear from the debate in the other House that there are many instances now of far less value for money being achieved. No doubt the problems have got worse and more difficult as colliery closures, and so on, have been accelerating, but I think the House ought to have some figures, or the promise of some figures, with which to,make comparisons between then and now.
When one tots up the items listed in Appendix 1 of the Hunt Report—clearance of derelict land, which used to be £1·6 million, going up to £3 million; training grants, £2·8 million; regional employment premium, £100 million; grants for factory building, £13½ million; other building grants, £38 million; investment grants in development areas, £80 million—they all tot up to around £250 million. But there is no clear indication of the number of jobs that have been created. If the noble Lord cannot tell us now more specifically than he has done what results are being achieved in terms of jobs created by these policies, perhaps he will tell us when such information may be expected. But whether he can or not, another thing I think we should like to know is will Her Majesty's Government respond to the plea from the Hunt Committee that a comprehensive and critical review of the whole of their

509
regional policies is now overdue and should be set in hand.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in following the noble Lords, Lord Delacourt-Smith and Lord Sandford, I, too, should like to revert to the general regional policy which is implicit in this Bill and from which it arises. When the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, referred to the horrors of the 'thirties my mind went back to the time that I left the university, when there were 3½ million unemployed and I used to sing in the streets of London for my dinner. With these vivid memories I find it difficult to repress some; passion in referring to this subject, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith and other noble Lords to believe that in what I have to say I am hoping and seeking to be constructive as well as critical.
Rightly, this Bill tackles the grey areas. Rightly, it tackles dereliction. But it is a blunt and not very handy weapon for flogging a dead horse that we have flogged for too long. Everything done in this field since 1945 bears the stamp of the Barlow Report, based upon pre-war data, made available during the war and to a great extent digested by its hungry readers in the bomb shelters of the mini-blitz. That was the context in which it recommended a population share-out to secure regional balance as well as redevelopment of the worst unemployment areas. One might sum it up by saying: take work and workers to the workless. It was all based on the picture then in everybody's mind, and alas! still in many minds, of a North-South orientation of our geography, which could not foresee the repolarisation that is at hand today. The broad attitude was one of propping up the old rather than building tomorrow's new.
In the cause of outdoing Canute, successive Governments of both Parties have managed to spend something like £800 million since the war. Latterly, the expenditure has been at the rate of £260 million a year, and all that is left now is a widening gap between the facts of life and the antiquity of the idea. So far from re-peopling the places that have been going down, we have further congested those that are going up.
510
The Scottish figures are easier to separate out. The Toothill Report recorded that between 1931 and 1960 nearly a quarter of a million people left Scotland—something like 5 per cent, of the total. Professor Tress, a leading economist who has had the advantage of being a Government-appointed chairman of one of the regional economic planning councils and who thus speaks with much responsible experience of current public affairs, has calculated from the available figures that between 1951 and 1965 very nearly the same number again left Scotland—another quarter of a million, another 5 per cent. His figures also show—they are, of course, a sophisticated calculation from the crude statistics publicly available—that another 330,000 left the North of England, the North-West, Yorkshire and Humberside.
Meantime, the Midlands, the South and the South-East have gathered net British immigration of an order of 340,000. The newcomers have been largely younger folk; therefore, in statistical terms, with a higher fertility rate, so that the population explosion down South (wherein the statisticians' 1971 forecast was reached a decade too soon) has been one of the reasons why successive Governments have been forced to submit to the demand for structure and jobs down South—a couple of new cities, half a dozen new towns, a score of expanding towns with overspill agreements, a project for a third airport and so on. Such is witness to the collapse of the Barlow Commission hope that much of this could have been put elsewhere.
