Lords Sitting of 5 May 1970

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

B.B.C. SERVICES
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: 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 assurances have been given that the B.B.C. will reconsider the alterations in their services at the end of June, that is, after three months of operation.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DA VIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I said in the debate on Broadcasting Policy on February 25 that the B.B.C. would review their programmes in the light of public reaction to the first few months of their plan. The B.B.C. tell us that this is the position and that they have already made changes as a result of representations.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her to remind the B.B.C. that not only are we concerned about the content of radio, we are deeply concerned about the content of television as well.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, indeed my Lords. The B.B.C. are very much aware of public interest throughout the country in both radio sound broadcasting and television. This great public interest is one of the best safeguards for our whole programme in this regard.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may intervene, I should like to point out to my noble friend that asking the Minister to "remind" somebody is not a question.

HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
2.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: 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 was the total expenditure on schemes of harbour development of a capital nature, excluding works of routine maintenance and repair, during the years 1965 to 1969, both inclusive, in all harbours or groups of harbours (other than British Transport Docks Board harbours) in which more than 5 million tons of goods were handled in any period falling between June 30, 1966, and July 1, 1968, and what was the estimated cost of such work on schemes begun during the period 1965 to 1969 and remaining at December 31, 1969, to be completed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, total capital expenditure on development schemes at these ports amounted to some £120 million over the five-year period 1965 to 1969. Information about the estimated cost of outstanding work on schemes unfinished at the end of 1969 is not separately available.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him how much of the expenditure of £120 million was, in the view of the Government, a misdirection of resources?
LORD WLNTERBOTTOM: A misdirection of resources, my Lords? Did I hear the noble Lord correctly? In the view of the Government these resources were correctly directed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in that case would the noble Lord be prepared to say, either now or in the debate on Thursday, in what respect resources have been misdirected, as stated by the Government in paragraph 6 of the White Paper?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is pre-empting points that he is to make on Thursday.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
LORD DER WENT: 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 have considered amending the Consumer Protection Act 1961 to include "passing over" provisions to enable local authorities to prosecute, as the actual offenders, importers and manufacturers who have distributed goods in respect of which the sale by retailers constitutes an offence against the Act, thus creating provisions similar to those contained in Section 16 and 23 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, enforcement authorities already have power to prosecute importers' or manufacturers who sell goods which do not comply with regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agrees that enforcement authorities are sometimes hampered by the absence of provisions such as those referred to by the noble Lord, and he has noted the point for amending legislation when a suitable opportunity occurs.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for what is a moderately satisfactory reply? Is she aware that in the case of certain retailers it is virtually impossible, as the Consumer Protection Act now stands, for a local authority to prosecute the manufacturer? Am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness gave me a qualified blessing for this amendment? If so, and if I were to introduce a Private Member's Bill in order to try to hurry the matter up, might I have the Government's blessing for it?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: my right honourable friend accepts that under this legislation there are certain practical difficulties for local authorities which one need not go into at this stage. With regard to his second point, the Session is fairly well advanced for the introduction of a
112
Bill, and although I cannot enter into any commitment for the Government for the next Session I think my right honourable friend would look favourably at a Private Member's Bill on these lines.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I take that as a blessing.

AIRCRAFT NOISE
BARONESS STOCKS: 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 expenditure the Ministry of Technology has committed to sponsoring research and development in the field of aircraft noise.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, there has been a rapid growth in this work over the last few years, rising from about £250,000 in 1965–66 to a current level of about £1½ million annually. In value terms, about one fifth of the work is carried out in Ministry Establishments, notably the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock. The remainder is carried out under contract by industry and the universities. The aircraft industry is also spending about £100,000 of its own money annually.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he give us a little more information on precisely what research work is being carried out by the Ministry of Technology, aimed at reducing aircraft noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes, my Lords. The Ministry's work covers both airframe and engine noise, the investigation of the effects on people and buildings, the establishment of operational procedures to reduce noise—this is in collaboration with the Board of Trade—sonic bang work and basic research. We have established with industry advanced facilities for the study of noise problems, and further facilities are under consideration. The first major fruits of this work will be seen in the new technology engines, of which the RB.211 is the best known.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that aircraft flying low enough over London to interfere with children's kites, as reported in the Press, must be creating a nuisance of noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I should think that, if this is indeed happening, they are creating a nuisance to the people and to the kites.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say a little more about the success the establishments inquiring into this matter have had? He told us that the RB.211 is going to be quieter as a result of it. But what about all the other noise that those of us who live near airports have to put up with from aircraft? At the moment the noise is more noticeable than the success.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the figures and facts that I gave related to research which is now being done and which, as I said, has been increasing over the last few years. Aircraft with the new, quiet engines will be in service in increasing numbers in the next few years. But the effect at any one airport of course will depend upon the patterns of the utilisation of aircraft at that locality.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Advisory Council on Noise are considering any of these questions of aircraft noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Not without notice, my Lords.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether any of this research will be applicable to supersonic aircraft, and whether there is any hope that, as a result of this research, the noise of supersonic aircraft may be reduced?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes, my Lords. We have a continuing programme of research into the likely effects of sonic booms and we have access to the results of work which has been dons on this subject on the Continent and in the United States. We shall be taking advantage of the Concorde test flights to add to our knowledge in this field. In addition to the work that is being undertaken at Farnborough, we have placed
114
a number of contracts with the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at the University of Southampton, and at other universities, for work on particular aspects of the sonic boom.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there have been any complaints regarding the Concorde flights at the moment down the West coast of England?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: No, my Lords. The use of the full test route down the West coast has not yet begun.

CAMBODIA
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their attitude towards President Nixon's decision to send troops into Cambodia.
LORDSHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government's attitude to the present situation will be explained by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Prime Minister in the course of a debate which is shortly to be held in another place. I hope the noble Earl and the House will agree that we should await the outcome of that debate.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that extremely courteous reply, and appreciating that we should know a great deal more by this evening, may I ask whether he does not agree that President Nixon's decision will be prejudicial to the ending of war in the area and may embarrass America's friends and Allies, as well as her opponents? Will he not therefore also agree that it is most urgent that both Houses of Parliament in this country be given a chance to debate South-East Asian affairs? Will the noble Lord take steps to ensure that the House of Lords be given time for such debate?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think my first reply indicated that I was not in a position to comment on the first part of the noble Earl's supplementary

115
question. The possibility of a debate in your Lordships' House is one which is always open to us. My own view is that I think we shall all want to study not only what is said in another place but also events as they may unfold.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we ought to be careful in this matter? I was in Vietnam last year and, apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, the American soldiers do not know who their friends are because of the infiltration from the Cambodian and Laos borders.
LORD SHACKLETON: Again, my Lords, I note my noble friend's remark.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read Ia.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Bill read Ia, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lansdowne to advance his Unstarred Question from Thursday the 7th to Wednesday the 6th of May.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps in moving this Third Reading I might take the opportunity of making a reference to two points which were raised at the Committee stage about the proposed title of British Nuclear Fuels Limited. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones suggested that the word "fuel" was being used in this context in a rather extraordinary way, because fuel is something combustible whereas what we describe as "nuclear fuel" undergoes the different process of fission. Literally, of course, if one refers to the Oxford English Dictionary or to other standard dictionaries, my noble friend is correct, but in this connection the term has already acquired a wide and perhaps one might say an accepted usage, as also in this context has the term "burn up" as a measurement of the extent to which the fissionable material in a fuel element has undergone fission. In any case, the term "fuel" has two distinct merits: first, it aptly connotes that nuclear "fuel" elements are produced for the same purpose as coal and oil—the fossil fuels—to provide heat and power, and secondly it makes clear that we are referring to a peaceful application of nuclear power, and possibly the use of a wider term, such as "resource" as my noble friend suggested, would cast some obscurity over this. I think for these reasons it would be desirable for us to retain the term "fuel".
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to a somewhat different point. He drew attention to the coincidence between the initials of the proposed fuel company and those of the British Nuclear Forum. The latter is of course an organisation with which my Department is in close working touch, and it is an organisation which we expect will continue to play a useful role in the restructured nuclear industry. Therefore it is clear that the coincidence of initials, to which the noble Lord referred, could be a continuing situation. However, before we decided upon the term "British Nuclear Fuels

117
Limited" a number of alternatives were examined. Some of those which were most suitable were found already to be in use and appearing on the Companies Register. Finally, the name of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, seemed to be the most apt and attractive of those available, despite the coincidence of the initials. But it would be best, if at all possible, to avoid this source of confusion, and I promised the noble Lord that we would look at this point in the light of the observations that he made at the Committee stage. We are indeed still examining it. We are looking at the possibilities in consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority. Perhaps I may add that if the title, "British Nuclear Fuels Limited" is in the event to be retained, the company would certainly endeavour to use some abbreviation other than B.N.F. and so minimise any possible confusion.
Before I conclude, there is one correction which I ought to make to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, to which the attention of your Lordships ought to be drawn. In the final paragraph of the Memorandum the first sentence states that the Bill will not result in any increase in the staff of any Government Department. One of the effects of the Bill is to subject the two companies to the licensing requirements and inspection provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Ministry of Technology will therefore acquire responsibility for inspecting the companies, and will require a small increase in staff for this purpose. As a result of that there will be some increase in the administrative expenses of the Ministry of Technology in carrying out its function—a function which it already has and discharges under the Nuclear Installations Act. It is not yet possible to make any reliable estimate of the amount of the increase or of the number of staff, but it is expected that in both cases the figure will be a small one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for giving the House these additional explanations. I do not
118
want to enter into a semantics debate. It may be that the word "fuel" is not correct in this case but it has come to be used in this sense. I think the noble Lord made a good point when he suggested chat this company would be known as B.N.F.L. so that it would not be confused with the other B.N.F. mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill generally. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Dehicourt-Smith, to think that I have been unreasonable over Clause 11, regarding shareholding in the two companies, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I simply did not see any reason why the old subsection (3) should remain in the Bill. As I said both on Second Reading and in Committee, it may be that the Government and the A.E.A. should, at the outset, be the majority shareholders in the companies, but in particular we do not see why this should necessarily be written into the Bill as being desirable "at all times", which were the words used in the subsection. It is not that we on this side of the House are being dogmatic or doctrinaire; we merely want to do the right thing in this particular case.
I recognise that the fuel company will manufacture materials which form the constituent of nuclear explosives, but none the less the noble Lord admitted that there were companies in other countries undertaking various stages of the fuel cycle, especially the manufacturing of nuclear fuel elements, even if none was exactly in the position of our own proposed fuel company.
Again I would emphasise that it seems pointless if the ultimate result of the creation of these two companies is merely to transfer work from one form of public authority to another form of public authority—to use the noble Lord's own words. I think the subsection was unnecessary in the case of both companies and especially, I would judge, in the case of the isotope company. I should have thought that no security consideration was involved there. I cannot of course say what will happen in another place, but I would not myself think it necessary to put that subsection back into the Bill. We shall have to wait to see whether the Government have second thoughts on this

119
matter or whether by judicious drafting they can meet our point.
I might also add, in regard to Clause 19, that I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord say that the conditions proposed under the new pensions schemes, taken as a whole, would not be less favourable than those obtaining in the A.E.A. It was good of the noble Lord to give this assurance, which should go some way to meet the views of those employees of the A.E.A. who have complained about being automatically transferred to the new companies.
Again, my Lords, I should like to say that we welcome this Bill. Let us form the two companies as soon as possible so that the fuel company can play its full part in the proposed European consortium. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for having written to me on the point about delay, which I stressed on Second Reading; that we had been responsible for the delay in forming the European consortium because we had not formed our own company. The noble Lord admits that the negotiations were held up in the late summer and autumn of last year while certain outstanding difficulties were considered by each country, but he assures me that it was not the United Kingdom which was wholly responsible for this. I will not go into any other details, but no doubt this point will be discussed further in another place.
3 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has dealt with his usual courtesy and efficiency with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who is so well scientifically qualified himself, about the expression "fuel" in this context. I intervene solely because the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is unfortunately not in his place at the moment. Lord Wynne-Jones did me the honour of asking me some time ago what I thought of his point. I thought it was well worth raising, but I ventured to ask him whether he realised what a big task he had set out on if he wished to stop scientists and technicians from talking nonsense, and I gave him an example, which I venture to repeat to the House, in the hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will
120
give his attention to it, should it come within his sphere, and perhaps do something about it.
Scarcely a day passes without a reference in the Press, or even, I think, in Ministerial statements, to "ballistic missiles", Can anybody think of a missile which is not ballistic? The word "ballistic" means pertaining to throwing of missiles, and a "missile" means something thrown. A "ballistic missile" seems to me to mean precisely nothing more than "missile". It is pure surplusage. It suggests that there is some sort of missile which is not ballistic. I have so much sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who answers for a Department with many functions of the old Board of Trade for which many years ago I had the pleasure of answering, that I hope he will use his good offices to prevent a phrase of this sort from coming into any legislation for which he is responsible. I give him notice that, should that not be the case, he would certainly be called upon to explain it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I think I have only two comments on the remarks which noble Lords have been kind enough to make on this Third Reading. The noble Earl made a reference to the correspondence which had arisen from his criticism of delays in the settlement of matters as part of the tripartite agreement. The situation is that prior to the announcement of the agreement there was, it is true, some delay in settlement of some aspects of it, but, as I pointed out, this delay did not arise by any means solely through Her Majesty's Government. It was a question of legitimate differences of opinion which took some time to resolve. It is often the case that when such differences of opinion arise they may give rise to delays which appear to be unreasonable to one party or other which finds it hard to accept that the other party cannot agree to its point of view. I must make it clear that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept that at any stage in these complex negotiations, either before or after announcement of the agreement, there has been any unreasonable delay for which Her Majesty's Government could be criticised.
I am a little at a loss to know how to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford,

121
because I am sure he would be the first to agree that the observations which he has made could lead to a long and interesting debate. Indeed, he might one day think it an appropriate subject for a Motion for Papers. May I make two observations? On the original point which the noble Lord raised, I am sure he would agree that it is a feature of the English language that it is in a perpetual state of development and that words come, in the course of time, by legitimate usage, to extend and sometimes transform their meaning. I think equally he would agree that it is not unknown for phrases to arise which in themselves have an element of redundancy. I am not sure that I would altogether accept that he has fairly singled out "ballistic missile" as one. But there have been many people far greater than I who have devoted themselves effectively to trying to prune down the sometimes excessive use which we make of adjectives, even when they are not necessary, and I have no doubt that that admirable work will be done and that the noble Lord will always be foremost in it.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.*
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
On Question, Bill passed.

EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill gives to women, for the first time, the right to the same terms and conditions of employment as men and, by so doing, removes a longstanding injustice. I feel I am privileged to-day to take part in what is in the nature of an historic occasion. In an age when machine power has largely displaced the need for muscle power, women can compete on equal terms with men in most fields of employment. Yet outside a few white-collar occupations women are still looked upon as second-class labour, and paid accordingly. Other countries
* See col. 164
have made efforts to end this injustice by special legislation and other means. In particular, the member States of the European Economic Community are bound by the Treaty of Rome to observe the equal pay principle, and a great many other countries have ratified the International Labour Convention on equal remuneration. The Bill will put this country to the fore among those which are trying to make equal pay a reality, and will enable us in due course to ratify the International Labour Convention. The concept of equal pay for women commands a wide measure of support throughout the country. Employers are ready to concede the justice of it and trade unions want it on behalf of their women members. The Government believe that the time is now ripe to give this concept the force of law. The Bill that I am presenting to you to-day, my Lords, provides a comprehensive legal framework 'that will enable both sides of industry to make the necessary adjustments in an orderly way.
Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill I should like to say something about its general approach. In the past, the main debate has centred on whether legislation should provide for equal pay for work of equal value, or equal pay for the same work. The latter definition is clearly too narrow. On the other hand, the Bill has been criticised because it does not rely solely upon the I.L.O. definition of equal pay for work of equal value. The Government have carefully considered the possibility of legislating in these terms, but have rejected it on practical grounds. In order to assess the value of women's work it would be necessary to evaluate the jobs not only of all women, but also of all men in the working population, as only in this way could the relative value of men's and women's work be satisfactorily established. Such an operation would be quite impracticable, if only because there are insufficient trained staff available to do the evaluation. But even if it were possible, it would not be desirable because it could have the incidental effect of upsetting pay differentials between men, and it is no part of the Government's purpose to do this. The Government have therefore sought an approach which is more practicable and will ensure that as many women as possible get equal pay.
My Lords, the Bill which I am commending to you is designed to eradicate discrimination in pay in specific identifiable situations, by prescribing equally specific remedies. A woman seeking to establish her right to equal pay will be able to take advantage of two specific sets of circumstances. She will be able to claim equal pay under the Bill where she is doing work which is the same as or broadly similar to that done by men, or where her work, though different from that done by men, has been found to be equivalent to that done by men as a result of a job evaluation exercise. In addition to her right to equal pay in those two situations, a woman will be able to benefit from the Bill's third main provision, which removes discrimination on grounds of sex in collective agreements, wages regulation orders, and employers' pay structures. Dealing as it does with these three main areas of inequality, the Bill provides women with a measure of protection against discrimination which goes beyond anything in the law of other major countries.
Let me now outline how the Bill sets out to achieve these objectives. Clause 1 deals with discrimination in so far as it affects the situation of an individual woman. It provides that where men and women are employed on the same or broadly similar work or where they are employed on work which, although different, has been rated as equivalent as a result of a job evaluation exercise, they are to receive equal treatment. This right to equal treatment is to include not only the equalisation of pay but of all terms and conditions provided for in a person's contract of employment. The Bill thus provides for equality in such things as holidays and sick pay, and even the right of access to promotion and training opportunities, where these arise out of the contract of employment. The area in which a woman may draw comparisons with men is normally limited to the establishment in which a woman works, but is widened to cover more than one establishment if such establishments are owned by the same employer and have common terms and conditions of employment.
Clause 2 provides for the enforcement of the requirements of the first clause. Any dispute arising under the same work or job evaluation provisions can be taken
124
to the already existing industrial tribunals, either by the woman concerned or by her employer. Powers are also provided in this clause for the Secretary of State to take a case to the tribunal, if she feels that the woman concerned has a good reason why she cannot take the case herself. The industrial tribunals which were set up in 1965 have provided a speedy and easily accessible method of settling questions in the employment field. They already deal with disputes in regard to such matters as redundancy payments, the selective employment tax and industrial training levies. They have built up a considerable expertise in matters affecting employment and are therefore eminently suitable to deal with questions about equal pay. The tribunals will be able to hear cases up to six months after a woman has left her employment, and will be able to award arrears of pay, subject to a maximum of two years. The tribunals will also be empowered to award damages where there has been failure on the part of an employer to provide a woman during a past period with some type of payment in kind, such as the free use of a house or the right to use a company car. Such damages, my Lords, will be only in respect of the actual loss suffered by the woman.
Under the provisions of Clause 1 it will be for a woman to make a case to the tribunal to show that she is entitled to receive equal treatment by virtue of doing the same or broadly similar work or work rated as equivalent to that of men. However, once a woman has established such a case, Clause 2 provides that the onus of proof is then on the employer to show that any difference in treatment between the woman and the men concerned is due to a "genuine material difference" between their cases, and not to discrimination on grounds of sex. Employers will thus be able to continue to distinguish between a man and a woman on genuine grounds such as seniority, merit, level of output and so on, provided that they also distinguish between a man and a man in the same circumstances.
Clause 3 provides for the removal of discrimination on grounds of sex in collective agreements and employers' pay structures. This clause has effect in two ways. It provides that where a collective agreement contains, after December 29,

125
1975, separate men's and women's rates for any class of work or worker, the woman's rate will have to be raised to the level of the men's rate. And where an agreement or pay structure contains a rate applying specifically to women only, then that rate must be raised to the level of the lowest men's rate in the agreement. The Industrial Court is given the duty of dealing with disputes about collective agreements and pay structures. Any party to an agreement or the Secretary of State, may refer a case to the Industrial Court. Any amendments made by the Court to terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement will become part of the individual contracts of employment of the workers concerned. Similar provision to that in regard to collective agreements is made in Clauses 4 and 5 in regard to wages regulation orders and agricultural wages orders.
Clause 6 defines certain exceptions to the requirement of equal treatment. Where there are laws governing women's employment, employers will not be required to give equal treatment to the extent that the law lays down special conditions for the employment of women. Clause 6 also excludes retirement pensions from the requirement of equal treatment for men and women. There are considerable difficulties in the way of defining the principle of equal treatment in this field. Where women are covered at present by an employer's pension scheme, their treatment usually differs from that of men, often in a way which favours women. This is because women usually retire at a lower age than men, and yet on average they live longer. However, when this matter was discussed recently in another place, it was apparent that there was a wide measure of support for a proposal to include some provision in regard to pensions in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has undertaken to consider this possibility, and if she decides that an amendment to the Bill is desirable and is feasible, it will be introduced in this House.
Clause 9 lays down that the Act will come into force on December 29, 1975, and empowers the Secretary of State to provide by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, for the partial implementation of equal pay by December 31, 1973. The Secretary of State
126
would be able to exercise this power if she considered that progress towards equal pay was taking place too slowly. The purpose of such an order would be to require employers by the end of 1973 to raise the pay of any women who will be entitled to equal pay in full at the end of 1975, to not less than 90 per cent. of the men's rates to which they will become entitled. The Bill is extended to Crown servants by the last sections of Clauses 1 and to the Services by Clause 7, and to the police by Clause 8.
That brings me to the end of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I should like, in conclusion, to make these additional points. The Bill has been criticised on a number of general economic grounds. It has been said that equal pay will give rise to unemployment among women because employers will prefer, when there is no financial advantage in employing women, to employ men. I do not see why this should be generally true. Depending on the nature of the job, it may sometimes be advantageous to employ men and sometimes women. In any case, women form one-third of the working population and any significant general displacement of women by men is out of the question. There will, no doubt, be some redundancies among women in specific cases, but in an expanding economy their labour will be absorbed elsewhere. It is not the experience of other countries which have introduced equal pay that it has resulted overall in less employment for women. On the other hand, we hope that the introduction of equal pay will stimulate employers to make more efficient use of their female labour, and the resultant saving in costs should go a long way towards paying for the increase in women's pay. It has also been suggested that many women will work for fewer hours if, following equal pay, they can earn as much as they did before in a shorter working week. This may be so in some cases, but it should be balanced by the fact that higher pay for women will encourage many who do not work at present to seek employment and persuade others who might otherwise have given up employment to remain at work.
My Lords, this Bill is a substantial step forward on the road to full equality of rights for women. It marks the end of a long-standing injustice. I commend

127
it to this House in the belief that it will command a wide measure of support on all sides. I conclude by paying tribute to those in this House, in another place and outside who have argued for many years past for the right of women to equal pay. It is the purpose of this Bill to make that right a reality. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, a merciful Providence has arranged that women and men are not equal, but it should be no part of the case to-day of any speaker, I should have thought, to try to discover differences for which I think we ought all to be thankful; differences indeed which are sometimes to be found happily confounded. Your Lordships may remember Disraeli's opinion that "owing to fogs and their social system, the British people require grave statesmen". Yet we have here in this House many noble Baronesses who prove quite often that a mixture of talent with gravity is more to the liking of the House, and this is particularly true of the clear explanation we have had, both clause by clause and also in opinion at the beginning and at the end, from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of this Bill, which I think is a Bill of deceptive slimness.
It is possible to exaggerate the claims of women over the centuries, but certainly for many years a view obtained that a woman's place was in the home. It is incredible to recall that as late as 1891 the Court of Appeal should have ruled, in Regina v. Jackson, that a husband cannot legally detain his wife in his house. Two years before this Ibsen's play, The Doll's House, had opened in London to crowded and excited audiences. It has been said that when the wife in that play, Nora, finally left her husband and slammed the door shut behind her the echo of that action was surely felt throughout society. My Lords, that may be. Three years earlier, the T.U.C. had passed a resolution on equal pay for equal work, but in fact two world wars were needed to compel recognition of the natural justice of this claim. A Royal Commission was set up by the
128
late Herbert Morrison and reported in 1946. In 1955 the Conservative Government introduced equal pay for the Non-Industrial Civil Service, for non-manual local authority workers and for teachers—measures which were to take final and full effect in 1961. Now to-day the Government introduce this Bill, not just for equal pay but, as the Long Title says:
"to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and conditions of employment, between men and women."
Your Lordships will agree, I think, that it would be wrong to duck the basic problem, the definition of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The noble Baroness has told us that the Government have rejected the Treaty of Rome definition as inadequate and consider the definition of the International Labour Organisation as too indefinite. So it is that the Bill, in Clause 1, defines "like work" as work "of the same or a broadly similar nature" or which has, "been given an equal value" by job evaluation. If either of these two definitions is satisfied, then the jobs must be treated equally in terms and conditions of employment.
In all fairness, I should add that this was a conclusion on which the Royal Commission of 1946 had reservations. But that Report was published a quarter of a century ago, and much has intervened. In the last decade, 46,000 more university places have been found for girls. The university authorities may have found these formative years somewhat bracing, but we on this side of the House are proud to have played our part by establishing seven of these new universities before the Conservatives left office in 1964. We believe that it would be tragic not to recognise this step forward.
Increased automation in the home; the loneliness, so often, of modern town life; the spread of adult education, and to-day, with ever-rising costs, plain financial need—all these things have increased the desire of women to work; and the demand, particularly from teaching, hospitals, banks, textiles and food concerns, remains formidable. These are a few reasons why I hope that the simple principle of the Bill may prove acceptable to your Lordships. It is essential, however, that the Bill should be understood and accepted by both sides of industry,

129
and there are parts which, despite the noble Baroness's explanation, remain vague or obscure.
Clause 1(2) lays down that a contract of employment shall extend equal treatment to men and women "in the same employment", and this is to include "associated" employers with common terms and conditions of employment. We all know that many employers are bound by national agreements to pay similar basic rates but that in fact their employees take home different amounts of money. Many is the job which carries a differential because the job happens to be in the London area. Those of your Lordships who live in East Anglia will appreciate this point, in that the financial benefits of the development areas very often allow in those areas terms of employment which cannot be found in the East Anglian region. Yet East Anglia, so often thought of as the land of cold winds and low incomes, seems to offer indefinable values which people increasingly desire, so that this region has outstripped all others in population growth.
I would say to the noble Baroness that the House will want to know what are "common terms and conditions of employment", and we shall certainly probe for a more accurate definition of "associated employer". As drafted, this subsection could make demands which companies operating branches in the more remote areas might find they could not face, and might strain a perfectly reasonable pay differential which has grown up for a variety of reasons, and produce a situation with which industrial relations found they could not cope. It is easy to criticise the wide terms of the Government's definition, "work of the same or a broadly similar nature", but I submit that, after improvement in another place, this definition is just about as right as we are likely to get it, providing a broad framework for negotiation and, when necessary, leaving freedom for the judgment of the tribunal.
However, my Lords, the definition of job evaluation in Clause 1(5) is, I think, still open to question. The two main advantages of this comparatively new idea are vital to the future prosperity of our country. First, by calculating the value of the job and not of the person concerned these schemes can bring
130
rational agreement on wage and salary structures, and can avoid the damage of leapfrogging pay claims. Secondly, the more complicated analytical schemes really do afford opportunities to re-assess jobs; and for our country, short of raw materials and dependent for our prosperity on utilising every scientific advance, this surely is vital. But the Bill advises the evaluation of jobs
"in terms of the demand made on a worker under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision)."
The Prices and Incomes Board Report, No. 83, on this subject makes it clear that this will be a most unusual form of job evaluation—calculating only in demands on the person—and that Report shows that normally many other demands are taken into account: responsibility, man-management, judgment, and experience, to name only a few. How the Bill can talk about giving an equal value to jobs if this would have been so if different values had not been set for the work of men and women, when the Government's own Report makes it perfectly clear that in job evaluation this should never be done, is something which remains a mystery to me. And though this subsection has already been improved in another place, it would be of the greatest assistance if any of your Lordships with knowledge of this field could advise on this subsection at the next stage of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 describe the methods of enforcement, and deal with collective agreements and wages orders, about which perhaps I might say a little more, with your Lordships' help, in Committee. But at this stage may I just submit two thoughts to your Lordships? There is no provision to prevent frivolous claims, and we on this side of the House do not believe that the Minister should have a statutory right to become involved on one side in a dispute. With nearly 9 million women at work to-day, it may be that at first the tribunals will be overwhelmed. It should also be noticed that under Clause 2(6) the onus of proof is to be placed on the employer. This may well be right, but it would foment trouble if a series of frivolous cases were brought for reasons other than the justice of equal treatment.
While the Bill specifically empowers the Secretary of State to refer a case for

