Lords Sitting of 26 March 1970

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

BRITISH HONDURAS: MAYAN ANTIQUITIES
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to preserve the Mayan remains and antiquities in British Honduras from depredation and robbery by persons acting on behalf of museums in the United States and Europe, as is occurring in Mexico and Guatemala.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, this is a matter which is entirely within the competence of the Government of British Honduras. I understand that the Government of British Honduras have for some time been in close touch with both the Mexican and Guatemalan authorities with a view to concerting action to combat the robbery and depredation of Mayan antiquities. I have also been informed that it is the intention of the Government of British Honduras to introduce in the near future legislation to strengthen controls over dealings in Mayan antiquities.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I presume that he saw the article in the Saturday Review of The Times on February 14, which shows the extent to which these depredations and smuggling have gone. While I quite realise that for all purposes of internal affairs British Honduras is self-governing, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to help the Government of British Honduras with advice in regard to these matters, which involve smuggling by air-
1494
craft and by ship? I thought that possibly the Royal Navy could have played a part in these matters
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern, and that of many others, about what is happening to these antiquities. It is a matter for the British Honduras Government, but I can assure the noble Lord that if we were asked to assist, not only with advice but also in some form of action, we should be only too ready to consider that request.

MARITIME INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS: THE HALCROW REPORT
11.9 a.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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, since the Peston Report on MIDAS is to be published, they will now approve publication of the Halcrow Report on MIDAS also.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Peston Report deals with the feasibility of an economic and industrial analysis of the general MIDAS concept. Its publication has no relevance to the Government's decision not to release the Halcrow Report.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is not aware that Professor Peston points out that a proper cost/benefit analysis must have reference to particular sites? Therefore, since the assumptions of a cost/ benefit study are at least as important as its conclusions, would the noble Lord have a look at the matter again? May I ask him further whether, since non-statutory bodies like the Severnside and Humberside Studies have apparently had access to Halcrow, statutory bodies like local authorities and the Highland Board might be allowed to do so as well?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will bring both those points to the attention

1495
of my right honourable friend. On the question of particular places, I should remind the House that the names of the places studied by the Halcrow Committee have been reported to Parliament.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. A further point: is he aware that places like Stornoway and Swansea, reported on by Halcrow, are not in the published list of ten; and other places known to have been studied by Halcrow were not listed at the time to which the noble Lord refers?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.

RHODESIA: DISPOSAL OF UNACCEPTED LETTERS
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what instructions have been given regarding the disposal of letters from Rhodesia bearing a Rhodesian stamp in cases where the addressee will not pay the surcharge demanded.]
LORD SHEPHERD: None, my Lords. This is a matter for the Post Office, but I understand that normal regulations already cover the point. These regulations provide that such letters should be treated as undeliverable and returned to the country of origin.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether it is really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to hamper postal communication between this country and Rhodesia?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. The reason why this action is taken is that these stamps are invalid, because they have been issued by an illegal regime which has no authority to issue them.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how a letter
1496
coming from Rhodesia should be stamped, if it is to be delivered in this country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are stamps which we have accepted in the past as lawful. If any of those stamps were put on envelopes, they would be treated as they have been treated in the past. The action we have taken is on the stamps illegally issued by an illegal régime.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say where the acceptable stamps can be acquired?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, they have been available in Rhodesia and I have no reason to believe that they are not still available, if the right authorities propose to issue them.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord advise the House how we are to communicate with people in Rhodesia who do not agree with the Smith régime?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is nothing to hamper the noble Lord from communicating with his friends in Rhodesia. We recognise the inconvenience, perhaps hardship, that exists in Rhodesia, but we are not to blame. It is those in Rhodesia who are to blame.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, is it not true that a letter posted with no stamp at all is delivered, in spite of the fact that the recipient has to pay twice the postage?
LORD SHEPHERD: That is right, my Lords. We have also made it perfectly clear that if a letter is received in this country with illegal Rhodesian stamps and the person to whom the letter had been sent is prepared to pay the cost of the lawful charge for a stamp, the letter will be delivered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the mere fact that a letter bears a Rhodesian stamp on it will prevent its being delivered here, even though it is lawfully stamped with the stamp of some other country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if it has the stamp of another country, then I should expect that it would be

1497
delivered. Perhaps I may amend an answer that I gave earlier by saying that the letter would be delivered, but there would be double the postage rate charge on delivery.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is there not a case in this particular instance for not imposing the double rate for the surcharge? Having regard to the special difficulties of people in Rhodesia who are trying to correspond with people in this country, is there not a case for saying that the double surcharge should not be demanded, but only the single surcharge of the amount for the original postage?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, the regulations for dealing with this matter are clearly defined in the Universal Postal Union, and it is here that the Post Office are complying with the law.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may we take it that these letters will continue to be delivered, like any other letters which bear the correct postage?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the letter will be presented to the person to whom it is sent, and if it has an illegal stamp on it the person will be asked to pay the double charge. If he does not pay the double charge and refuses to accept the letter, it will be returned to the country of origin.