Of course, nothing succeeds like excess. We have had a gradual ageing of the Barlow idea, now nearly forty years old. This ageing has brought successive efforts to restyle it according to the fashion of the day. Unemployment has set the tone throughout. But then we were taught by competent commentators to realise that regional imbalance had a bearing on the overheating of the economy, and therefore sound regional policy would help us curb inflation. Of course we never quite faced the dilemma that rising productivity, bad for inflation, may also, in the short term, be bad for jobs, at any rate for the under-skilled. That dilemma pops up in this Bill in the Government's decision, notwithstanding the noble

511
Lord's explanation, to which I listened with great interest, to attach the 25 per cent. factory building grant to jobs instead of allowing it to go simply for the improvement of factories, the raising of their productivity, and therewith the benefit of that area.
Through time, in the restyling of the Barlow idea we came to the conception that we should not move away simply from areas of unemployment which were, and remain, something like the quick-sands that you do not seem to be able to fill up, to the concept of growth points. Finally, we moved—and this Government takes or claims the credit for it—from outright subsidy of land and capital to the subsidy of labour, which may evoke some critical comment in the future (I believe it does now) for it surely has the danger that it may encourage wasteful use of manpower. But the fashion having swung from mini to maxi by the time the R.E.P. had been brought in, we have come to have five different kinds of areas: the special development areas of pit closures—let us call them the black ones; the enlarged development areas for general assistance—I will call them purple; the grey areas (as they are commonly called) brought into being by the expansion of the others. Then one comes to the green areas left outside which are jealous and in many cases anxious. Finally, you come to the white areas, the very base and heart of the economy, where I.D.C.s are either impossible or are very difficult to get, but which are booming so well that immigration cannot be resisted, even by a great and growing shortage of housing.
After forty years of muddling expedient with policy, and confusing means with ends, one is reminded of those lines of Oliver Goldsmith:
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay".
Why? The Confederation of British Industry has expressed the view, in which they are backed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, that financial incentives alone are not the critical factor in causing a substantial industry to move. They say that the catalyst is shortage of land or labour; and the C.B.I. would add that if a financial incentive is wanted, then
512
surely the answer is a differential regional application of corporation tax.
But generally, the thinning or thickening of the blanket Barlow approach as between the black and the purple, and the grey and the green and the white areas of distinction is, I believe, near the heart of the matter in that it has failed to match quite different categories of problem. Some areas like the Highlands or Mid-Wales need many kinds of measure just to hold the people there to sustain the basic services. Some areas have growth but need just a little help. Some, like the grey areas, are more bothered by urban renewal and emigration than by unemployment as such. Some, like Preston and Lancaster, are suited to growth yet are left outside the grey areas and stay in the green. Some are quite un-suited to growth, and we may be wasting, or may have wasted some millions upon them. Some need more than grey area help—perhaps the assistance of a new town development corporation, to channel in capital from a different quarter.
This Bill prolongs the uniformity of medicine. Worse, by subsidising large new areas at the expense of the rest it leaves the marginally excluded parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire with older, less competitive industry, stamps them as more squalid and repulsive to the young, must inspire faster migration and leave a more ageing population. I quote Professor Carter, until recently Chairman of the North-West Regional Economic Planning Council and Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University. He writes:
"Abolishing unwanted towns by making them so unpleasant that citizens depart"—
is the consequence and it is a political dead end, because eventually it is necessary to spend more money than ever, if only in the interests of success at a subsequent General Election.
Regarding population drift, this Bill breaks entirely new ground. I was interested to learn that in the West Riding coalfield, for example, all but three of the nineteen local authorities with the most spoiled and degraded land have also a very high rate—25 per cent.—of sub-standard housing. Inquiry has shown, intimate detailed inquiry, that people are leaving those places at least as much because of the depressing environment as for lack of opportunity. Of course the worst areas in terms of dereliction are

513
those with the lowest rateable value. Little wonder, then, that the 85 per cent. grant available in the development areas has not everywhere been the success it was thought likely to be! Challenge of the Changing North, published by the Economic Planning Council of the North —an area enjoying the 85 per cent. grant —recorded in 1965 that the area of ground needing treatment was some 13,700-odd acres. But the Ministry's own figure at the end of 1968 showed that the sum had now risen another 1,500-odd acres, even though 2,000 acres had been cleared meantime—and that is with the 85 per cent. grant being available. The Hunt Committee wanted an 85 per cent. grant for the grey areas. Why then cut it to 75 per cent., when obviously 85 per cent. is not sufficient?