131
a woman who shrinks from doing so, it is extraordinary that no mention is made of other representations before a tribunal. If there is no chance of representation by an organisation, a trade union or a colleague, there may be need for Ministerial assistance, but in another place that suggestion was resisted. I ask the noble Baroness whether she will look again at these points. The Bill will need to be read and understood by both sides of industry, and if people see only one right of representation written in they will assume that it is the only one which exists.
Despite several improvements, the Bill is not entirely easy to understand. I wonder whether a reading of lines 20 to 31 on page 5 would readily convey the meaning that the words are only a long-stop to ensure that any collective agreement not covered by the Bill must have its lowest women's rate equal to the lowest men's rate. The form of Clause 1(1)(b) is something which I suppose is familiar in both Houses of Parliament, but for the public to be told that in this Bill women should be treated as men and men should be treated as women is logic which could be open to unfortunate misunderstanding.
There is a major omission from the Bill. It may be called the Equal Pay Bill, but it is almost completely silent about equality of opportunity. The most obvious practical step which could have been taken is the amendment of Part VI of the Factories Act 1961, which, among other things, by forbidding night work effectively prevents women from taking a full part in three-shift, 24-hour operations. On Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Mrs. Castle, said:
"There are some unions which still argue very strongly that the restrictions should be retained, and I know employers who are against night work for women on social grounds."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Commons, 9/2/70, col. 922.]
Certainly, the need to strike a balance remains, but a year's exemption which the Minister can grant is insufficient to a firm laying out millions of pounds on a new factory. Men's reactions to a continuation of this special treatment is also a factor which I do not think should be underestimated, and we should consider whether women in, for example, nursing, who have no regard to what night hours
132
they have to work or the weights they should lift, will not see the continuation of this part of the Factories Act as a bar to women at work.
For many occupations are, in truth, still the preserves of men. The noble Baroness told us that there can be equality of opportunity if training, for instance, is covered by a contract of employment; but for many women that is really cold comfort. Women may not enter the Stock Exchange. Ten days ago the quota system for women candidates to medical schools was criticised in this House by my noble friend Lady Brooke. According to Cmnd. 4245, there are only seven women members of public boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has been, and I expect still is, a member of the National Union of Teachers. That is a union which is remarkable for its predominance of women members; but on an executive committee of 44 only three are women. I feel sure that I carry right reverend Prelates with me in this argument, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to write some provision into the Bill to ensure that equality of opportunity shall go hand in hand with equal pay.
On this matter the Donovan Report was quite specific. Paragraph 349 declared that the removal of the restrictions on women from training and skilled work were in the long run even more important than equal pay. And paragraph 354, while recognising the difficulties of which early marriage is the most obvious, concluded that the obstacles are reinforced by prejudice among men, which fosters,
"the unwarranted assumption that nothing can be done."
I think this opportunity should be seized to alter that assumption.
I submit that certain responsibilities must be accepted if this Bill is to succeed. For the Government, a closer study of the costs will be needed. At the moment, estimates range from a 3½ per cent. to a 6½ per cent. increase in the national wages bill, which is a difference of some £600 million. But the Prices and Incomes Board reminded us that job evaluation is something which is invariably accompanied by increased costs. We have been told that Clause 9 of the Bill provides for an order to raise women's pay rates to 90 per cent. of men's by the end of 1973, if the Minister sees fit; and

133
subsection (2) requires equal pay to be back-dated to a maximum of two years.
Most important of all is the cost of the differential which will have to be made up to some women if they are to catch up and if this Bill is to work. The decade 1955 to 1965 saw annual wage increases of 3 to 8 per cent. My goodness! my Lords, those pale into insignificance with the wage increases which are being given to-day. Benefits under this Bill will be dissipated, so some of us believe, while taxation continues to discriminate against the married woman. Furthermore, if the Government are going to close their minds to widening the wording of the Bill to include equal opportunities, that may increase the demarcation between the employment of men and the employment of women; and, though equally paid, women may still receive their money in low-paid employment.
I suggest that to employers, unions and individuals will fall the responsibility for fair dealing and control: fairness in refusing to evade or wrongly avail oneself of the Bill; control because we are only human, and prejudice will continue to play its part. But, as the noble Baroness has herself said, better opportunities for women in work could more than pay the account for this Bill, and within the next five years all of us together have an opportunity of ensuring the Bill's success. If this were the hallmark of all industrial relations, then our products would have little to fear in the years that lie ahead.
3.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to join in welcoming this Bill as being one further stage towards what might be called the emancipation of women, or bringing women up to the same level of men from the point of view of employment. It is an interesting point that the professions have accepted equal pay for quite a long time, and doctors, lawyers, accountants and civil servants have equal pay. When one comes down to some of the less well-paid occupations, I believe that workers on London Transport and people like that are paid the same whether they are men or women.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the question of opportunity for women to get better jobs than they get now. This does not quite arise
134
in the Bill, but I think it is very important. I am thinking of such people as scientists, technologists, technicians and draftsmen. I do not want to go deeply into numbers, but the difference in numbers between men and women is extraordinary. I will give one example. There are 104,000 male draftsmen employed in industry, but there are only 1,000 women draftsmen. That would seem to be a job which a woman could do just as well as a man, but lack of training and lack of opportunity mean that they do not get jobs of that kind. In the same way, I saw in a survey made by P.E.P. that in the case of jobs worth £2,000 a year there is a differential of 20 to 1, while in the case of jobs worth £5,000 a year the differential is 50 to 1. That seems to show there is something wrong with the opportunities for women to go into those jobs.
I should now like to come to the schools. I think that from an early age a girl should be trained to apply for these better jobs. The other day, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already reminded us, we talked about the number of women who can become doctors. I think the biggest proportion of women medical students is about 25 per cent. of the total entry, and one of the reasons for that, it would appear, is because of the difficulty of girls getting into medical schools. Their teachers do not teach them that sort of thing. It is so very easy to say, '"Of course, nobody applies to come", but they are not going to apply if they are not taught to apply. That is one thing which I think could be done very much more now; girls could be trained to apply for these jobs. I am quite certain that if more applied they would be accepted and would be found to be as good as men, and that would be a very good thing both for industry and for the women involved. At the present time, there is a rather poor attempt being made to make more training places available for women by turning some of the male colleges into co-educational colleges. That may be a good thing from many points of view, but it does not make more places for training. One would rather see new colleges for women being built than more places being made available for women in male colleges by cutting down the number of men who go there. That does not seem to me to be the right way to proceed at all.

135
The Bill puts right certain anomalies, but there are just one or two things that I should like to mention, if I may, which I think deter quite a number of women from going to work who would otherwise do so now. As the noble Baroness said, women make up about one-third of the labour force. There was a time when, before family planning and such like things came in, it was not possible for women to go to work because they were bearing children from the age of 20 to the age of 40. But that does not occur so much as it did; and what one would like to see as a form of encouragement—it has been talked about a great deal for many years—is a woman taxed separately from her husband, so that she is able to keep the money she gets.
One would also like to see a sufficiency of day-nursery places and nursery schools for the children of women who wish to work though they have small children. One would also like to see a third thing, that is, some form of tax relief for domestic help for women engaged in really important jobs, like, if I may mention it to the noble Baroness, the profession of teaching. I think they should get some form of tax relief to enable them to employ domestic help while they are teaching. I know that these are possibly not things that we should talk about in this House—we cannot deal with finance—but it is very difficult to deal with a subject like this without making some reference to it.
My Lords, to come to the Bill, I have not a great deal more to say above what has been said already. Personally, I would prefer the definition in I.L.O. Convention No. 100 of 1951,
"Equal pay for work of equal value".
I should like to see that Convention ratified by us soon, because I think the only other country which has not yet ratified it is Holland. In Clause 2, I think I should prefer conciliation to reference to an industrial tribunal in the case of dispute. A more friendly and easy way of coping with a dispute would seem to be for the Department of Employment and Productivity to send one of their conciliation officers to a factory or to an office where there is a dispute, and to decide it there; and, supposing that were to fail, it could then go to arbitration.
136
There is one other thing that I do not quite understand. What is going to be the position as regards pensions?—because at the present time a woman receives her retirement pension at 60 and a man at 65. That I think goes back to 1940, under a war-time Bill dealing with widows' pensions. If we are going to give women equal opportunity and equal pay, I wonder whether men and women should not get their retirement pensions at the same age; because at the present time women live a good deal longer than men, and if they are going to be housewives, which a great many are for most of their lives, they are going to be working quite hard until finally they cannot cope with doing any more. I am not at all sure whether it is really fair, right or proper that they should get their pension five years before men get theirs.
There are, I think, one or two dangers in the Bill, which have been referred to briefly. One is that, supposing there is equal pay, you may find firms preferring to install expensive machinery rather than to pay women the higher wage, and in consequence there might be unemployment among women. In the same way, some people may take advantage, I think quite unfairly, by saying that women have a higher sick rate than men, and that therefore, if they are going to have to pay women the same wages as men, they would rather employ more men than women. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be dangers; I am not saying that I agree with them at all. On the other hand, to make the picture a little more encouraging, suppose that women can break into what are at the present time jobs for men only. That may break the monopoly of the men, and the general wage structure may come down to a rather more normal figure than it is in some of the men-only jobs at present. So I think that should counterbalance what I have said about the other points. My Lords, there is nothing further I want to say about the Bill. I wish it a very speedy passage through this House.
3.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that this is an historic occasion; and, indeed, for that reason I hope to touch on part of the history of this measure. On looking at this House, the only thing I regret is not seeing the Bishops' Bench

137
full, so that they—and they probably realise that they are the last people in the country to recognise equality of opportunity—may learn from, or have the benefit of listening to, some of the observations that have already been made or which will be made on the denial of equal opportunity to women. I was impressed last week, when we were discussing a sex issue, to find that the Bishops' Bench was absolutely full. I hope the right reverend Prelate's colleagues do not find this too dull a subject.
The interesting thing about this measure, which is of such great importance, is that it is receiving rather a cool reception from the women workers of the country. The fact is that,
"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick".
During this century—in fact, since 1880, when the T.U.C. supported the recommendation—millions of words have been spoken and millions of words have been written on equal pay by Governments of all Parties. They have convened committees; they have convened a Royal Commission, and women stood and waited hopefully. How stupid they were! Because very soon after they learnt that these committees and the Royal Commission were not preparatory to action but to temporise, in order to hold the pay pass against women. And I very much doubt whether this Bill, which my noble friend agrees is only another step forward—because, after all, it does not include the Rome recommendations—would be before us to-day were it not that a woman Minister, and a forceful and determined one at that, is the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. For there was little evidence that any of her male predecessors had this cause at heart. In fact, they adopted a rather cynical attitude, I thought—and I spoke to most of them—and there was this curious feeling that the country would never be ready for it and would never be able to afford it.
But, even more important, I believe, is the fact that during the last few years the industrial woman worker has become more restive and militant. I recognised this in Trafalgar Square last year when women from the Midlands and the North joined Londoners in demonstrating for equal pay. It was evident again on that historic occasion when the striking women machinists from Ford's—relatively un-supported
138
by men, although there were one or two male trade unionists—came to Friends' House to put their case. It may seem immodest to say so, but I am very pleased that I had the privilege to address both those meetings. The noble Lord who spoke for the other side mentioned the fact that the professional women were given equal pay in 1955. Perhaps he is too young to recall that it was not the justice of her case which gave the professional woman equal pay in 1955; it was because, her patience exhausted, she demonstrated in the streets, where she was joined by all the women Members of Parliament from the other place. We got into the streets for them and demonstrated; and only when the Government of the day recognised that we women were feeling very strongly about it did they give way and give the teachers and the civil servants equal pay.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I introduced a Bill for equal pay for teachers. I was not in the least put out by the demonstrations—indeed, there was only one. I had no difficulty in my Cabinet whatever. All the members agreed. We had determined some years before to do this when we got the opportunity. I think the noble Baroness is exaggerating.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Not a bit of it, my Lords. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount finds great comfort in so thinking; but people like the honourable Member for Tyneside, Dame Irene Ward (and I with her) collected carriages from all the stables in London to point out that this was an anachronism. We drove around London, had great meetings and demonstrated; and only then did the right honourable gentleman eventually say that perhaps the time had come to introduce a Bill. I must confess that women would not have stooped to such methods unless their patience had been exhausted.
My Lords, from this I think it will be gathered that this Equal Pay Bill has not been born quickly and gracefully but has been extracted from the body politic with the maximum of strain and stress for women. For this reason, having regard to the opposition, it would be absolutely foolish to-day to believe that this short Bill, limited as it is, alone can

139
provide an effective antidote to the entrenched custom and prejudice which have been the powerful enemies of equality of pay and opportunity for women. I should like to tell the noble Lord who spoke of the various qualities of the two sexes that I have never supported the proposition that men and women are equal—because I have never attended a man in labour. It is quite absurd for people to say that men and women are equal. They are physiologically different and emotionally different. To say they are equal is quite nonsense. It is more realistic to recognise that men and women are different and then to respect and to legislate for those differences.
But it seems that in industry these differences are exploited; for example, the nimble feminine fingers in the factory. I think I have mentioned before that the great Ernest Bevin in war time used to say that if men had the nimble fingers that the women had to produce the armaments and pieces of machinery, they would demand a bonus. As I have said, the feminine differences, whether shown by the nimble fingers of the woman factory worker or by the ministrations of a nurse in a hospital ward, are always exploited as a source of cheap labour.
What I regret about this Bill is that women will have to wait for another six years before they receive equal pay. They have been the drudges of industry for too long. I know that my noble friend on my left is sympathetic to equal pay; but the T.U.C., who have been far from blameless in the past, are now, with new leaders, a new approach and in new times, anxious to help women escape from further exploitation. I understand that the T.U.C. argue that it is practicable to reduce this six-year period to one of two years. If that is completely unacceptable to the Government, why cannot they follow the lead of the Common Market countries which adopt a three-year period for the implementation of equal pay? Having listened to the noble Lord who led for the Opposition, I feel deeply that there is a risk that by delaying its implementation for nearly six years the Act may be amended to the detriment of women. My advice to Barbara—if I may address her in that way here—is to strike while the iron is
140
hot. Over a period of six years, male prejudice in all the political Parties will have no difficulty in rallying its forces and raising its ugly head once more. I believe that just the hint of a trade recession could provide an excuse; and I speak from all the experience gained over the years when our great enemy has been prejudice.
I understand that the cost of introducing equal pay in the industries concerned will range from 0 per cent. to 18 per cent. In engineering, for example, the figure is only 2 per cent.; whereas in retail distribution it is 13 per cent. and in clothing 18 per cent. This is the measure of the exploitation of the shop assistant and the garment worker. And the employers who make the loudest protests are those who have made a fortune out of the sweated labour of women. No doubt those industrial sharks—and I speak strongly—will try to evade the Act in every possible way.
There is one further matter which occurs to me. I shall not ask my noble friend for an answer now; but I should like a letter on this subject for I feel it is important. One method of evasion will be to provide more work in a woman's home by introducing machinery. I am told that in many working class areas these days people are kept awake by machinery which has been introduced into the next door house. What protection is to be afforded to the woman home worker when these methods become widespread? Will she be paid at the same rate as the factory worker?
The United Nations Association has stated that this Bill would lead to a hardening of current categorisation of women's work and may make it even more difficult for women to get jobs. That has been said before; but I do not attach too much importance to it. I believe that there should be no difficulty in meeting the costs of equal pay if we make use of the people available in industry regardless of sex. This Bill, by making women's labour more expensive, will make employers consider more critically how they are employed, and gradually the old acceptance of what is man's work and what is women's work will fade into a more realistic assessment of human capabilities. That is what we are aiming at: for human beings to be enabled to fulfil themselves. We