GIBRALTAR: AIR COMMUNICATIONS
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the statement, made by the Minister of Information in Gibraltar before the House of Assembly on January 29, 1970, that Gibraltar Ministers believe as a principle of general policy, that big improvements in air communications in and out of Gibraltar will inevitably bring a rapid expansion in economic growth;

(a) whether they agree;

1498

(b) what is the present position regarding Gibraltar Airways' proposed service to Lisbon as from April 1, 1970; and

(c) whether they propose to encourage further development of air communications to and from Gibraltar.]

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while improvements in air communications are to be welcomed, they are by no means the only factor affecting the possibility of economic growth. Her Majesty's Government have approached the Portuguese authorities about Gibraltar Airways' proposed service to Lisbon, but they have raised some objections. The airline has been asked to provide additional information to enable Her Majesty's Government to answer points made by the Portuguese authorities.
The development of air services is a matter in the first instance for the commercial judgment of airlines. New services by a United Kingdom airline that were duly licensed by the Air Transport Licensing Board would be welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, who would also be pleased to see new services to Gibraltar by foreign airlines that were operated within the ambit of the United Kingdom's various bilateral air service agreements.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, and I should like to ask him two supplementary questions. First, can the Minister confirm that the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal regarding a British route between Gibraltar and Lisbon, as outlined in the Treaty series, Cmnd. 8597 of 1952, is still valid? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will urge upon B.E.A. to increase the frequency of their service to Gibraltar, rather than to decrease it, as they have done over the last three years?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to the first question, I can confirm that the agreement is still valid and that the routes referred to are still available to United Kingdom airlines. As to the second question, this is a matter of commercial judgment not only by B.E.A., but also by B.U.A. However, I have asked

1499
for an inquiry to be made into the load factors of these services into Gibraltar.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in war time we had regular British air services between London, Lisbon and Gibraltar? Is it not time that B.E.A. inaugurated a regular air service between London, Lisbon and Gibraltar?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, whether this is a route that B.E.A. wish to operate is again a matter of commercial judgment. At the moment, the Question on the Order Paper asks about Gibraltar Airways' proposed service to Lisbon. That, as I have said, is a route that is open to us under the 1946 Agreement, and we are pursuing this issue.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in case these services increase, can my noble friend confirm that there has been no interference in the air space for the lines operating to Gibraltar, and that there is not likely to be?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware of any disturbance to the civil airlines operating into Gibraltar.

GENERAL RATE BILL
11.19 a.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to express my pleasure and gratitude that the House gave the Bill such a favourable reception. It is of relatively minor importance, but it is a useful and desirable measure to ensure that the assessment of dwelling-houses in the 1973 revaluation is undertaken with all the best evidence available. While the Bill was before your Lordships' House we inserted a few declaratory words which will be welcomed by those who were fearful—although, as the Government believe, unnecessarily fearful— that the Bill would take away their right to challenge all the individual assessments. The thanks of the House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for tabling the relevant Amendment.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Rennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I have nothing more to add to the remarks I made at the earlier stages of the Bill. We all wish the valuers well in their intricate task of carrying out their revaluation on which the 1973 assessments will eventually be based.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL MILK) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved that the Report be now received. —(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Group Insurance Business]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of section 41 of the principal Act and Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1966 (which impose limits on the benefits which may be assured by registered friendly societies and branches) the limits in paragraphs (l)(c) and (1)(d) of paragraph 5 of the said Schedule 8 (which relate to life or endowment business which is not tax exempt) shall apply separately in relation to the amounts which may be received—

(a) by way of group insurance business; and

(b) by way of other business ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment in my name. The purpose of this Amendment is to give relief from a difficulty which would otherwise face friendly societies who might wish to include life or endowment cover in their group insurance schemes. Each of the persons whose lives are insured under a group insurance scheme is required by the Friendly Societies Acts to be an individual of the insuring society. Also, Section 41(1) of the Friendly Societies Act 1896, as modified by paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1966, limits the aggregate amount which a member may receive from any one or more societies. The limits are