Bluntly, we are not overtaking this dereliction problem, and I say that despite assurances given in this House (I think on December 11) that new dereliction is to be interpreted largely, if not wholly, as the effect of land going out of use through the closure of railways or pits. Even under the official definition the growth of sick land is prodigious. The English figures, which are easier to sort out, show that in 1964 something like 85,000 acres needed treatment. According to the Hunt Report, paragraph 75, at the end of 1967 that figure was no longer 85,000 but was 93,000. The 1968 Ministry figures published in 1969 still show the figure at about 93,000, although 2,000 more had been treated meantime.
Last year, the English treatment programme, at 4,300 acres a year, was only just sufficient on a 15-year programme to catch up with the backlog if no new dereliction arose. But new demand is rising all the time. The nature of spoiled and degraded land—that is, land still technically in use but neglected or un-sightly—is growing at a frightening pace. New pit spoil in West Yorkshire at 20 million tons a year requirss 25 acres covered to a height of 40 feet; and when the Ferrybridge, Eggboro, and Drax power stations come on stream they will be churning out another 4 million tons— that is to say, another 20 per cent. of ash a year, which will have to be put somewhere or other.
Then there is the camouflage of definition. Derelict land, hitherto defined
514
as land that is out of use, does of course exclude land that may be technically in use; it also excludes land that has been made derelict by Nature, such as swamps or mud flats. But I have been interested to read Opportunity in the East Midlands, the publication of the East Midlands Planning Council embracing the area of Erewash Valley, about which the Government are rightly concerned and which will of course be assisted by this Bill in due time. It points out that dereliction excluded from the official definition often represents the major part of the problem. It says that Nottinghamshire alone has something like 1,100 acres of land that is really derelict but excluded from the official definition, which in turn is 1,300 acres. In other words, the real figure is nearly twice as much. West Riding figures of 1966 show spoiled and degraded land at 17,000 acres, as against a Ministry figure for the same period of less than 7,000. This, my Lords, is the measure of the problem.
My hopes rose when I read in the Bill, Clause 4(2), that "land" includes "land covered with water". May we hope that this means some modification and widening of the old definition in the 1966 Acts? With mountains of colliery waste and enormous volumes of power station ash, disposal is a gigantic problem in a shrinking island. If land literally does include land covered with water, could not the bings and tips be used on winning new ground for housing, as has already been done in Lancashire? Or on reclaiming mud flats for other sites which have already been identified as possible sites for maritime industrial development areas, MIDAS, on the Upper Forth, the Humber, the Lune Estuary, if not the Bristol Channel and the Wash as well? Admittedly, there are hazards: the spoil may well be volatile. But a resolve to make a big effort at derelict land clearance would be very worthy of this country in this Conservation Year. Before leaving that point, may I ask one other question of the Government? There is one recommendation of the Hunt Report that has neither been accepted nor rejected, nor even emasculated; that is the recommendation that there should be a National Reclamation Agency. What has happened to that? The regions are getting restive and are beginning to ask.

515
My Lords, all that I have said is but one edge of a large matter. After forty years of tinkering about on the frontiers of fantasy, the time surely is long past for a new look. Should we not admit at last that the post-war epoch is over, and indeed that another, a very decade of urgency, is at hand? After all the failed pragmatics of which this Bill, let us hope, is the last pallid performance, do not the precepts of statecraft urge us into a searching new study? This could not have come from the Hunt Committee because it was set up at the wrong time with the wrong remit; that remit excluded a study of general development area and general industrial location policy. I pray that if not this Government, then the next, will at last take a long, cold look, yet lighting facts that come before them with imagination, and aware that technology without vision is like bread without yeast. Such a study should start at the opposite end to Barlow; not where can you disperse population, but where could industry best go in its own interests—in an East/West repolarisation of our economic geography.