141
should not allow sex to determine the future, or the contribution, of a human being.
Recently, when I spoke about discrimination practised against women medical students, I sought to make the point that the bar to equal opportunity presents a more formidable obstacle than inequality of pay. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned a few figures but I wish to put these four on record. In 1967 apprenticeships in science and technology for males numbered 9,630; for females the figure was 110. For draughtsmen it was 17,450 for males; for females, 350. For skilled craft workers the figure was 271,650 for males and 5,430 for females. In view of this blatant discrimination, may I ask my noble friend whether we may assume that the training and day-release facilities will now be the same for the boy and the girl? The argument that women are less reliable and are not prepared to take their job seriously is completely refuted if we examine the figures for absenteeism. The figures are highest in the docks and mining where men are employed exclusively. I thought this question of opportunity was emphasised by Miss Nancy Seear in an article published in The Times Business News of April 27. She wrote:
"No waste of manpower in this country begins to rival the waste of womanpower … In a country living on its wits, with half the wits in female heads, the under-utilisation of the potential earning power of women is a frivolous extravagance."
My Lords, I wish to say something about night work. I listened to the noble Lord opposite who spoke about this matter and I hope that I shall convert him—perhaps he has not given very serious attention to the subject. I am very concerned over the suggestion that women should be called on to do night shifts as a condition of equal pay. Women have a natural commitment to bring up the family, and that is the most important service which they provide for the community and one which should not be underestimated. We read pieces in the papers about the man helping in the home and with the washing-up and so on, and we are proud and pleased to think that the nicest husbands do this. But, as I have said, it is the woman who has a natural commitment to bringing up the
142
family. It is she who feels instinctively, biologically, that she should be there to help. I believe that a woman's maternal functions are of national importance. I believe they merit a reward, rather than a handicap, and that women with dependent children should receive the rate for the job for day work without being offered any alternative. I emphasise that—they should not be offered an alternative, because many women might be subjected to pressure at home; they might be subjected to pressure from all directions, and be prepared to do night work because that would bring in more money. I support the trade unionists who understand this; who understand the pressures which might be brought on the rather worn-out woman in the home, where she does so much work, and who know that she might be pressed to do night work.
Finally, I should like to ask two questions. As 65 countries have signified their support for the International Labour Convention, why has Britain failed to do so? Is it because we are introducing a measure which does not fulfil the Rome recommendation? I did not understand that; I was under the impression that a measure of this kind would justify us in signifying our support for the International Labour Convention. I should also like to know why the Government have not given equal pay to their industrial women civil servants, where there is a clear definition of job and the Government have direct responsibility. Surely these women have not to wait for another six years when the Government gave equal pay to their teachers and to their civil servants in 1955.
The noble Lord opposite mentioned the cost of this Bill to the Government and the employers. That should be the least of their objections, because this is the amount by which women workers have subsidised successive Governments and industries for many years. Therefore surely the cost must be regarded as in the nature of unpaid wages. For years, or at least since 1880, let us say, women have been receiving a wage which is smaller that the rate for the job; therefore how can we, in equity, say we cannot pay what, after all, are unpaid wages? I think the Government are extremely fortunate that the women are not demonstrating for the payment of equal pay to

143
be retrospective. If they had asked for that, it would have been very difficult, as I think my noble friend would agree. Therefore I hope that, since at long last the justice of their claim has been recognised, justice for them will not be delayed.
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, after all that has been said so far, there is perhaps little fresh to be added to this debate. I rise simply to welcome this Bill. In essence, I think that it is about equality and justice and the respect of human beings one for another. The difficulties which may arise from the Bill have already been underlined. It is of course true that in England for a very long period of time we have paid lip service to the principle of equal pay, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, reminded us, it has taken a long time for it to reach the Statute Book. Now we hope that this concept is finally going into the Statute Book and that will be an enormous step forward.
I share the concern of those who have spoken on the question of discrimination in the actual appointment to jobs. There sex discrimination is probably seen at its worst. I think it is fairly certain that if young people of the same age applied for the same job, preference would be given to a man rather than a woman. The reason for this is, I believe, something which we ought seriously to consider. While we deplore, it, this kind of discrimination goes back to the very beginning of history. I hope very much that one result of this Bill will be that, having got the principle of equal pay established, we shall be able to give real thought to what are the reasons for the kind of prejudices and attitudes against it which men so easily adopt. If the Bill does nothing more than clear the air, that will represent an enormous step forward.
I take the point, already made by two speakers, that in this whole realm the Church has a great deal to put in order. I wish that my brother Bishops were here to-day in full force because I suppose I am the worst person to have to take part in this debate. I have been for nine years the Chairman of the Churches Council for the Women's Ministry. I have fought for equal pay for women workers in the
144
Church and this has now been established but, of course, there has not been full opportunity. We are in the absurd position within the Church that everybody agrees that there is no earthly reason why there should not be equal opportunity but nobody is ready to do anything about it. I hope that this may yet take place, but I am bound to say that one of the facts which we find in the life of the Church is that parishes—and here I suppose one can only blame the men—always opt for a young curate rather than for a woman worker. This discrimination, which has no kind of reason behind it, worries me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate on that point? That was what was said about women doctors. It was said that nobody wanted a woman doctor. You have to present the woman to people to see whether they want her. You cannot assume that they are not wanted.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. But in fact this has happened. Our trouble is that women are not being presented to parishes, because the men will not let them get near them. The opportunity for women to become vicars of parishes and to become Bishops and even Archbishops is a question which perhaps does not come into the scope of this debate.
I warmly welcome this Bill. I hope that the fears expressed about its effectiveness in operation will prove groundless. But I believe that it will be if, and only if, we go on to really try to understand the reasons for the attitudes and prejudices, which as I say go back to the beginnings of history, that we shall be able to make a move forward in making sure that not only will there be equal pay for equal work but also equal opportunity all the way along the line.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the very clear way in which she went through each clause of this Bill. I found it a great help, as I am sure other speakers have done, too. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how very much I enjoyed his speech. I thought it was excellent, and

145
I look forward to hearing him again in Committee.
I have always felt that the obtaining of real economic equality would be even harder than was the obtaining of political equality—in other words, the vote. The latter is easier to define: women have the vote or they have not. Financial equality is much more difficult, I almost said, to define, but possibly that is not correct. By financial equality I mean this. Any job, from the highest to the lowest, in any category or profession carries so much money per week per month per year. The sex, colour or race of the person doing the job and whether or not that person has dependants seem to me to be quite other matters. To my mind, none of them has any effect on what the job is worth and should not be taken into account in job evaluation. Obviously if this were accepted women would have economic equality as the vote gives them political equality. Obviously this is what the First Secretary is trying to achieve. It will have to be achieved if men and women are to be treated the same financially. And so we have this Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill.
I think that every fair-minded person will wish to congratulate the Government and the right honourable lady for at last dealing with this fundamental human right. To-day the 9 million women at work in the United Kingdom form one-third of the total labour force of this country—a fact that was remarked upon by both the Minister in opening and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. That is quite a lot of people. Many years ago, in January, 1947, I wrote a pamphlet entitled, What is She Worth? Perhaps I may inflict the last sentence on the House:
"The point at issue is the problem of translating the political equality of the vote—gained after the First World War—into social and economic equality, which must be the next stage."
This problem has always seemed to develop in the wrong way. If we go back into the past, we see that women have made greater strides towards joint citizenship in time of war than they have in time of peace. Surely in time of peace their progress towards a full and equal share in the life and work and guidance of the community should be incomparably greater than it is in periods of destruction.
146
Well, I would accept that 1947 is a long time ago. What strides have we made since then? I do not know whether the Minister will have sufficient time to give me any comments on the figures I am now going to offer. If she has not, I shall understand. But my figures for the end of 1968 show that in industry more than half of Britain's working women earned less than 5s. an hour, and that only about 4 per cent. could expect to earn as much as 10s. an hour. I thought this was statistical evidence that women were second-class citizens, that they were under-privileged and underpaid. At the end of 1968, there were 1,865,000 women working in industries whose minimum rates made a distinction between men and women and were less than £8 a week. On average, women earned only three-quarters as much as men. Of nearly 4 million women covered by industrial agreements, only 175,000 had equal pay.
I submit that one does not have to be a rampant feminist to say that on these figures—1968 and not 1947 figures—obviously there was a massive waste of ability and qualifications. In 1968 there was an almost complete lack of retraining facilities for women in those industries which were short of skilled labour. T thought that this was both stupid and an outrage. I thought it was stupid because the country suffered, and I thought it an outrage because it was an insult to half the community. I am wondering whether the Minister will be able to have any better figures when she winds up, because I hope that we have made considerable progress since 1968.
I have been talking about political equality and financial equality. When this Bill becomes law, with the support, I hope, of Members from all sides of both Houses of Parliament, will this financial equality have been achieved? No, it will not. But I think that it will be the beginning of the end stage. And an essential beginning—why only a beginning however essential? Last week a business colleague said to me, "You will never devise legislation to deal with this problem. Far too many 'fiddles' are possible and people who do not wish to carry out the principle will find a way around any legislation." My Lords, I feel that there is a good deal of truth in

147
that. I imagine that one can never draft laws to cover every possible "fiddle" that ingenious minds can devise. But if we in Parliament pass this Bill into law, all of us, in Parliament and outside, who believe in it must tackle what I think is the most difficult job of all, and one at which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, hinted; namely, the changing of climate, the reorientation of public opinion.
I should like to spend a few minutes on this aspect and a Second Reading debate would seem to be the right time to do so. I am going back to the war years, and to 1942. In 1942, in the House of Commons, it was announced that a Committee of Inquiry had been set up to inquire into conditions in the Women's Auxiliary Services; that is, the women's services. We women had been worried about these conditions for some time. We had assumed, not unreasonably, I submit, that women would be included in such a Committee. But not a bit of it! The Committee consisted of four men. One Member of Parliament rose in the House and said:
"Does my right honourable friend think it would be a good idea if we had an all-women Committee to inquire into the conditions in the men's services?".
My Lords, it would have been no more ridiculous.
Obviously there were two possible reasons for this. Either it was assumed that women were not competent to sit on such a Committee or it never occurred to authority to think that they might do so. And I find the second reason the more disturbing of the two. But we did not have to make a fuss; this Committee of four men never even met. It was killed by ridicule and the common sense of the public, who just laughed at the silliest thing they had ever heard of. My Lords, ridicule succeeded where logic had failed.
I should like to take a second example. I come now to fire-watching, air raids and civil defence, when men and women were taking equal risks everywhere; when bombs were falling everywhere as we who lived in the South East corner of England well knew. But in this country women were assessed at seven-tenths or two-thirds the value of men. I always thought that this was a most peculiar assumption. We wondered at the time whether authority felt that smaller bomb
148
splinters chose women and therefore the compensation should be less. But it took three and a half years of war to get this changed. It was only when the public realised how nonsensical it all was that the Government had to move and we all got the same compensation. However, the Government were careful to point out that as this Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme applied only to injuries associated with the war there was for this reason an essential difference between it and any permanent scheme of compensation—just in case we women got ideas that we were further on than in fact we were. The climate of authority was not going to change fundamentally if it could help it. But we now knew how to change this climate: by getting the public to realise that something was just ridiculous. I think this is the right way, but it takes a very long time.
What about politics, in either House? I think the same applies in your Lordships' House but, speaking of another place, once a woman is a Member of Parliament she is accepted as such in the House and deals with the same problems. But the Press ring up to ask for the woman's point of view or the woman's angles on most major issues of the day. The public expect her to deal with women's problems as well as, presumably, with male problems instead of, in their minds, expecting her to deal with all problems. In fact even in Parliament it is felt that we must have a woman on the Committee. Not always because the woman is too good to leave off but because she is a woman. I would submit that that is the right decision for the wrong reason. I do not believe that we shall get the right decision for the right reason until at least one-third of our Members of Parliament are women. Really not until women Members of Parliament have ceased to be an oddity. Why should they be oddities? Why should women bank managers be oddities? Why should women managing directors be oddities? Why should women Cabinet Ministers be oddities? Simply because there are so few of them. Simply because it is news when one is appointed.
I hope women will agree with me that when we cease to be news, in this trivial sense, we shall have come a long way—and it will be a very long way. Never

149
mind 1947. Twenty years later, in the autumn of 1967, a woman had to go to the High Court to establish her right to stand for election to the Council of the British Institute of Management. She won her case but was not elected. To-day we have women in senior posts in industry but very few at the top. To-day the two bastions that I always cite (I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who is not now in his place, but I know he will not take affront at this)—namely, the Church of England and the Stock Exchange—are yielding a little ground, but only gradually, and fighting every inch of the way.
To-day in industry certain jobs—the better-paid ones—are closed to women, not because men do them better but because this has been the case in the past. This is one barrier that we have to break down; the barrier of old-fashioned concept based on prejudice. At the end of last week, on April 30, I noted an example of where new ground had been broken. Both The Times Business Section and the Financial Times carried the announcement that a woman, Dr. Vera Furness, had been appointed General Manager of Courtauld's 1,400-strong research division. According to the Press, this is the first time that a woman has held such a job in British industry. And I do not see why being a consultant to Courtauld's should prevent my using that example.
A second barrier is the one that has already been mentioned; the barrier that denies women equal entrance to universities, medical schools, and business associations—in other words, denies them equal opportunity to train and equip themselves according to their ability. I believe that gradually, but only gradually, and grudgingly, this climate of opinion will be changed. And I believe that this can best be done by the power of example—which takes a long time. And brings me back to politics.
This Government have demonstrated that women Ministers are successful. No Prime Minister before has ever shown such faith in women at the top. I remember the remarks that were made when the present First Secretary went to the Ministry of Transport, and I am sure your Lordships remember them, too. But I remember also before she left that Ministry, many comments from people far removed
150
from me in politics. In general these were to the effect: "Well, I do not like her politics but she has done a first-class job." These remarks came from men and women alike.
I believe, in the context of what I am trying to put forward to-day, that when another woman is made Minister of Transport the public will not think it strange to have a woman there—simply because of the contribution made by a previous woman Minister. And that goes for the other women in this Government. They are the proof, the visible proof, the example now accepted in Parliament and outside. Women Ministers are not oddities; they are not news in the trivial sense; they are paid the compliment of being just Ministers. And if we take the women Peers in this House, those of us who have come from another place, I think we should all say that at first in our constituencies we had to overcome this prejudice against women. Equally I think we would say also that as the years went by, and as I hope and believe, we did a useful job. this prejudice disappeared. We were the Member. I like to believe that we did not thereby lose any of our femininity—I do not think we did. And so, my Lords, we need this Bill as the first step in our end stage. We need the example of women in jobs at all levels. We need the help of Press, television and radio. Together all of us must change public opinion.
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I add my welcome to this Bill to those which have already been given. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the "deceptive slimness" of the Bill. Perhaps one of the pities is that there are more women who are trying to achieve a deceptive slimness than who are even interested in equal pay to-day. If we get bogged down in discussing definitions we shall get into a battle of semantics. The Bill lays down a framework in which one can develop the whole economic pattern. But what is far more important is that it lays down a framework for what will be possible in changing the social pattern and attitudes of people. My noble friend Lady Burton mentioned the small number of women executives in industry; and indeed there are more women in medicine than in law or accountancy. We all agree that the entry for women into medicine