1501
£500 by way of gross sum or £104 by way of annuity under tax exempt life or endowment business, and £2,000 (or £3,000 in the case of a mortgage protection policy) by way of gross sum, or £208 by way of annuity under non-tax exempt life or endowment business.
Under the existing law any sum received by way of life insurance by a member of a group insurance scheme must be aggregated with the amount assured on the death of that member under other friendly society insurances. The amount which may lawfully be paid under a group insurance scheme to a particular member therefore varies in accordance with the amount of cover which that member already has under other friendly society contracts.
It would be desirable from the employer's point of view to be able to provide under a group insurance scheme a death benefit of a specific amount, for example, one year's salary, which would apply to all members of the group. But if an employee already had a friendly society policy he might not, owing to:he permitted limits of insurance, be eligible to join the scheme. The fact that certain employees might be debarred in this way from benefiting under the scheme might be regarded as unfair, particularly where the employer was contributing to the scheme. This Amendment gives relief so that any sums assured by a society under a group insurance scheme of up to £2,000 or £3,000 by way of lump sum, or £208 by way of annuity need not be aggregated, for the purposes of the limits, with other sums assured to the member under other non-group insurance scheme contracts, provided that the group insurance scheme business is non-tax exempt business. This Amendment is in line with the alternative suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, and for the explanation he has given of it. Is he aware that the representative associations of friendly societies wholeheartedly welcome the Amendment, which, as he said, follows the second of the two courses that I suggested in Committee? Naturally I should have preferred the first alternative, for
1502
the reasons I gave, but I can quite see that that might have been interpreted as a major change in the friendly societies legislation not appropriate to a tidying-up Bill.
There are three short points that I should like to raise: two of them are connected. As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment relates only to the non-tax exempt business that is covered by paragraphs (l)(c) and (d) of paragraph 5, Schedule 8 to the 1966 Finance Act. I assume that a society, if it so wished, would be able to operate group business under (l)(a) and (b) within the tax exempt limits, but that it would then have to take into account any personal cover that employees had already arranged for themselves in the field of tax exempt business. In that case, the employer would have to ask his employees, one by one, what personal cover each had. Thus the purpose of the Amendment would be defeated, so far as tax exempt business was concerned. I take it that this is so. But what I want to be quite satisfied about is that although the Amendment refers only to sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) it would also be possible for group business to be done under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
Secondly, under paragraph 5 of the 8th Schedule to the 1966 Finance Act, the Chief Registrar may, with the consent of the Treasury, increase from time to time any of the limits in paragraphs (1)(c) and (d), so far as individual policies are concerned. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that such increases will equally apply to group business. I feel certain they will, but I think it would be right to have it on the Record that they will. Connected with that I should like to ask whether the Chief Registrar is intending to increase them in the near future. I am told that, on the basis of the official index of retail prices, it would be necessary, in order to maintain the values of these two limits of £2,000 for life and endowment business and £3,000 for mortgage protection policies, to raise them, in round figures, to £2,350 and £3,525 respectively. I wonder whether the Chief Registrar intends to increase them in the near future in order to maintain their values.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, on the first two points that the noble Lord raised, where he wanted more clarity, I

1503
can assure him in the first place that his assumption that a society could still, if it so chose, operate group business under paragraph (l)(a) and (b) of Schedule 8 is correct. In that case it would be operating within the tax exempt limits, and would have to take into account benefits which members of the group may be entitled to personally and individually. On the second point, I can confirm that if and when an order is made by the Chief Registrar under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1966 increasing the permitted limits for non-tax exempt business, the increase specified in the order will apply equally to group business.
The noble Lord finally asked whether the Chief Registrar had any present intention of raising the limits. I can assure the noble Lord that the Chief Registrar has power, with Treasury consent, to raise the limits which apply generally to the amounts that members may receive from friendly societies by way of death benefits, endowment or annuity. In this context group insurance cannot be considered in isolation. Any further increase in the general insurance powers of friendly societies would require further examination and consultation in the light of the circumstances existing at that time. It is not even certain that the friendly societies movement as a whole would welcome an increase in the general limits.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Citation, construction, extent and commencement]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 35, after ("except") insert ("subsections (3) and (4) of section 7 and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The effect of this Amendment is to make subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7—which define group insurance business and make such business non-aggregatable with other insurance business for the purpose of insurance limits—extend to Northern Ireland. This is necessary because Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1966, which applies the insurance limits, extends to Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