It should take into consideration factors only newly coming to light, such as the relevance to a development area of the proportion of the educated élite within it. Scotland, it would appear, is benefiting from a brain drain in reverse, if the studies of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research into what is called the "T.A.E. index" (that is the index of the terminal age of education) are any guide. Such a study should re-member that the movement of people and of industry is a function of lines of communication within the pattern of world air ports and sea ports. Such a study should chart the physical geography of freight desirelines within and across Britain's value-added, entrepot economy. It should have regard to new transport techniques: the merry-go-round train; the overland barge; the new conveyor belt; the capsule pipeline; the deep water ocean terminal, with its M.I.D.A. and the second tier port with its mini M.I.D.A. at the other end of the land bridge. Such a study should make a fresh locational appraisal of the purely technical needs of industry for special sorts of site in the decade ahead.
516
The study should know that most large-scale undertakings, particularly those that generate others, have fundamental site needs that are special to them. It may be a deep water dockside; it may be abundant cooling water; it may be the cheapest electrical energy—hence, closeness to the source of power; it may be research-based opportunities requiring access to a university; it may be sites with some extractive merits—mining potash, base metals or coal, or quarrying or even farming; it may be the significance of some transport intersection.
Such a study could build up a long-range projection of natural growth points, and it could then translate into purely employment terms the requirements of the industries that would be suited to those places—the needs "for", not "of", particular places as evoked by technology. Next it should study the minimum population needed to supply that work force, coupled with the minimum population needed for a viable community. Knowing that light industry will go where there are people, it should then consider what extra light industry would be needed alongside.
Such a study would recognise differences of treatment. To equip different types of industrial base and reception area for different types of industry would need different types of help and preparation, whether we think of Wick and Thurso and my own special pet, Loch Eriboll; whether we think of Preston, Lancaster and the Lune Estuary; whether we think of Knottingley, Normanton, Pontefract and the Five Towns of opportunity at the future intersection of the A.1 and the M.62; whether we think of Newtown, Montgomery, the Vale of Glamorgan, the Bristol Channel or the Thames. The study should lastly consider not only what policies are needed to bring these changes about, but how, once the policies have been effective, such a programme can be withdrawn without pain.
In sum, such a study would convert to-day's geography of need into to-morrow's geography of attainment. Then, as a supplement tto real economic growth, it would forecast the geography of desire for the use of dereliction to apply its waste to recovery of beauty and the in-richment of culture—all that meantime

517
take second place to the geography of growth.
My Lords, in place of tranquillisers I plead for travail and for the black benediction of chronic malady. I plead for a very patriotism of the fourth dimension. The great Disraeli spoke of the two nations. Surely the good of Winchelsea and of Wick, the good of Pembroke and of Portobello, the good of Bournemouth and of Blyth, the good of Lancaster and of Ladbroke Grove are as much the concern of the rich South as they are of one another. We are an island, yes. Remember, my Lords, the words of the great Donne:
"No man is an iland of it selfe Every man is a peece of the continent A part of the maine".
6.14 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the brief debate which we have had has turned on much wider issues than those specifically contained in the Bill before us, and I think it would be very valuable if on some future occasion we could have a wider debate. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would be the first to agree that his searching and stimulating speech went far beyond the bounds of the measure which he made the subject of his text. In replying to this brief debate, I can touch on only one or two of the broad issues which have been raised. May I divide my remarks into two parts? Let me first say something fairly briefly about the derelict land, and then a little about the general issues of regional policy which have been raised by the two noble Lords who have spoken. So far as derelict land is concerned, let me say, quite clearly and without any qualification, that we recognise that there is no room for complacency in examining this problem, but the problem of derelict land is not one of recent origin. It is a problem which has been with us in varying forms and, in a sense, to an increasing degree since the Industrial Revolution. If one takes a long view, it is perhaps unfortunate that for so much of the 'fifties, from 1951 to 1959, there was a suspension of the derelict land payment grants which could have been made under the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act.