151
is made far too hard and there are far too few women in medicine. In the Civil Service there are still only 8 per cent. in the administrative grades, and less than 5 per cent. of women are managers. The Government cannot be absolved from blame in this series of inequalities, because in 1968 out of a total of 7,008 people at Government training centres only around 20 were women.
One of the important matters we have to consider is the whole pattern of women's lives. When we are talking about equality of opportunity—on which I think all the noble Lords who have spoken have touched, and on which I agree with all that has been said—I feel we have to go farther back into the whole structure of our educational system and the emphasis which is put on different subjects for girls and different subjects for boys. Sons and daughters get brought up in the home with certain preconceptions about their own role in society. Although that is now breaking down in some families, it is taken for granted that it is the boy who has the career and the girl who spends her life as a wife and mother, and on whom it is not worth while to spend too much time or money on education. On the other hand, it is not the job of the boy to help in the home. It is not surprising that these children grow up into young men and women, then middle-aged and old men and women, with all the prejudices and inbuilt feelings and conceptions which come out in the working of our society.
While there are many things on which one has to fight very hard, there are some situations where if you keep on banging people on the head you may stun them but you do not always get what you want. Many men would argue passionately—and sincerely, from their own point of view—that they are not in the least prejudiced against employing women, or indeed working with them. Then they will bring out a whole list of what appear on the surface absolutely rational reasons as to why this should not be so. They say either that the woman does not get on with the people round her, or that she will always be taking time off from her job. I remember once an editor grumbling about a woman who could not come in that day because one of her children was not well.
152
Although the woman had some work at home that she could deal with the editor complained and said: "These married women with children!". I said to him that I had heard him say to a male colleague whose father was ill: "For goodness sake, go straight off! Go back to your father; he should come first on an occasion like this." He had not seen the lack of logic in this attitude until it was put to him. I do not say that he agreed with it, but these are some of the attitudes that we are trying to change.
I believe that to-day there is a change among young people. Young men are far more ready to accept that their wives should be working if they wish to work—even if it is not absolutely economically necessary for them to do so. I do not think we have yet accepted sufficiently the tremendous importance of the contribution of the married woman to industry, production and the professions of this country, and the importance of helping her in so many ways to enable her to carry out part-time work. If her domestic circumstances mean that she can do only part-time work (and this is often so while her children are growing up) it follows that she needs to be able to undertake a course of training that is also part-time. When one starts looking into this matter, as I have done, one finds that the numbers of part-time courses for married women to re-train, or take up training, are very few and far between. It is in this area that one needs to bring a great deal of persuasion and pressure to bear. Out of a labour force of women which amounts to around 9 million, to-day 56 per cent. are married. In 1951 it was 44 per cent. In 1981 it is estimated that it will be 66 per cent.
I agree with much that has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. The noble Baroness must be feeling delighted that this Bill, even with its limitations, is before us to-day, because she has carried out so much work in the past to help to bring this about. When she mentioned the point that pay should be based on the job itself rather than on who does it, I felt that there were one or two things that could be done without having a nondiscrimination Bill or even a nondiscrimination clause in this Bill. We

153
could do away with these "men only" advertisements, and indeed advertisements of the sort one sees in The Times such as "Women's Appointments". If, on the one hand, a man does not want to apply, he does not have to do so, and if a woman wants to apply she should do so. Recently I heard of a woman engineer who replied to an advertisement and signed her letter "E. G. Smith". When she went for her interview, the men holding the interview looked at her with alarm. They were very embarrassed and said that they were very sorry because they did not know that she was a lady and they employed only men. She replied, "I am not a lady; I am an engineer". And she got the job. That is a true story. She was successful because she managed to get past the barricade, and, once they realised her qualifications they accepted her.
Another side to this is something which it would be quite wrong for women to overlook, and that is that many women neither support other women who are striving for equal pay and equal opportunity, nor accept that taking a job usually requires a great deal of discipline, which is often of a different nature from that of running a home. If a woman undertakes a job she has to be prepared to give of her best to it. It is for this reason the transition from part-time work for the woman whose family needs her part of the time, until they are grown up, is a transition both for her and for industry. One comes up against a great deal of conservatism. The immediate reaction of many employers—both men and women—is that this will not work. Nevertheless, where this has been undertaken—some of the banks do it and other firms have undertaken it—it is found to work very well. Even in, say, secretarial work there are a few employers who say they have a scheme whereby they have two secretaries who interchange; one takes one week and the other the next, but if one is away for any reason then the other takes her place. The employer does not care so long as the arrangement works properly and they keep in touch with each other.
I feel that a great many things could quite easily be done resulting in both increased production and productivity with a great deal less waste of what really
154
is our only source for expansion of labour power in this country—that is, women. Some interesting figures were brought out by the Applied Economics Research Unit in Cambridge, under Professor Stokes, which gave a comparison between percentages of people, both men and women, in four different classes of work, comparing the situation in 1960 with a projection of what will be required in the year 2000. In the professional and technical division, in 1960 8 per cent. of the working population were employed; in the year 2000, 20 per cent. will be needed. In management, the figure is 10 per cent. for 1960; for the year 2000, 10 per cent. In clerical work, the proportion is 12 per cent. in 1960, which drops to 9 per cent. for the year 2000. The biggest drop is in manual work, where the figure was 70 per cent. in 1960 and is estimated at 61 per cent. in the year 2000.
At the moment, the year 2000 seems a long way off, but if one considers that the girl leaving school at 15 now will probably be returning to work, as a mother of grown-up children in that year, we see that it is not too early to start preparing even for this. After all, we are in many other branches of technology taking this rather longer view. I think that these very interesting figures will mean that an enormously increased number of people will be required for professional and technical work. Unless girls are given this opportunity, it is not the women who will suffer but the whole of our society. Furthermore, as we become more and more automated it surely means that as the amount of manual work required is reduced, and there is less need to depend on sheer physical strength, the lower-paid men will be in a very difficult position because they can be undercut, if the present situation continues and if equal pay does not come about in a much wider concept, by the cheap labour of women. I personally am not so concerned, as I said, with the definition as with the acceptance of it and its being worked out.
I also should like to see the length of period shortened, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said. But if we look at the other side, it does not mean that firms cannot bring in equal pay very much earlier if they wish to do so. And one hopes that they will be pressed to do so and that, if other firms in their

155
area do so, they will then follow suit. I do not think that this particular Bill is by any means the end of the road: it is only the beginning. And if it is seen not only in its economic context but also in its social and human context, then I believe that it will really be a landmark in our history.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I want to add just one word in this debate, since I have listened with enormous interest to all that has been said. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness who introduced this Bill very much indeed. I should like also to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. No one has worked harder, and no one has done more for equal pay than she has; and, indeed, also the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. But I think this is a great day for Lady Summerskill, and I should like to be one of the many people all over the country, in fact all over the world, who say, "If it hadn't been for Lady Summerskill we should not have got as far as we have; we shouldn't have got this Bill." This Bill will be a great landmark, and I think the Government must be congratulated on bringing it in. Of course, many things still remain to come. The time factor is a slow one. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, that could be speeded up by anybody who wants to bring these particular reforms in more swiftly.
When Lady Burton was speaking about the war years my mind went back to a committee which the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, appointed and of which Lady Summerskill and I were both members. It was a committee which came out of the experience of four men. I think there were four men; but there were at least seven or eight women, and the chairman was Miss Violet Markham. We made an inquiry into the conditions in the women's services and produced a report. It was the first time I had actually taken part in work of this kind, and I look back upon it as a great experience. We were able to make a great classification of the magnificent work being done by the women's services.
I also remember very clearly—and this is a far more recent experience—that
156
when I was the first Chairman of the Consumer Council I used to go quite often to address meetings organised by chambers of commerce or groups of industries—the boot and shoe industry, let us say, or the textile industry, and so on. I always found myself the only woman addressing a gathering of anything from a hundred to five hundred men. I remember going on one occasion to a huge conference in Blackpool—I cannot remember the organisation concerned, but I know that a number of distinguished trade unionists and leaders of industry were present. At least 2,000 people were there, and I was the only woman. I suppose that many people there were in the higher echelons of industry, and certainly no other woman was present. I well remember coming across one woman at a meeting and being exceedingly surprised. If I ever went to a gathering of consumers, however, then all those present were women, and one would have thought that men did not consume at all.
I hope that this Bill will be supported and that we shall see a big revolution coming in the employment of women. I agree so much with Lady Burton when she said that we must change public opinion. In politics, I believe that it is still very difficult for women in any political Party, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal, to be adopted in constituencies. There is still a strong prejudice in favour of men, however good the women are. I hope we shall be able to break down that situation, too.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, I hope we shall find in the years to come that there will be women in top management, in just the same way as men are in top management. My only contribution in this respect, as I speak here this evening, is that I think I am the only woman who is chairman of an agricultural auction market. When I became chairman, following upon my husband, a great many people said, "Oh, it is not a job for a woman". I said I did not agree, and the board over whom I preside, all men, were quite prepared to accept me. That is my own contribution in a profession: I am the only woman, I think, who is chairman of an agricultural auction market. My Lords, I do not want to delay the debate. I should like to close by adding my congratulations

157
to those who have spoken, and to the Government for producing the Bill. I hope very much that it will be as effective as we all hope it will be in the future.
4.49 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, we have a woman Minister in charge of this debate; more than half of the speakers have been women, and I think it would be a pity if it went out to the world that this debate in your Lordships' House had been dominated by women and that the voice of men had not been equally heard. So I now endeavour to redress the balance. I think there is a lot to be said in favour of women, but I shall not take very long to say it; I intend to be brief. As Henry VIII is reputed to have said to one of his women, "I shan't keep you very long"! But I want to congratulate the Government on the courage they have shown in bringing forward this Bill, which although accepted more or less without objection in the two Houses of Parliament, leads to a certain amount of gossip and discussion and controversy outside. There are many people in all walks of life who say, "Yes, let us have women as equals but I do not want them to be equal with me." It will be necessary to overcome a great deal of public opposition before this measure can be fully accepted.
During the past years of our generation I think that women have been their own worst enemies. They have not joined trade unions, or demanded adequate pay, in adequate numbers. Many of them have not wanted to embark upon a lifetime's career; they have always regarded their occupation as a second line and their main ambition is to be married. Many of them, therefore, have chosen inferior jobs, not requiring an enormous amount of skill (I except, of course, the professional women), and many of them have been quite content to take part-time jobs. Unnecessarily, therefore, in many circles they have been looked upon as second-class citizens in industry. I feel that because of this, despite the provisions made in the Bill, many employers will endeavour to make out a case that their women workers are not employed on tasks equal to those of the men and will therefore seek to get a second grade wage established for the women. I sincerely hope that more of these women will join their trade unions so that they may have
158
competent advocacy to put forward their case for equality.
One or two of the women speakers who have dominated this debate have spoken about the quite unnecessary differentiation between men and women. It is a great news item when you can say "Woman Minister", "Woman J.P.", "Woman Barrister", "Woman Doctor", and so on. Despite my lifetime in newspapers and the attraction which a heading to a story can have if it has a sex angle in it, I have never subscribed to the point of view that a woman is any different from a man. Of course I know there are little differences, and long may they continue. But in my newspaper days when I was news editor of one of the national dailies, I had a team of reporters. About half of them were men and the other half were women, and I never differentiated between whether a particular reporter I wanted for a particular job wore a skirt or trousers—they were reporters. When I was called upon to nominate certain reporters for the job of war correspondent during the war I nominated as many women as I did men. One of those women was the first war correspondent in any of the Allied Forces to cross the bridge across the Rhine. So there is really, in what one might call the professional and skilful occupations, no need to differentiate at all between men and women.
I feel that there may be some objection among the general public to this Bill on the following point—and it has been hinted at by one of my noble friends. The general public will say, "If employers are to pay women the same wages as they pay men, then they will sack a lot of the women." This may happen in a few isolated cases but I do not think it will be a general objection to this Bill. There are only half a million or so regular, long-term unemployed people in this country. There are 9 million women employed in industry in this country. The number of people employed in industry and in services is likely to increase, despite automation, because of the increasing size of the population, and I do not think that women have anything to fear so long as they can prove that they are capable of doing the same kind of job as men. In many capacities they have already proved that.

159
I know it will be said that although employers are required to give equal pay to women they are not required to give equal opportunities for promotion and for appointments to the higher positions. That point has already been mentioned by one or two of my noble friends. I think it behoves the women of the rising generation to attend very seriously indeed to their education. Those at universities and technical colleges should perhaps approach more closely the technical and physical sciences rather than the social sciences which so many of the women students are approaching at the moment. My Lords, I have no really serious doubt that this Bill can be successful and I wish it, with every success, an early passage to the Statute Book.
4.56 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I say at once that I have greatly enjoyed this Second Reading debate—not always a situation in which a Minister finds herself. I should like at once, with all humility, to congratulate my noble friends Lady Burton, Lady Birk, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lady Summerskill, and of course Lord Belstead, on their splendid contributions. I felt all the time that they were saying the things that so many of us have tried to say for such a long time, and I congratulate them on taking this opportunity of getting these words once more recorded so that we hope they will get to the appropriate quarter.
I of course accept the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that women are not equal. I long ago realised that I was not equal in a number of things. I am not as beautiful as many other people, or as witty or as clever. But life is like that. I do not think anybody has ever postulated the theory that women want to be equal with men. That would seem to be completely fallacious. What we have been saying for many years is that the innate abilities of women differ from those of men but that the employment prospects should be governed only by real differences and not by imagined prejudices. I think my noble friends this afternoon have rather underlined this when they have spoken about the difficulties of opportunity and the fact that women are still excluded from
160
a number of spheres. However, I think we must sound a note of hope.
Surely women are penetrating more and more the inner circles. I must say at once that when I came to your Lordships' House I expected to find great prejudice. I thought that here was an area where males had had their libraries and their smoking rooms to themselves for many generations and would dislike women intensely, instead of which I have received the most egalitarian treatment. In fact I have been treated as a woman and an equal; and I think that perhaps this is all we have ever wanted.
Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the equality of opportunity still has to be dealt with. Nobody would dispute that. The right reverend Prelate sounded a note which several of my noble friends have taken up; namely, that we have to contend with inborn attitudes and prejudices, and these can be cured only by example, on the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, pointed out, and on the other, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out, by constant action, whether militant or otherwise, often on the part of the women themselves but certainly on the part of the women who are affected by this.
I think we have all suffered from being the "statutory woman" on a committee or even, as I recall, on a B.B.C. programme called "Any Questions?" where they usually have one woman and three men. There is of course an implied compliment there, which I noticed the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, picksed up in her own television appearance when she suggested that it took two men to interview one woman successfully. I think perhaps we can take it this way until we can secure an adjustment of the balance of equality. I would say at once that there is no doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, that retraining facilities for the woman wishing to return to work must be looked at. With her I agree that not only do we waste a colossal amount of talent but we shall need every one of these people if we are to be able to keep the labour force fully manned.
There is no doubt that attitudes are changing and that we no longer find the same exclusions, either in industry or