GUYANA REPUBLIC BILL [H.L.]
11.32 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is short and will, I think, be generally accepted as non-controversial. Guyana became a Republic within the Commonwealth on February 23, 1970. This change of status was anticipated during the preparations for Guyana's Independence and, as your Lordships will know, provision was made in the Guyana Independence Act 1966, and the Guyana Independence Order 1966, made under it, to enable Guyana to become a Republic on the passing of a resolution by its National Assembly not earlier than April 1, 1969. The Guyana National Assembly passed such a resolution by an overwhelming majority in August, 1969.
As a matter of interest, the new Republic of Guyana is the ninth country among the present members of the Commonwealth to have become a Republic after a short period of having a Monarch as Head of State. When the five countries which adopted republican status immediately upon independence are added, this makes Guyana the fourteenth State within the Commonwealth to have opted for republican status. One more will give the Republicans a majority within the Commonwealth. But I think one can say, from one's experience of the Commonwealth, that being a Republic does not in any way reduce the affection which the people of those countries have towards Her Majesty The Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth.
This Bill is in fact a technical measure and substantively follows the lines of previous legislation in parallel cases. It provides that the operation of the law of the United Kingdom—and the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—as it applies to Guyana will not be affected by the fact that Guyana is now a Republic. The Bill will not apply generally to the law of Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom but only to Acts of the British Parliament and Orders in Council applying such Acts which extend to such territories. This is the common-form provision in such cases.
In accordance with the accepted convention, Guyana sought the agreement of

1505
other Commonwealth Governments to her remaining in the Commonwealth, despite the change to a republican Constitution. As the Commonwealth Secretary-General announced on September 17, 1969, all the Heads of Government of the Common-wealth indicated that they would welcome Guyana's continuing membership of the Commonwealth. On March 17, the Guyana National Assembly elected Mr. Arthur Chung as the first President of Guyana under its republican Constitution. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in extending to Mr. Chung, representing the Government and people of Guyana, our sincere wishes for their future peace and prosperity. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Shepherd.)
11.35 a.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this Bill. From these Benches we also should like to extend our good wishes to the new President of the Republic of Guyana. There are just two points over which I should like the Minister to help me. Under Article 92 of the 1966 Constitution the people of Guyana had the right of appeal to the Privy Council. I should like to know whether this right of appeal will persist. Perhaps the Minister can give me an answer to that.
I think we were all pleased to note the way in which the economic strength of Guyana had steadily progressed since it became a member of the Caribbean Free Trade Area. We all know that the principal export of Guyana is sugar; they depend very largely on that crop. As a firm supporter of our entry into the Common Market, on the right terms, I should like to receive an assurance from the Minister that the interests of the Guyanese in their export of sugar will be kept well in the mind of Her Majesty's Government when we are conducting negotiations to obtain admission to the European Economic Community.
I am sure all of us on this side of the House share the feelings of delight of Her Majesty's Government at knowing that the Guyanese people, although they have become a Republic, are no less devoted to the person of Her Majesty The Queen. With those words, I should
1506
like to wish the Guyanese people and their President well.
11.37 a.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I be allowed to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has surely confirmed what I have long believed: that never in human history has a great Empire been liquidated with such skill and grace. But I also think that as shortly we are likely to have a majority of Republics within the Commonwealth it follows that the Commonwealth, as I said last week, does not mean quite so much as it used to do, either in political or in economic terms.
11.38 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the support the two noble Lords have given to this Bill. I believe it is the intention of the Guyanese Government to withdraw from the ambit of the Privy Council; they will be taking the necessary action. In regard to sugar, I would agree with the noble Marquess. We ourselves attach great importance to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, in which Guyana is a participant. I can assure the noble Marquess that we have very much in mind the position not only of the sugar producing countries but of all those other countries within the Common-wealth, and of course outside, which depend upon commodities such as sugar, and the effect on them of our entry into the Common Market. We can confirm our assurance that we will do all possible to get the best terms for them. The noble Marquess will also be aware that when discussions and negotiations take place those countries which are interested will be able to be represented to express their points of view.
I can only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on his speech last week. I personally believe that the Commonwealth still has much to offer, not only to ourselves but to the world. I think the world would be a much poorer place without this great community of nations, going right across the board in religion, politics, colour—"You name it, they've got it." It would be a poorer world without them. But I also disagree with the noble Lord because he is slightly inaccurate. We have not exactly liquidated our colonial Empire. We still have quite a few—some 5 million— people to look after; and I hope we shall

1507
have the noble Lord's support in looking after them.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

ROYAL ASSENT
11.40 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): 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.
Game Act,
Education (School Milk) Act.