I think it is reasonable to claim that, considerable though the ground is which has still to be covered, and considerable
518
though the progress which has still to be made, there has been a more vigorous approach to this problem under the present Administration than we have seen before. According to their varying circumstances, local authorities can now receive grants which range, in effect, from 50 per cent. upwards—substantially higher; 85 per cent., in the development areas and, under this Bill, 75 per cent. in the intermediate areas and the derelict land clearance areas. Normally, however, the figure is 50 per cent. in parts of the country which are altogether outside the development or intermediate areas. Quite apart from anything else, this Bill substantially extends the areas of the country eligible for higher rates of grant.
There was a reference to the Hunt Report and the National Reclamation Agency. That is an item in the Hunt Report to which careful consideration has been given, but it has been concluded by the Government that it is right to maintain, in the way the Bill does, the principle of sustaining the interest and encouraging the initiative of the local authorities in dealing with this problem in their own localities, and maintaining the involvement of local people and the councils who represent them as primary agents in seeing that progress is made in this matter. Of course expert assistance is valuable, too, and I should like to draw attention to the services which have been rendered by the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board in this regard. Those services, which I think many local authorities have found of value, will continue to be available.
Now let me turn briefly—and I feel this is unduly briefly, in the light of the speeches we have heard, particularly the speech of the noble Earl—to the position in respect of regional policies. There is plenty of ground for saying that there are problems not yet solved, but here again I venture to claim that in the five years of the present Administration we have had a more vigorous, a more comprehensive and, I stress in the light of some of the remarks made by the noble Earl, a more flexible regional policy than has ever previously existed in the industrial history of this country. Whatever other criticisms may be made of the regional policies which the Government have followed, I should not have thought

519
they could have been criticised for their lack of flexibility when one looks at the wide range of instruments which are available to deal with varying facets of regional problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, dealt at some length with the question of the statistics of job opportunity in the development areas, and I would welcome an opportunity when we might hear more fully and more extensively the comprehensive counter-proposals which noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite would put forward as their considered and comprehensive alternatives to the policies which the Government have followed. But I should like to stress that, important though employment is and important though job opportunity is, it is also the case—and I think the noble Earl would agree with me here—that a regional policy must not be judged by one criterion to the exclusion of others. The regional policy which we have been carrying out has been carried out against a background of general policies which have, in many cases, necessarily accelerated the loss of job opportunities in some of the basic industries which so dominate the economies of the development areas, and, to some degree, of the intermediate areas.
The programme of colliery closures; the programme of railway reorganisation, with a substantial reduction of jobs there; rationalisation in the shipbuilding industry; rationalisation in other parts of heavy engineering—these and other programmes and policies necessary on a national scale have in fact had the impact in some of the basic industries of positively reducing job opportunities at a more rapid rate than one might other-wise have expected, and also of limiting very materially the extent to which re-deployment within the industries them-selves could be carried out.
There must be many elements in a regional policy. There must be a place for measures which are designed to increase employment and job opportunities. There must be a place, too, for measures which are designed for the improvement and encouragement of industrial investment and industrial re-equipment—and this may very well not be the same as an increase in job opportunities. It may, however,
520
create jobs which are of a different quality, both in their requirements and in their guarantees or expectations of long-term security, for it is in the capital-intensive industries—and so many of the growth industries on which our industrial future depends are capital-intensive industries—that such jobs as are provided are generally jobs of a high level of pay and, perhaps more important, jobs which promise security in the economic circumstances of the country and which also carry the possibility of a continuing growth in the future.
So there has to be an element which positively encourages capital investment and re-equipment; and there have also to be elements which encourage the development of the infrastructure. This is an important element in a regional policy, though I do not think one should put one's whole emphasis on it. Such figures as I have seen suggest that the improvement of the infrastructure can be extremely expensive, and can be an element which carries the danger that one may spend one's money in the wrong way; that one may build very good roads only to find that industry does not develop at the places where it was expected to develop, and so the roads prove rather a disappointing addition to the infrastructure.