161
commerce. In the professions, I remember going through the battles of equal pay when I was teaching, and I always thought it very ironic that I did not recall any man teacher saying to me, "You poor woman; go and sit down and let me take playground duty, or look after the children at lunch time". As I recall, we pulled our weight 100 per cent., even taking on school journeys; and there was no question that this was a demand for equal pay for completely equal work.
I think it will be very easy to make heavy weather of this point about equal work. I believe that there are areas where there is no doubt that it is equal work and where equal pay can be readily introduced. I would say at once to those noble Lords who have suggested that this has taken a long time, that this is true. But there is Clause 9, which gives the Secretary of State power to intervene if she feels that there is too slow progress towards equal treatment for men and women. This seems to me a very useful clause, which I am quite sure the Secretary of State will invoke. We must agree at once that the fact that there is a woman Minister is of course a contributing factor to the introduction of this Bill. I liked Lady Summerskill's suggestion that it was extracted from the body politic. I am glad it was a Caesarian and not an abortion, or perhaps we should not have had this Bill at this point of time. I will look into her point about the home worker and give her a reply, because I think she is on to something which I know from my own experience is an increasing practice.
So far as the question of training is concerned, while the Bill does not provide equal opportunity of employment, which does not come within the scope of the Bill—though I think this debate will do a great deal of good—it does provide for the equalisation of promotion and training opportunities to the extent that these are being provided for in the workers' contracts of employment. That will not entirely meet the case, but I think it will meet one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
The noble Lord also raised the point about contract and conditions on Clause 1(2). I might perhaps give an answer on this. Women cannot compare themselves with men in another establishment (I think I made this point earlier)
162
unless both establishments are under the same employer and they have common terms and conditions of employment. Common terms means in this connection that the workers are doing the same job in both establishments and are paid the same; so that if men in establishment A are paid £15 and men in establishment B are paid £20 the establishments do not have common terms, and the women in establishment A cannot compare themselves with those in establishment B. In other words, they will not get the best of all worlds in this connection. There is no question, under the subsection, of the men in establishment A, getting £15, being raised to the level of the men's wages in establishment B, which is £20.
The Secretary of State has power to take cases to the industrial tribunal in circumstances where women may be inhibited from doing so. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will appreciate that these cases may arise where a woman may feel it may be very much to her detriment if she takes a case to the tribunal. There is nothing to stop employers and unions and other people taking cases to the tribunal, or representing the women in front of the tribunal. This is common practice and there is no need to provide for it in the Bill. It will be useful to the noble Lord to know that this is on the Record in my reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also raised the point of the situation where the employer and the woman are agreed that the woman is working in the same or equivalent work to the man, but the employer is paying the man more than the woman, and he admits it. Then the onus is on the employer to show that the distinction is for something different in the work, in output or some other aspect of it. As to Clause 6(1), the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was that there will be strong differences of opinion as to whether or not the legal restrictions on women's employment should be lifted. The Secretary of State believes that these differences should be explored in discussion with both sides of (industry, and she is in fact already initiating discussions in this connection.
On the question of job evaluation, a subject on which several noble Lords touched, I would say that it is impossible to evaluate one job in terms of another unless this is done on the basis of the

163
demand that each job makes on a typical worker. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that this was introducing a new principle. That demand can be assessed under various headings—skill, experience and effort are mentioned in the Bill as examples, but other headings, such as degrees of responsibility, which the noble Lord mentioned, are not excluded. I hope that answers his question. I should not like to attempt to reply to some of the excellent points raised which are outside the scope of the Bill. Equality of opportunity has, of course, had great pride of place, and rightly so. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, rightly, that the figures of wages reveal quite appalling discrepancies. I am sorry I am unable to tell her that the current figures are very different, but I hope that if we have a debate of this kind within another year the figures will be very different. It is, after all, one of the things the Bill is all about.
I am not quite sure whether I am now breaching a point of protocol, but I should like to thank the Minister of State for this Department for allowing a woman to introduce this Bill. As I understand it, it could and should have been the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, but he has allowed me the privilege of moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am grateful to him. I am happy that one noble Lord paid a tribute to the Prime Minister who, whether one accepts his politics or not—and I should not expect noble Lords opposite to do that—has given more than any other living Prime Minister opportunities to women to show that they can take the higher posts in Government. I think that should be recorded as a tribute. My Lords, this is an historic day. When we discussed the Disabled Persons Bill last week I felt that that was a charter for the disabled and chronically sick. This Bill is a charter for women, the lower paid women. It will put right many inequalities and injustices, and those who fought for it will, I feel, recognise the passing of this Motion to-day as a great and memorable achievement.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
5.8 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the proceedings of this day in respect of the passing of the Bill be vacated. I must offer an apology to your Lordships for moving this Motion, but it is necessary for a privilege Amendment to be made to the Bill before it is sent to the Commons. A privilege Amendment should have been moved after the Third Reading this afternoon but by inadvertence this was not done, and in order, therefore, to put the matter right it is necessary for me to move that the passing of the Bill be vacated so that I may then, if it is your Lordships' pleasure, move the privilege Amendment in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings on passing of the Bill be vacated.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith).
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is usually so efficient and so courteous that I do not think any of your Lordships would wish to blame him for what has happened. Moreover, having listened to my noble friend Lord Bessborough, we all want the Bill, and we do not want to make any trouble about it; so I suppose we must pretend that the noble Lord's finger had not left the Bill before the other proceedings this afternoon. All I would ask him is whether he can assure me that a Motion, That the proceedings of the day be vacated, is one that has some precedent. I have sat in this House for a great many years and I have never previously heard of such a Motion. I am just wondering whether it has been invented in order to get round the difficulties of to-day.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that this Motion is not without precedent. Perhaps I might add that my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms observed to me that it is not everyone who has the privilege of moving such a Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, the Amendment (privilege) agreed to.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith).
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL
5.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Royle in the Chair.]
Clause 91 [Supplementary provision and interpretation and extent of Part V]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES) moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 82, line 34, at end insert ("and nothing in the said section 88 shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (telecommunication systems).")
The noble Lord said: The purpose behind Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 is to ensure that when river or local authorities are operating flood warning systems and use radio or telephone communications, the monopoly of the Post Office should be preserved. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 [Provision of flood warning systems]:
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 30 is a similar Amendment for the Scottish flood warning systems. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 38, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
166
("(ii) Nothing in this subsection shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1967 (telecommunication systems).")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 84, line 20, leave out ("the same meanings respectively as in") and insert ("subject to section 93(3) of this Act) the meanings assigned to them by section I of")
The noble Lord said: Although the second of the next two Amendments, Nos. 31 and 32, is fairly lengthy it is a purely drafting Amendment arising out of the Government's consideration of a subsequent Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Haig. I should like to say that we are indebted to him for having drawn this point to our attention. Clause 93 provides generally that local authorities may combine in the exercise of their powers under Part VI of the Bill to provide and operate a flood warning system. The intention of Clause 93(2) as drafted was, first, to apply the general powers relating to voluntary combination of local authorities under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, to combinations of local authorities for the purposes of a flood warning system; and, secondly, to ensure that where local authorities have combined for the purpose of providing and operating a flood warning system any reference to a "local authority" in Part VI of the Bill shall be construed as including a reference to a combination of local authorities.
I am advised that the method of doing this in Clause 93(2) as drafted is not in fact satisfactory for these purposes. The Amendments which I am now speaking to will achieve what we had intended and what the noble Earl, Lord Haig, wants in relation to his Amendment, and they will lead to a more ready understanding of Part VI of the Bill as it applies to the combinations of local authorities. The Amendment to the definition of "local authority" in Clause 92(2)(b) paves the way to the Amendment to Clause 93 and is in line with the definition of "local authority" in the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of these Amendments, and also for his

167
references to my noble friend Lord Haig. I was not quite clear whether or not what he said implied that he wished to accept the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Haig.
LORD HUGHES: No. These Amendments accomplish the purpose which the noble Earl wanted to achieve by his Amendment No. 33, which we would invite him not to move.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful for that explanation. What the noble Lord now proposes to do, therefore, fulfils the purpose of Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 which are to be moved to Clause 94?
LORD HUGHES: No. Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 are on a slightly different point. The Government do not wish to accept these Amendments, but they arc not in fact covered by what I am doing. Amendment No. 33 will fall because Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 accomplish its purpose. But Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 will still have to be spoken to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 92 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Combinations of local authorities]:
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subsection (2) to (4) of section 119 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (which relates to voluntary combinations of local authorities) shall apply in relation to any such combination as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection as they apply in relation to the combinations mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section 119, and in the said section (2) to (4) as so applying any reference to a function of a local authority shall be construed as including a reference to any power or duty of the local authority so far as relating to the flood warning system with which the combination is concerned.
(31 In relation to a case where local authorities have combined under this section any reference in this Part of this Act to a local authority shall (unless the context otherwise requires) be construed as including a reference to the combination of local authorities, and "area" shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [Arrangements with other bodies]:
EARL HAIG EARL HAIG had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment (No. 33):
Page 84, line 39, after ("authority") insert ("or combination of local authorities").
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: T beg to move Amendment No. 33 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Haig. First, I should express his apologies to the Committee that, by reason of an urgent engagement in Edinburgh, he is prevented from being with us to-day. Secondly, may I ask that in debating Amendment No. 33 we should also discuss Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36?
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord will permit me, just before he entered the Chamber I had pointed out that the Amendments which have just been accepted accomplish the purpose of Amendment No. 33 which should not in fact be moved; but that Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 cover a different point and should be spoken to.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining that to me, and I must apologise for not being here to start with to hear his wise words. Therefore I do not move Amendment No. 33.
5.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 84, line 40, after ("with") insert ("a river purification authority or")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 34, I should like also to discuss Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. As has already been said, this Part of the Bill deals with the provision of flood warnings in Scotland. The point of Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 is to bring into Clause 94 at the appropriate points mention of river purification authorities as among the bodies that may be consulted by the local authorities in this connection.
River purification authorities, which have responsibility for river management in Scotland in this capacity, have already installed a number of gauging weirs for measurement purposes, and these are, as it were, the basic material for putting up

169
flood warning devices. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, has called my attention to the fact that the River Tweed, for instance, has no less than 20 such gauging stations. Of course, they would not all be useful because many of them are in the lower reaches where you would not need more than one or two, but normally a gauging weir would be a suitable point for fixing flood warnings which would give warning to some central point when water levels rose to a dangerous level and action needed to be taken.
I should think it would be normal that local authorities would consult and work jointly with river purification authorities in installing these schemes. It would seem to me that this would be the natural thing for them to do, so I hope that what I am asking for in these three Amendments is no more than what would be done in practice anyway; and because it would be the normal practice it would seem to be wise to include the name of these authorities in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The clause as drafted enables local authorities to make arrangements with any other person for apparatus owned by that person to be incorporated in a flood warning system provided by the authorities. In this connection "person" is defined in the Interpretation Act as including all sorts of bodies, corporate bodies and others, and would include a river purification authority. For that reason I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment because, by singling out the river purification authority in this connection, it would immediately cast doubt on the power to make arrangements with others who have similar systems.
For instance, water boards, Electricity Boards, the Secretary of State himself, and landowners all have systems which can be brought into use in this way; and no-one perhaps more so in the North of Scotland than the Hydro-Electric Board. Therefore, it did seem to us that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Haig, was rather misled by this reference to "person" to think that it excluded river purification authorities as such. On the other hand, it may not be that at all, because when the Bill was in another place the Scottish Office received many representations from Members of Parliament on the same subject. I think the river purification
170
authorities may have made the assumption that because the reference was to "person" it would exclude co-operation with themselves, and they invited quite a number of Members of Parliament to put this point to the Secretary of State.
I am therefore glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that it is fully recognised that river purification authorities have a very wide knowledge and experience of rainfall and river gauging which can be usefully drawn upon, and it has been envisaged all along that local authorities wishing to install flood warning systems will co-operate fully and closely with the river purification interests. Indeed, the Government referred, in another place, to the special role which it was hoped the river purification authorities would play; but, because there are a number of other statutory bodies which also have a very direct interest in river gauging work, it would be inadvisable to attempt to specify the particular bodies with whom a local authority may enter into arrangements. As has been said so often in so many different cases, as soon as one starts to specify within a general position, one casts doubts on the right to consult those who are not in fact so specified. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, Lord Nugent, will feel able, on behalf of his noble friend, to agree that what is being asked for is in fact accomplished, and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for dealing so comprehensively with the point which I raised on behalf of my noble friend Lord Haig? It may be that my noble friend was misled as to the meaning of "person", but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not be surprised when I say that I was not. I felt there was some point in this Amendment because the river purification authority is the specific authority responsible for the management of rivers, in so far as such responsibility exists in Scotland, and of course the answer which the noble Lord gave me is a familiar one when Government Departments are unwilling to see their Bills amended. However, I feel that I have already been rather bold in trespassing so far over the Border into Scottish affairs, and I am certainly not disposed to press something from this

171
position in the South of England. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that we have no resentment. In fact, he did it so well that momentarily I confused him with his noble friend and called him an Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
5.28 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 36A:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land
".Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold by agreement to a party possessing compulsory purchase powers and

(a) the land is used for the purposes of agriculture within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and is so used by way of a trade or business;

(b) the person carrying on the trade or business is displaced from the land;

(c) where apart from this section the compensation would be assessed on the agricultural value of the land;

compensation shall be paid by the acquiring party at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement."
The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment because, although I knew that it had been fairly well discussed in the other place, even after reading their proceedings there were certain doubts in my mind, and I am hoping that the Government will be able to clear up these doubts and perhaps give me some assurance on one or two points. Compared with acquisitions in other fields, farmers do have special problems which I shall hope to explain. I might add at this stage that the National Farmers' Union is in full support of this Amendment. If the effect of this Amendment is to make compulsory acquisition harder I welcome that, for too often good, fertile, clean land is grabbed when, with more thought and imagination, marginal or waste land could well be used. After all, land is part of a farmer's business, and it always grieves me to think of the time and money spent on it and then to see it
172
submerged underneath a heap of concrete or other buildings.
I can start on one point of common ground, because I think everybody agrees that where land is taken for the benefit of the community as a whole, the owner or occupier, or tenant, of that land, should not suffer. I think everybody agrees with this principle. What I want to ask is whether the existing law ensures that this happens. At present, the compensation is paid at the existing or market value at the date of acquisition, and I concede that this is an improvement from the former position. But, to my mind, it still does not reflect the cost of reinstatement of that farmer. Land is an integral part of a business, and it does not need much imagination to realise the effect on the business when a man is dispossessed. But to my mind that is not taken into account at present, for losses start at, and I believe should be compensated from, the moment when it is widely known that a farm is, so to speak, doomed. What is known as planning blight sets in. Such things as Government improvement grants are immediately withdrawn; no new electricity supply will be given; no new fixed equipment will be put in, and a farmer's own expenditure will not be reflected in the compensation paid; labour drifts away, and this causes heavy expenditure to the farmer who has to engage contractors, and so on.
From then follows the changeover period to a new farm, if indeed a farmer can find one. He will have to compete at auction with adjacent farmers, who know that by acquiring a neighbouring farm they will be able to gain from economies of scale and spread their overheads more widely. They will therefore be willing and able to pay an inflated price. I can speak about the present anxiety in Rutland, where 4,000 acres are liable to be submerged for the Emping-ham reservoir. It is a large proportion of that county, and we may well find 20 or more farmers, with compensation already agreed and in their pockets, competing for a shortage of acres, a situation that will automatically inflate the price.
When the farmer finds his new farm there is a three-year period of acclimatisation—because that is about the time it takes for a farmer to find out what his new farm is like and to learn how