HILL LAND IMPROVEMENT (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1970
11.41 a.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Hill Land Improvement (Amendment) Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on March 18, be approved. With permission, I hope it will be convenient to consider the Amendment Scheme for Scotland at the same time, as it is on practically the same lines.
The Scheme is made under Section 41 of the Agriculture Act 1967. It implements one aspect of the increase in capital grants announced as part of my statement on the Annual Farm Price Review. The announcement then received a generous welcome in this House and I trust therefore that the provisions of this Amendment Scheme will also be welcomed. The Scheme provides that the rate of grant for hill land improvements should be increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. for a period of two years. It is proposed that this higher rate of grant should be paid on all applications received and all approvals given during the two-year period commencing March 19, 1970. The 10 per cent. supplementary grant for all drainage work benefiting hill land will continue unchanged. Since the general rate of field drainage grant will be 60 per cent. the 10 per cent. supplement now means that hill farmers will have their drainage works grant-aided at the rate of 70 per cent. for the next two years.
1508
Hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom have carried out many land improvements with the aid of 50 per cent. grants under the principal Scheme. In fact since its inception in August, 1967, there have been over 30,000 applications in the United Kingdom at an estimated cost of £11 million. In addition, there have been over 10,000 applications for the 10 per cent. drainage supplement. The rate of applications under the main hill land Scheme has been well maintained throughout 1969–70, and is still running at over 1,250 a month for land improvements and nearly 400 a month for the drainage supplement.
The Scheme embraces a very wide range of land improvements, including re-seeding, reclamation, fencing and roads. The increased rate of grant, together with the other measures which have been taken at this year's Annual Review to help hill farmers, will give a substantial incentive for expansion in the hills. I am sure the Amendment Scheme will further help the amount of useful investment in hill farming, to the benefit both of the farmers and of the nation. I have pleasure in moving that this Scheme be now approved.
Moved, That the Draft Hill Land Improvement (Amendment) Scheme 1970 laid before the House on March 18, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
11.44 a.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining the purpose of this Scheme to us, and assure him that we shall give it a warm welcome here. Where so much additional financial grant is to be handed out there are seldom any refusals. One of the few places where farming demonstrations are not taking place at this time is probably in the hills!
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us an indication of how these Schemes are progressing. I should like to ask him a question which immediately poses itself. These increases are substantial and valuable. Can the Government make any concession to applicants who apply just before March 19 and who, therefore, would seem to be in danger of losing the valuable increase made in the Price Review?