My Lords, these considerations carry us very far afield, and having commented that we must have a variety of elements in our regional policy, and having tried to show some of the elements which have a necessary place, and repeating my hope that we shall in due course hear a comprehensive set of counter-proposals from the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, I should like to conclude by coming to the point which was asked about the review of our regional policies which was suggested by the Hunt Committee. I think that there is not quite such a strong case for this review as might at first sight appear, because most of the Government's measures, and certainly most of the expensive ones in budgetary terms, are of comparatively recent introduction—1966, 1967 and onwards. These have been the landmarks in the development of the regional policy with which we are concerned to-day, and it clearly takes time for the new incentives to be reflected in the investment plans which firms make; it takes time for these plans to mature,

521
and it certainly takes time for the projects to be fully developed and brought into operation. We take the view, notwithstanding what the Hunt Committee said on this subject, that it is too soon to be certain how far the very substantial and expensive measures which the Government have initiated are contributing to industrial growth and are changing the industrial patterns in the regions concerned.
In addition, there are a number of considerations about the statistical methods of measuring employment and of identifying the causes for the creation of different jobs which would make such an assessment a very difficult one to undertake, and anybody trying to under-take it would be confronted by a number of imponderables. It is very difficult, too, to make a review which separates the effects of regional policies from the effects, sometimes coincident, sometimes contradictory, of national economic policy. The Government are anxious to develop a reliable assessment of the costs and of the benefits of the policies which have been initiated, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to one or two of the studies which are being undertaken at the present time on this subject. We are undertaking at official level a major review of the investment grants scheme, and we hope from this to learn what can be learnt about the operation and the effectiveness of this scheme. This is a complex study, which is bound to take some time if the outcome of it, the report produced, is really to be worth while on such a complicated question.
Also, as we have indicated, we are considering how a study can most effectively be made into the operation of the regional employment premium, but this study has not yet been put in hand. Regional employment premium has been in payment for just over two years, and I think it will be agreed that it would have been a rather unwise exercise to try to embark upon such a study with less than that degree of experience. The Ministry of Technology hope shortly to complete a major inquiry into the reasons which have led firms to site new projects either in the areas which get various forms of assistance or outside them, and into the subsequent experience which firms have had. This is clearly relevant to the problem that we are discussing.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? It is interesting to hear of the inquiries that have been set up. But how does the noble Lord square the fact that an inquiry has been set up into the workings of one of the latest measures— the regional employment premium, which has been running since 1967—with his statement that it is too soon to start a comprehensive review of other measures which he says have not had long enough to work themselves out?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, let me first say that if I gave the impression that we had set up studies of the operation of the R.E.P. I misled noble Lords. The position is that we are considering how a study of this subject can most effectively be made. Possibly some of the Press reports have gone a little further than the decisions that have so far actually been made. But, equally, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is one thing to study one specific aspect of a whole range of regional policies and quite another to try to assess how that range of policies has operated when they have come into existence, so far as the legislative provisions are concerned, only over the last three years.
There is a further point. An indication of an extensive review of these matters might at the moment have the effect of discouraging firms from making investment decisions which we hope they are going to make and which will be helpful to the development areas. The Government have always accepted that development area policies should be kept under review. We valued and welcomed the review which the Hunt Committee made to the extent that their terms of reference allowed them to make; but we are of the opinion that on balance it would not be sensible to commit our-selves at the present time to a full-scale cost-effectiveness study of the kind the Committee recommended.
My Lords, we have touched, properly and necessarily, on major matters. But I hope, that the stimulating exchanges which we have had, and which may in due course find their setting in a wider debate, will not prevent the House from giving this Bill a cordially applauded Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Industrial Development (Ships) Act,

Food and Drugs (Milk) Act.