173
to manage it. For instance, a man moving from a sandy soil to a clay soil will find completely different conditions and will have a good deal of difficulty in adjusting himself. Although, as I said, we all agree that the dispossessed farmer should not suffer, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on February 27 that land should be priced purely and simply on its value in the open market. But that will not reflect the cost of a farmer's extra expenses needed to reinstate himself as before.
For this reason, I should like to see farmers compensated in the same way as displaced traders, who are at present paid up to three years for loss of profits, with compensation for disturbance and loss of good will. I should like to see us follow the principle of the judgment in the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association Incorporated v. Birmingham City Corporation, where there was a compulsory order providing for the acquisition of a church and the court held that the compensation should be determined at the cost of reinstatement. That is all I want to see in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say a word in support of my noble friend before the Minister replies, because I should like to ask a couple of questions? I think we have all followed with interest the points made by my noble friend, and possibly there is common ground in the Committee that if someone is dispossessed for the good of the community then the community ought to ensure that the person dispossessed should not suffer. I think my noble friend has given us good examples of land being increasingly needed.
He reminded us of a reservoir in his part of the country, but there are also the ever-open jaws of the motorways, and behind lurks the Ministry of Transport Green Paper. Many of us who are keen on transport support that Green Paper, but if we lived on the line of one of those new motorways we should not be quite so happy. There is also the Roskill Commission, which is sitting at the moment, and ready to gobble up a very great amount of land. I speak with particular feeling, having lived just outside a town which was to have been doubled in size, although that did not happen. Also, we know for a fact that 50,000 acres are taken out of agricultural use each year.
174
May I draw your Lordships' attention to another possibility, which I do not think my noble friend mentioned, but which I have seen happen at first hand? If there is mass dispossession for something like a new town, suddenly a flood of applicants for land is released on to the market, and this is bound to be reflected in local prices. I suggest that the case for a change seems to be cast iron, although I must say that I do not quite know whether I like the precise terms of the Amendment.
It seems that the Amendment does not differentiate between freeholders and tenants, and it implies that the basis of valuation as the open market value—a definition which I understand is derived from the Act of 1919—is wrong. But I am not quite sure that the words,
"compensation … at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement",
put something concrete in its place. Can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tell us what is the exact situation if a tenant is dispossessed? I apologise for my ignorance, but I have read the Report of the proceedings in another place and I am still not quite sure.
In the case of freeholders who are dispossessed, I thought the date of valuation was the date of the notice to treat, but my noble friend has said that it is the date of acquisition. I wonder which is correct. Whichever is correct, though interest on the final price is payable from the relevant date, I most certainly support my noble friend in saying that that is poor compensation for rises in land values during protracted negotiations. We know that in the last 15 years the rise in land values has been about 10 per cent. per annum, and that can mean a lot to someone when negotiations are protracted. Finally, would not the noble Lord agree that if some payment could be made during negotiations before the final price was decided, that might allow some dispossessed farmers to get on and seek for land as soon as they know that they are going to have to leave?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment, but may I make one point which has not so far been raised? When a farmer is dispossessed of his farm, presumably for the good of the

175
community, he has to sell all his stock; and it may well be, if he has to wait a year or 18 months, or even two years, before he can find a new farm, that the value of the cattle and sheep is much higher than when he was dispossessed. Therefore it is only fair for the Government to compensate the farmer fully up to the cost of re-stocking the farm. I do not suggest that they should compensate him to an extent where he is able to buy more stock than he had previously, but I think that the Government ought to compensate him for any rise in the value of stock when he has to re-stock.
LORD HENLEY: I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, but I wonder whether this is really the time and place for it. This is a very complicated subject. In fact, a detailed examination of the law relating to compensation for compulsory acquisition, together with recommendations for amendments, has been made by the Chartered Land Societies' committee; and various other professional bodies, too, are at work on the same thing. The field covers more than agriculture; and it covers many different aspects of agriculture which the noble Lord's Amendment does not cover. Indeed, his noble friend Lord Belstead has struck at one of the weak points already. So although, as I say, I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, and although I know the agricultural community feel very strongly that they are not getting enough compensation and that something should be done about it, I am sure it cannot be done in this way in this Bill. I know that this Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and that it has an enormous number of different aspects to it, but we really cannot add one more aspect of so complicated a nature, and I hope the noble Lord will not seek to press the Amendment because I should hate not to be able to support him.
LORD BESWICK: I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on one point; namely, that this is a complicated matter, and I am not sure that I am going to be able to give an absolutely satisfactory answer to the different points which have been raised. First of all, however, taking the Amendment that we are considering, I have to say that it is not clear what the effect of it
176
would be, and several noble Lords have pointed out that it is not a water-tight Amendment. It is not clear partly because the words in subsection (c), for example, do not appear to have any significance by reference to existing legislation, and the circumstances in which the clause would operate are thus uncertain; and partly because the instruction to "take full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement" appears to mean something other than actually paying the cost of equivalent reinstatement. I am not quite sure what is meant there. What is the difference between "taking full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement" and paying for equivalent reinstatement? The drafting of this Amendment, therefore, is not sound, and I suggest that the noble Lord would not be wise to press it on that account, if on no other.
But there is a feeling here which I recognise, and it may be that I can say something about that. I appreciate that there are some people who feel that the farmers do not get the full amount needed to enable them to set up again as farmers in another part of the country. First of all, may I point out to the noble Lord that the effect at the moment, without this Amendment, is that the farmer gets what his land is worth, just as if he had decided of his own choice to move elsewhere and had put his farm up for sale voluntarily. A number of noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, himself—pointed out that there were other expenses involved in uprooting oneself from a farm and having to move and establish oneself in another farm. That is true; but there is provision here for disturbance and for removal costs, and these payments for consequential losses are on top of the market price for the land. For example, the noble Viscount spoke about the sale of stock. There is provision, of course, for taking into account the forced sale of live or dead stock. That would come under the category of the disturbance payments. Where circumstances justify it, there can be compensation for loss of profit; so again I think the present position covers the various special considerations which apply to a farmer.
I was asked about the position where a farmer going out to bid for another

177
farm had to bid against adjacent farmers, and it was suggested that an adjacent farmer would be prepared to bid a little higher because he could efficiently and economically take over the farm. But this possibility of bids by adjacent farmers would be taken into account by the valuer when he came to assess the market value of the farm which was being taken from the farmer. One cannot have this both ways. If there is a possibility of the adjacent farmers putting up the market value of a farm, then this is taken into account when assessing the market value of the farm which is being compulsorily acquired. I was asked by the noble Viscount about the possibility of an interim payment during negotiations, and I am able to assure him that in cases of hardship the possibility of advance payment is there now; indeed, up to 90 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, asked about the application of the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association v. Birmingham Corporation, as a result of which the assessment of compensation is now made by reference to a date much closer to that at which the occupier will be looking for new premises. This is the position; this applies now. I can assure the noble Lord that what was found in that case is applied when the assessment of compensation is now made. The noble Lord asked me about planning blight. If land is designated for compulsory acquisition at some time in the future and the farmer is able to show that he cannot sell it except at a depreciated price, he can require the public authority concerned to buy it at its full, undepreciated price.
I think that answers all the different points that were put to me, and on the basis of those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CRAWSHAW: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I think certain of the difficulties arise from my inability, at any rate, to reconcile the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on February 27, when he said that land should be priced or valued purely and simply on its value in the open market, and the judgment in the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association v. Birmingham Corporation.
178
There seems to be a difference here, and I have not really found the answer to it. I would also make the point that in these cases a farmer is not moving of his own choice. I think that is different from the example which the noble Lord quoted of a farmer moving of his own free will. But in view of the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the time and place for this, while reserving my right to bring it up again at another time, for the moment, although this is a problem which is much in the forefront of the minds of many people concerned with farming, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Agricultural tied cottages]:
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 87, line 14, leave out head (ii) and insert—
("(ii) that the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; or").
The noble Earl said: It has been suggested to me that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss together all three Amendments (Nos. 37, 38 and 39) on Clause 99. If that course were agreeable we should still have to take decisions separately on these three Amendments, because they cover two quite distinct points. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, in the names of my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Crawshaw, and my noble friend Lord Balerno, are concerned with the length of time for which a farm servant has been in employment and occupancy of his house before the termination of his employment. This is an Amendment which was recommended after great care and consideration by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. My noble friends who are moving Nos. 38 and 39 will no doubt put forward the case in their favour and I hope that their arguments will be considered favourably by the Government.
The first Amendment, No. 37, is in my name and in that of my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Belstead. It is concerned with a different point: how to

179
reconcile possible hardship which may arise from the vacation of an agricultural service tenancy house with the needs of efficient agriculture. This is a question which affects the whole of Great Britain in one way or another. Although there is much less feeling about it in Scotland than in England, I think that it affects Scotland basically to a greater extent. In England, or at least in South and Central England, one very often finds in country districts a large number of rural villages all fairly close together, perhaps not more than a mile or a mile and a half apart, and none of the farms is very far from the villages. Sometimes they are even concentrated all round them. So it is not very difficult for a good many agricultural workers to live in these rural villages which are not specifically attached to any farms. Possibly the only farm worker who may have to reside on the farm is the stockman who has sometimes to look after animals during the night.
In Scotland and, of course, in other parts of England, especially in the North, it is very different. Not only in the remote areas, in the Highlands, on the Borders or in the upland districts, but in East and Central Scotland and in the Lowlands too where heavy arable cultivation is practised, one may often find six or seven miles of road with six or seven large farms each of them a mile apart, each having perhaps six, eight, or ten farm workers' houses attached to it. There may be no other human dwelling on that stretch of road at all; although it is not a remote area but a heavily cultivated arable area. The nearest village or small town may be seven or eight miles away from some of these arable farms so that it is not always very convenient, even in these days of quick transport, for most of the farm workers to live off the farms. I am told that a great deal of the heat, controversy and emotion associated with service tenancy houses in farming is centred in Norfolk—for some reason which I have not really studied and do not understand. But I do not think we ought to legislate on an important matter like the agriculture of the whole of the United Kingdom on measures which are dictated by the peculiarities of East Anglia. I do not think the question is quite the same elsewhere; and certainly not in Scotland.
There are advantages in living in a service tenancy house and there are disadvantages. The advantages are that the rent is usually much lower the house is sometimes better than a council house (sometimes not so good, but quite often these days better and more commodious) and, in addition, there are tax advantages because the occupier does not pay tax on the value of his house or on his perquisites. Furthermore, some agricultural workers find it more convenient to be near their work. But there are also disadvantages. The disadvantages are that when employment terminates, whether at the instance of the employer or of the employee, the house has to be vacated and the worker has to move elsewhere. This does not only happen in agriculture. There are lots of other occupations in which service tenancy houses are required; for example, school teaching. In some country districts, school teachers must leave the service tenancy house, which belongs to the education authority, if and when they are dismissed. I do not think there would be any question of allowing the school teacher to stay on in the house, even for six months, with nobody to teach the children in the school. When there is a condition of that sort which is dictated by social, industrial or agricultural requirements then one must consider how to reconcile economic efficiency with the avoidance of hardship.
We all thought that a fairly good attempt to do that had been made in the Rent Act of 1965 which is specifically changed by Clause 99 of this Bill. In the 1965 Act it is provided that if an order for possession is granted to what is called the "owner" of a service tenancy house—he may, of course, be a tenant farmer—then the court may suspend that order if they think that course is justified and reasonable. In considering how to exercise its power the court is directed by the Act of 1965 to consider several points, one of which is in Section 33(5)(b) which reads:
"whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises were available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; "—
which means the farmer.
In this Bill that is deliberately changed. What this Bill proposes is that if the

181
order for possession is given within less than six months of the termination of employment, which it probably would be, then for the rest of the six months—it does not go further than that—the court shall suspend the execution of the order unless it is satisfied of four conditions, one of which replaces this condition in the 1965 Act. The new wording in this Bill is:
"… unless the court is satisfied … that it is not reasonably practicable for the owner of the premises "—
which again means the farmer—
"to carry on an agricultural business in which he is engaged unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by him."
Whether or not he is acquainted with the law, anyone with any experience of the way in which Acts of Parliament are interpreted by the courts (sometimes with great difficulty) will realise that it is a serious matter to say that the fanner shall not be able to recover possession of a service tenancy house which he needs; not because it will prejudice the efficient carrying on of his business but because it is not reasonably practicable. He has to prove that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on an agricultural business at all. Of course that could be, and no doubt would be, interpreted in a great many ways; but what is the point of changing these words unless it is deliberately intended to contemplate a lowering of the standards of agricultural efficiency for the sake of prolonging the occupation of a service tenancy house by an employee who had terminated his employment?
There are many other Amendments to Clause 99 which have been suggested or proposed. But my noble friends and I did not want to sponsor any of them because we want to agree to all that can reasonably be agreed to in order to reduce to the absolute minimum any hardship which may be incurred by a service tenancy employee who, in spite of his contract that the house goes with his job, may still find it difficult to get other employment; or who for any other reason may suffer as a result of the termination of his employment and the tenancy of a house. But I put to the Government, and to your Lordships, that it is definitely a mistake in the national interest that we should here contemplate
182
a reduction in our agricultural standards of efficiency.
There is a definition in the 1965 Rent Act which, I think, is satisfactory. It says:
"Whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced …"
I do not pretend that any form of words is always certain to be interpreted in the right way, but I think those words are clear and sensible enough; and if, instead of saying it is going to interfere with agricultural efficiency, you have to show that it will make it impracticable to carry on farming at all (which seems to me to be the meaning of this new definition) that is a change which could have very damaging effects.
I am not suggesting that in most parts of the country there are numerous cases in which it is necessary to claim repossession of a tenancy, or that that is very widespread. I am told that it is something which happens on an intensive scale only in Norfolk. But it does happen elsewhere, too, and if this provision is allowed to become part of our law it seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to contemplate the lowering of our agricultural standards at a time when it is so desirable in the national interest that they should be raised. I do not think that is right, whether it is done on a small scale or a large scale.
The Government have already been asked to show whether there is any general reason to think that the provision in the 1965 Act, which we want to maintain, is not working well and fairly. It is difficult to give evidence on that. According to the figure given in another place, there have been only 17 evictions since 1965. I am not sure whether that means physical evictions; and it is very difficult to know how many of the orders for possession given by the courts which did not involve eviction created real hardship. We have done our best to find out how many there were in England and in Scotland; but we cannot get any evidence to show that the 1965 Act—which was an improvement from the point of view of the tenant on previous conditions—has worked unfairly or has caused undue or avoidable hardship. I am putting it now to the Government