1509
I am grateful to the noble Lord for making plain that the 60 per cent. rate for the general unified schemes and the 70 per cent. for the land drainage schemes will run for two years. I thought that paragraphs 51 and 52 in the White Paper were not entirely clear, but now the record is clear. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us some indication of, first, what has been the record of farms in the hills which have taken up these grant-aided schemes and made the substantial improvements on their farms? What has been their record over recent years in increased production? In other words, how well has the Scheme as a whole paid off?
I think noble Lords on all sides of the House will be aware of the major problem we have to face of keeping farmers farming in the hills at all. It is a splendid life but a pretty rugged one, and unless a good deal of financial subsidy is given in the way of assistance for capital purposes, and indeed for current purposes—it is put in with the very big subsidies on hill cows, and so on— it would just be impossible for farmers to stay there at all. It is very much in our interests, both sociologically and economically, to keep farming going in the hills. This is the source of much of our livestock, both of cattle and sheep, and therefore these Schemes have a very special value. Therefore, it would be of great interest to us to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, some record of the performance of farms that have received the benefit of these Schemes, and perhaps also what scope the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food see for further grant-aiding these hill farms in order to strengthen the economy of those who have not already had grants.
There is one small technical point about which I should like to ask the noble Lord, and that is fencing schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we have recently passed through this House, under the able guidance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, an Animals Act which has changed the obligation of farmers with regard to the care of their livestock straying on the highway. We on this side of the House expressed some anxiety about cattle which strayed from the hill farms (which in the main, of course, are fenced) on to the roads. Will this form of grant aid cover fencing
1510
schemes—fencing being extremely expensive—where hill farmers decide that because of the increasing volume of traffic on the roads through their areas they had better fence their farms? If the answer is, "Yes", it would seem to me that with the rate now at 60 per cent. for the next two years hill farmers in such areas would be wise to get on with their fencing while the Government are willing to pay 60 per cent. of the cost. My Lords, with those few comments and queries I have much pleasure in supporting both Orders.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL:My Lords, I welcome these Schemes. I think that any Scheme which improves land is a subsidy well spent and is much better than subsidies which are given on stock, and that kind of thing. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, one particular question. If one improves land next door to the open hill, is the deer fence which one will probably need to erect in order to protect the improved land from the deer eligible for the 60 per cent. grant on the total cost of the fence, on part of the cost of the fence, or not at all?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Lord whether these grants apply to cattle grids across side roads, to prevent cattle straying on to the main road?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guild-ford, for the welcome that he has given, and I suspect, because I have had no criticism either from the noble Duke or the noble Viscount that they, too, welcome it. I construe their absence of criticism as being a welcome.
I was asked about the position of farmers who had applied just before March 19—that is to say whose application had been approved before March 19. Clearly, there would be an unfairness if someone had made an application on March 17 or 18 when the scheme came into operation on March 19. The point has been considered. If they were to withdraw their original application and to submit a new application, then it would rank for the increased rate of grant. I hope that that explanation will be helpful.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the concession he is indicating. Could he indicate further how far it can go back? There obviously has to be some limit, and presumably it cannot go back past the point where the application has been formally received.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one draws a line in any of these matters and someone is always going to be on the wrong side of it. I think that where the line would be drawn would be in those cases where the farmers have already started work. Otherwise one would try to be reasonable.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and indeed by the noble Duke, about fencing. I can say that fencing will attract the 60 per cent. grant over the two years, and I see that amongst the list of eligible improvements I have the following: making improvement, renewal and removal of permanent fencing, including hedges and stiles; and the provision of gates and sheep and cattle grids. That satisfies the noble Viscount; I am not sure about the noble Duke's deer, but if it does not satisfy him I will write to him about it.
I was asked about what results we are getting from the records. It is a little difficult to give a sort of end-of-term report on all the farmers who have received the grant in the past. As the noble Lord knows as well as I, there is a certain amount of, not supervision but co-operation and liaison, through the advisory services, and the general impression is that the grants have been well used. As for maintaining the number of hill farmers, the fact is that over the last three months the number of applications has gone up. All appearance is that we are succeeding in making it possible for these people—who, as the noble Lord knows, have quite a hard, austere, hard-working life—to carry on. I have a note that something like 210,000 acres of land have been improved; 162,000 acres of land have been specifically improved through drainage; and the cow herd has gone up. There has been some disappointment on the sheep in the hill areas, but I believed that the figures are again on the upturn. I think we can say that this money is well spent, and I am glad to
1512
think the new Amendment is well received. I hope that we can now adopt this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HILL LAND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT SCHEME 1970
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Scottish Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Hill Land Improvement (Scotland) Amendment Scheme 1970, laid before the House on March 18, be aproved.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1970
11.55 a.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1970, which was laid before the House on March 18, be approved. This Order has two main purposes: it extends the 1969 Scheme for a further year, to May 31, 1971, and it increases the rates of subsidy on fertilisers delivered to farmers in the period April 1, 1970, to March 18, 1971. I should like to point out that this increase in subsidy rates is a once-for-all-measure. I should also like to explain the second of these purposes in a little more detail.
Noble Lords will be aware that one of the prime features of the 1970 Annual Review determinations was the Government's decision to improve the immediate cash position of the industry by injecting £10 million over a period of one year through the medium of the fertiliser and lime subsidies. Of this, £9 million will be disbursed by raising the subsidy rates for fertilisers. The Government were anxious to ensure that farmers received the benefit of the increased subsidy as quickly as possible. They were also concerned to avoid a hiatus in the trade with farmers holding off deliveries of

1513
fertilisers until they could claim the higher rates of subsidy. It was therefore proposed in the Annual Review White Paper that the twelve-month period for payment of the higher rates should commence on March 19.
We were advised that the particular wording of the enabling legislation—the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act 1952—would not make it possible to give retrospective effect to the provisions now before the House; hence the proposal in the Draft Order that the effective starting date for payment of the higher rates should be April 1, 1970. But, subject to Parliament's approval of the Draft Order, the Government wish to ensure that farmers who take delivery of fertilisers between March 19 and April 1 receive the benefit of the increased subsidy by means of exgratia payments. I trust the House will agree that this is a necessary and sensible arrangement.
Quite apart from the benefit which the increased rates of subsidy will bring to the liquidity of farm businesses, they can also be expected to encourage a worth-while increase in demand for fertilisers. This has been taken into account in assessing the rates, which will be increased by about 20 per cent. on average over those set out in the 1969 Scheme. During the year in question, the subsidy as a percentage of gross cost of fertilisers will rise from the present 22½ per cent. to 27 per cent., on average. I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the assurance given by the principal fertiliser manufacturers that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, they will not seek to exceed their current list prices in the coming year. This is a very useful assurance for the farmer to have.
Finally, my Lords, I would make it clear that this temporary increase in subsidy does not affect the Government's underlying long-term policy of containing the cost of the subsidy as consumption of fertilisers increases. The average Exchequer cost of £32 million a year has been maintained with little variation for the past ten years. The considerations before the House are, therefore: should the Fertiliser Scheme be extended for a further year, to May 31, 1971, and should there be a temporary increase in rates for one year, as set out in the Schedule to the Draft Order? I feel sure that the
1514
House will wish to approve both proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1970, laid before the House on March 18, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for explaining this Order to the House. I should like to question him on two interrelated matters which appear to arise from it, the effect on farmers and the effect on the Government's declared expansion policy. The noble Lord gave us percentages. Perhaps, when he replies, he will tell the House, in simple terms, what this will mean in cash advantage per ton to the farmer. For farmers this Order increases the subsidy, as the noble Lord explained, by about £9 million. But, of course, last year's Review reduced the subsidy by £3 million, so that in fact this award represents an increase over 1968, in real terms, of only £6 million.
Referring specifically to fertilisers, paragraph 14 of the Review says:
"The increased subsidies will put money into the farmers' pockets by reducing costs which they would otherwise have had to meet."
Despite the noble Lord's explanation that this Order will cover the period March 19 to April 1, next, as a result of ex gratia payments, for many farmers this sentence in the Price Review White Paper will not be effective until next autumn, because much of the fertiliser buying has already been done, particularly for a fertiliser-intensive crop such as sugar beet. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give any forecast of the consumption of fertilisers for 1970, perhaps by a projection of the 1968 and 1969 figures, which I believe have shown a slackening in demand?
The Government's policy, the 1968 "Little Neddy", Imports Saving Target for Agriculture, required, I believe I am right in saying, an increased expenditure on fertilisers up to 1972–73 of about 40 per cent. in total, and this the Minister accepted in a modified form, as his declared policy later on in 1968. Do Her Majesty's Government believe that this award in this Order will help to achieve the Minister's expansion target for fertiliser consumption? I believe that

1515
this is the nub of this Order. This is what the Government should tell the House this morning to justify this award, and this is what noble Lords will wish to know.
Within the last week, the Economic Development Council Report, Economic Assessment for 1972, has told us that the Government's objectives for increased arable production will not be achieved unless there is a "pronounced up-turn", (to quote the words of the Report) between now and 1972–73. In 1969—last year—the cereals acreage fell back to 9·1 million acres, the lowest for four years. Have Her Majesty's Government any figures for the total tillage acreage fore-cast for this year, 1970? It would seem essential to know this if this Order is to be accepted as being a stepping-stone for the Minister to hit his targets in three years time.
When the Review Statement was made in this House reference was made to manufacturers. I think that all noble Lords will have been glad to hear from the noble Lord about the manufacturers' undertaking, on a prices standstill. I believe that the last year has been anything but easy for the manufacturers, and such a prices standstill will be applauded as well as welcomed.
May I tack on one last question, and repeat a question which was put by my noble friend Lord Nugent on the previous Order a year ago? Is it really not possible for this Order to be extended at some stage to potash, which is so necessary, as my noble friend explained, if rough areas are to be ploughed up? I put the question again to the noble Lord, because a note at page 4 of this new E.D.C. Report assumes that the loss of tillage acreage to non-agricultural uses will be compensated by reclaiming rough grazing. Thus by inference, my noble friend's question of a year ago is here assumed by the Economic Development Council, and I bring it again to the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Government policies must cause an historic rise in costs in the next twelve months. There is, therefore, no desire on my part to look a gift horse in the mouth if I claim that this Order deserves only a qualified welcome.
12.4 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like again to refer to the omission of any reference to subsidy on potash which my noble friend has already mentioned. As the noble Lord will have seen from the Explanatory Note, the Order applies to payments of contributions towards the cost of nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers only, and, as all noble Lords know, potash is just as important a member of the trio as the other two. We know the reason why potash was not included when these fertiliser subsidy schemes were introduced. I believe it was supposed that the production and distribution of potash was in so few hands that it would be difficult to draft and administer a scheme which would be fair and not liable to abuse. But it was also hoped that, sooner or later, ways would be found round that difficulty, because we are now so subsidy-minded that farmers are inclined to put on those fertilisers which are subsidised rather than use the third constituent of most compound fertilisers, potash, which is not subsidised. Therefore, land in this country tends to be short of potash.
Yet, though I concede that it may perhaps be difficult for us to include some subsidy on potash as part of our schemes which run from year to year—I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say something on this point because farmers are worried about it—I am a little surprised that it has not been possible to include some subsidy in this once-and-for-all scheme, which is a little different from a current scheme which is run from year to year. This is a most important point, as my noble friend has said. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, will be able to give us a full answer on this point, because farmers will be greatly interested to hear it.
12.7 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who had several questions for me to answer. I am not sure that I can reply to all of them. He gave me advance notice of one or two of the questions which he proposed asking, and I will do my best to answer those. First of all, he was bothered about the consumption of fertilisers. In

1517
the year 1968–69 fertiliser consumption amounted to 1,729,000 nutrient tons. Estimates contemplated for 1969–70 are 1,765,000 nutrient tons.
The noble Lord was also interested in the forecast of arable acreage. No forecast of the arable acreage during 1970 has been published, but it is expected to be well up on the figure in June, 1969. I am sorry that in that case I cannot give the noble Lord the information for which he asked. Then he appeared to be a little worried about what the Minister said earlier in his speech on the Annual Review White Paper. He was asking for an assurance in regard to fertiliser manufacturers. I have the White Paper here, and if the House would like me to, I can read from paragraph 15 the assurance that the noble Lord is asking for.
LORD BELSTEAD: No; I merely welcomed it.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I understood he was asking for an assurance. He having accepted that, I am saved the task of reading it out. So far as potash is concerned, I must confess that I have not the answer here; but I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Beswick who has just whispered that he can supply to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the information on potash.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I say that this information is not interesting just to me; it is most interesting to the whole farming community. Cannot the noble Lord find a way of publicising it a little wider than just by addressing it to me?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, those are the answers that I have jotted down in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and, with the agreement of the House, I will leave my noble friend Lord Beswick to answer the other question on potash.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I can help the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, (I think he knows the answer perfectly well), may I say that potash is imported. There are, however, three companies proposing to mine it in the North-East, and when they are in full operation we shall no doubt get increased pressure for sub-
1518
sidy to extend to potash. At the present time a certain amount of money is available for subsidy for fertilisers; if it is spread over the three elements there is less for the other two. The total amount would not be affected, and I am sure the noble Lord would agree that it is better to concentrate it on the two rather than on the third which, as he knows, is imported.
In any case, the use of potash spreads much more widely than by the farmer. It is used by the commercial horticulturist; it is used a good deal by the gardener, and the subsidy in that case— I emphasise, the limited amount of subsidy—would to some extent be helping some very worthy individuals, but individuals who are not quite so worthy as the farmer whom we are hoping to help in this case. Moreover, I think that if payment were confined to horticulture and not allowed to go to the gardener, it would involve an administrative expense which I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to encourage. I feel that on reflection he would be glad to see this fixed amount we have contrived to agree with the Treasury concentrated on the two elements of fertiliser and not on the three.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL STANDING ORDERS
12.12 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This amends Judicial Standing Order No. XIV in accordance with the recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee which your Lordships approved yesterday. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business:—

STANDING ORDER XIV
Line 2, leave out ("by Stamps")
Leave out line 7 and insert ("endorsed by the Acountant and Receiver of Fees with the date of lodgment and the amount of the fee paid ")
In the Schedule of Fees:
Line 2, leave out ("2") and insert ("4")
Line 3, leave out ("10s. (50p)") and insert ("1")
Line 4, leave out ("2") and insert ("4")
Line 5, leave out ("2") and insert ("4")
Line 6, leave out ("2") and insert ("4")
Line 7, leave out ("1") and insert ("2")
Line 9, leave out ("3") and insert ("6")
Line 10, leave out ("1") and insert ("2")
Line 13, leave out ("13") and insert ("26")
After line 13, insert—
("Lodgment of Joint Case … … 46")
Line 14, leave out ("2") and insert ("4")
Line 15, leave out ("3") and insert ("6")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.