183
that it is a very dangerous thing for the future of our farming that we should allow a provision to be made which breaks a contract even though the breaking of it would mean—I will not say less prosperity for the farmer because that is a personal matter, but less agricultural production for the country.
6.8 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: I am wondering whether the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is not making too heavy weather of the question of changing these two paragraphs. I agree that the former reference to "efficient management" was probably preferable to "reasonably practicable", but I do not think it is going to make all that difference to the agriculture industry as a whole. I said during the Second Reading debate (I do not want to make a Second Reading speech again to-day, although I think the noble Earl has done so) that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food resisted great pressure to take the agricultural service house out of the general context of service houses. I said then that the agricultural service cottage represented only one-seventh of the whole issue, and the Minister was under pressure to deal with it separately; as if all the other industries where there are service tenancies did not exist. The Minister did not do so, but in a circumstance where there is great emotive feeling he has made a compromise which seems to me a very reasonable one.
I sympathise with the farmers who will find it marginally more difficult to obtain possession and I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the old Act worked perfectly well and there were almost no cases of hardship. I entirely agree that there were few cases of eviction. Nevertheless, it is an emotive issue. I think that the Minister did well to make this compromise and it would be a pity if we looked a gift horse in the mouth. We might have had something so much worse. I hope that the noble Earl and his friends will not see fit to press this issue, because I should feel most unwilling not to support them; yet, for the reasons I have given, I do not feel that the Amendment is worthy of my support.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for
184
putting these three Amendments together. I think it is easier to talk to my own Amendment in conjunction with No. 37. There are two points I wish to make. The first is that with the spread of industry into the countryside there is an increasing attraction for farm workers to leave agriculture and go into industry without leaving the place where they reside, and the pressure on tied houses is certain to build up in some areas in the near future. That is an important point, and we shall get into considerable difficulties about it if we do not watch out. The point my Amendment deals with is the probability that someone will take a job on a farm with a tied cottage in order to get a job in an adjacent factory, and so the Amendment provides that a person must have been in the employment of the farmer for six months before he can qualify for the benefits of a tied cottage.
My noble friend Lord Dundee said that the 1965 Act was working satisfactorily and I think that that is generally agreed. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, I think that the onus is on the Government to show the real need for a change. I do not think that we should just change for purely Party political reasons. The position of a modern farmer in relation to the housing of his workers is getting increasingly complicated and expensive. Some forty years ago I had about twenty tied cottages for employees and that position has remained for many years. Up to the present time, I have never had any major difficulties about the removal of employees, in spite of the fact that it has been extremely difficult to get local government housing in our own district and that we have a large paper mill in close proximity.
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply how many cases of eviction from agricultural tied cottages there have been in Scotland during the last five years since the passing of the 1965 Act. If we are to get efficient and highly skilled labour, as we must have for our modern livestock enterprises, we must give them good quarters in which to live, and what is happening now throughout the country is that two, and in many cases three, cottages are being put together into one house and renovated. That takes between £2,000 and £3,000, because if we are hoping to get really good men we have

185
to give them not only "mod. cons." but also central heating and other things like that. That is our objective: to have every one of our cottages provided with central heating. Therefore the ability of a farmer to be free to give houses to his workers is important. That is why I support the Amendment of my noble friend, which is a much clearer statement of what is required than the original statement in the Bill.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I cannot see that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has much to worry about, because if anybody takes a job with a tied cottage with a view to going into a factory, his maximum time in that cottage is six months. I think that the noble Lord's argument is far-fetched. The clause as it stands, without any alteration, is a complete protection to farmers at the end of six months. What we are arguing about is the period from one month up to six months. The noble Lord is right in saying that what every farmer fears is that his workers may go to work in the local shoe factory and he will not be able to get his cows milked. But I cannot see what the fuss is about. I think it will be much better to leave the clause as it is. It gives a very small leverage on the side of the worker who is being badly treated. It is a rare case, but I see no objection to giving him that. It takes nothing away from the farmer who wants to get rid of a man. If it is a dairying job, Clause 2 covers it; if it is an animal job, it is covered at spring time and at harvest, but possibly not at Christmas. I think the Government would be foolish to make any change here. My own view is like that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—that it would be quite unnecessary to give way on this point. There are more important things to be discussed later.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I cannot agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dundee that it would be better to take these three Amendments together, and I am quite happy to speak to my Amendment now. My Amendment is somewhat akin to that of Lord Balerno's Amendment, the only difference being that I have taken heed of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on Second Reading. I
186
suggested on Second Reading that it would be fairer to the farmer if the employee had to be in the farmer's employment for six months before this clause could apply. The noble Lord then said that there might be reasons outside the farm-worker's control, and he may have to give in his notice before six months. That, of course, is quite true. But in my Amendment I have provided that if there are circumstances
"such as illness of the occupier or his family, which in the opinion of the court make the foregoing condition unreasonable"
these should be taken into consideration.
I cannot think of any other reason, apart from illness or bereavement, that would make a farm-worker want to leave his employment in under six months, unless he was going to a better paid job, possibly in a factory. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to the small farmer. As I said on Second Reading, if the small farmer employs only one agricultural worker, he would then lose the whole of his labour force. He has two options before him: he either has to hire a contractor, and contractors are unreliable and expensive, or he must employ somebody who does not require accommodation, and that is difficult.
The 1965 Act is working very well. I understand that the local authority associations and workers' unions have said that there have been hardly any evictions. My experience of the 1965 Act is that if a worker will not go, it usually takes ten months to a year to get him out. It is always one's wish to find him alternative housing, and if one cannot find it the local authority is under an obligation to do so, but (it depends, of course, on the employer's local authority) they are inclined to drag their feet; and if it is a kind employer, it is my experience that they will drag their feet for ever. I have had three of these cases. I had one man who took a job as an agricultural worker. He threw the job up within three days and got work driving a lorry, earning, I think, with overtime £27 a week. That is all very well, but it was hard luck for me, because on that farm I was employing only two men, and he represented half of my labour force. I had to get in contractors and, as I say, they are unreliable. So I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.

187
I think that my Amendment protects the worker, and I see no objection to it. Without any doubt, as my noble friend Lord Dundee said, if employees are to get an extra six months' grace it will damage the efficiency of agriculture. It will mean that 18 months go by while you apply to the court—and you will probably not apply before three months; you always give the man a good chance—and allow for a probable appeal; and the case may then again go to court, with another appeal, and drag on and on. Under the 1965 Act the court has full power to extend the time that the man can remain in the house.
I would press the Government strongly to put something down on Report stage that will protect at any rate the small farmer. It does not matter so much if a man is employing 12, 15 or 20 men; if he loses one man, who remains in his house for a couple of years, I do not suppose that that farmer would be too worried. But it is extremely difficult for the small farmer employing only one or two men, and I would press the Government to think over this problem seriously.
LORD FORBES: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Dundee on this Amendment. I wonder whether the Government have given full consideration to the position of dairy farmers. Do the Government realise that the cowman, when he finishes milking the cows, say, at half-past five in the evening, does not go away and not appear again until the cows have to be milked next morning. That cowman has to go back to look at his stock, probably before he goes to bed, and he may have to get up in the night to see to a cow calving. Normally you would have the house where this cowman lives adjacent to the steading. What would be the position if the house were occupied by a commercial traveller and the cowman who was supposed to be looking after the cows was living five miles away? He could not just walk into the steading and see what was going on. That is not farming.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: One could think of a number of cases of that nature, but it seems to me to be slightly exaggerated. I think that the noble Lord,
188
Lord Henley, had the position right. We had a good discussion on this point on Second Reading, and we are now on the Committee stage. It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, the Government have taken a reasonable step. We are not discussing anything of a very long or permanent nature; as my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, it is only a matter of three months or six months. As I say, we have had a good deal of discussion on this subject and the Government have taken a reasonable attitude about it. I hardly think it is a matter that ought to be pressed by the Opposition.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask the Government why they do not practise what they preach? In nationalised industries there are plenty of tied cottages, but the Government do not make a clause like this apply to them. Why should this be applied only to private employers in agriculture and not to nationalised industries?
LORD BURTON: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I cannot understand the altitude of noble Lords opposite, who seem to feel so strongly about this subject. In these days when a farm worker, say, a cowman, is in great demand, no man has any difficulty in getting a job with a house. Although my noble friend, Lord Dundee, has said that the position may be rather different in the urbanised areas in England, the position in the rural areas is not acute. The implementation of the Bill as it now stands might well cause greater hardship than it seeks to dispose of. It is not only of the farmer who will be without a cattleman, or something like that, that I am thinking, but also of the incoming worker. The Government do not seem to be considering the man who is coming into the job and who may be kept waiting by this ridiculous aspect of the Bill to protect probably a bad worker.
If something was put into the Bill to protect a worker in the case of illness, or a widow or family in the case of bereavement, I am sure my noble friend would drop the objection. The Bill as it stands merely protects the lazy, the man who does not want to work, or the bad character looking for a house for nothing.

189
I have about 100 employees and over a twenty-year period I have only twice had difficulties. In both cases the men were bad characters who were only with me for a short time. One of them dragged on for over nine months before I could get him out, and it caused considerable difficulty and inconvenience. I cannot see why noble Lords opposite are so emphatic about this matter.
LORD WALSTON: I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. It is never easy to please everybody in this matter of tied cottages, but one has to hold the balance between hardship to the farmer and hardship to the worker. Of course it is bad luck on the farmer— especially the farmer who has only one or two men—if he is left with one of his two cottages, or his only cottage, occupied by somebody who does not work for him. That is cruel, I agree. But it is also extremely bad luck on the farm worker and on his family if he is debarred from looking for a better job, or taking a better job that is offered to him, so that he can give a better start in life to his children and a higher standard of living to his family, because he will lose his house if he takes that better job. You have to balance up those rival claims: hardship to the farmer and hardship to the farm worker.
I do not think that this happens very often in actual practice. I am sure that what happens far more often than eviction is that the farm worker who wants to go somewhere else, possibly to work for another farmer where the boss is a better man, where the opportunities for overtime or promotion are greater, where he would have a more interesting job, or who wants to get a job driving a lorry or working in nearby industry, does not allow himself even to contemplate it because he is afraid of losing his house. That is something at the back of the minds of many farmworkers, even with the protection that they have at the present time.
I remember many years ago an old foreman on my own farm. He had been there ever since he was a boy, starting work at the age of 14. When he was between the ages of 65 or 70 I suggested to him, in what I hoped was a somewhat gentle and friendly way, that perhaps the pace of modern fanning was rather too hot for him and he would be more comfortable
190
if he retired on a pension. He swallowed and said: "Very good, sir. Do you want me to leave next week? And do you want me to give up my cottage at the same time?" It suddenly occurred to me that here was this man who had worked on the same farm for over fifty years, but who had never had security and had always felt that at some time an arbitrary boss could come along and turn him out of the house in which he had lived for fifty years. He had never had the freedom to go and look for something different and to make life better for himself. That is the type of story which we must remember whenever we are talking about tied cottages. It is not the actual statistics of evictions that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked for, that matters; it is the number of people who are denied the freedom to choose the job they want because they happen to live in somebody else's house. Any protection that can be given to those people must have the support of all of us.
I agree at the same time that we must take a realistic view of the problems of farmers. Here we have a reasonable compromise. There are always a certain number of bad farm-workers who will deliberately take a job in order to get a cottage, and make use of the security that gives them to get a better job. I think the numbers are minimal. There are bad fanners who will deliberately penalise and keep a farm-worker under because he is living in a tied cottage and the farmers know that they have a stranglehold on the workers. Those numbers are minimal also, and I do not think we need consider such people. We must take this on the conflicting claims of both sides, and the claim of the individual farmworker warrants at least a 12 months' period.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Why will not the Government apply this to their own tied cottages? They do not apply it to their own tied cottages. What the noble Lord is really saying is that farmers should provide free cottages for workers to go to other jobs.
LORD WALSTON: I wish the noble Viscount—strong memory, bad memory, many things to think about, or few things to think about—would say things which come out of his mind and out of his

191
mouth, but not put words into my mouth which I have not said.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am not clear what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said. I think he said there was a restriction on farmworkers' families, if they happened to be adults and so on, looking for another job. This is not so. I think the noble Lord said that, or gave that impression. If a farmworker has a large family there is no restriction on the children looking for work, obtaining work, getting cheap housing and a big family income. There is no restriction whatsoever.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: We have heard a great deal about the hardships on the worker and the hardships on the farmer. I wish some people would consider the hardships on the animals who are not fed at the proper time because the house, which was available for the man who feeds them, is no longer available and he has to travel long distances. That applies not only to dairy farming, but also to stock where, in my part of the country, stock have to be kept under cover for six months of the year, and have to be fed during the whole of that time. I wish noble Lords opposite would think of that.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: We are dealing with a matter in which there is a conflict of interests. It would appear that there are some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, my noble friend Lord Walston—who are able to overcome their own selfish interest and consider the interests——
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask the noble Lord if he will give way for just one moment? Would he be good enough to ask the noble Lord to whom he has referred how many cottages he has, and how many men he employs, and then consider the small man who has only one or two men to do the work on the farm? It really is appalling to hear the kind of speech that we have had from the noble Lord opposite. I am ashamed to listen to it.
LORD BESWICK: If I have brought in a more personal note I am sorry, but I brought it in in relation to two noble
192
Lords whose speeches impressed me, and impressed many other noble Lords in this House. Because I say that they were regarding this from the point of view of someone other than their own particular positions, I was not intending to say—and I did not say—that all those who have taken the contrary view are necessarily selfish. Certain arguments have been put forward and certain Amendments have been suggested. In one case particularly I think the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I shall endeavour to answer it in a reasonable way. I do not think that the agitation shown by the noble Lord is justified. I suggest that we should try to look at this in a more dispassionate manner.
The fact of the matter is that since the changes proposed in this Bill were announced representations have been made by a number of different organisations. We have had representations from the National Farmers' Union, from the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and from the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. There are these different points of view which have been expressed by these different organisations. It is not surprising that in the case of the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U. they object to this six-months provision that is put into the Bill. It is not surprising, either, that there are branches of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers who would like us to implement what they consider to be a pledge given to them for complete protection; in other words, no eviction unless alternative accommodation is available. But, after all, it is not an unreasonable thing. I understand as well as noble Lords opposite the position of the farmers and, of course, of the animals. But here are some human beings who are saying, "Before you put me out into the street, I should have another home to go to." That is something fundamental to ask for and this point has been put forward with some force.
There were, as we know, many farm workers who came up to the House and lobbied against the proposals that we are putting here because they do not think they are going far enough. But the Government have taken what they believe to be, in all the circumstances,

193
a reasonable and a fair stand. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, used the word "compromise". I think that was the expression which my noble friend Lord Walston suggested, too. I am putting it to noble Lords that, although this satisfies neither the one side nor the other, taking a responsible view in all the circumstances the Government are putting forward a compromise which ought to be accepted.
One or two points of some detail have been raised. In particular, as I say, I was impressed by the Amendment put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He has an Amendment which, on the face of it, would seem to be as reasonble as any of them. If I am not accepting it, it is not because I consider him to be taking up a selfish posture. I believe that he is mistaken in believing that it is necessary to have the kind of Amendment he has put down in order to ensure fairness to both sides. The noble Viscount says that there may be those who would take a farm job for the sake of the cottage that goes with that job. But surely anyone who is prepared to go as far as that, who is prepared to uproot himself and take a job, knowing that he is going to move into another job later on, is likely, I put to the noble Viscount, to be prepared to stay for six months in order to qualify for the protection that he would get even if the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted. I do not think the noble Viscount is dealing with the possibility of abuse. I do not think he is dealing with the kind of case he seeks to deal with, the case of the man who deliberately is abusing the protection which the law provides, or intends to provide.
On the other hand, there may be a case where a man takes a job, and with it a house, yet for reasons which are quite proper, quite reasonable and quite acceptable, gets the sack. If the noble Viscount's Amendment was accepted, that man would not have protection. I put it to the noble Viscount that with his Amendment he would not be catching the bad cases but would be likely to put at risk those who had a genuine reason for wishing to move, or indeed for quite genuine reasons lost their job at the behest of the farmer
194
The noble Viscount seeks to provide even further protection by pointing out that there shall be regard to the circumstances of the farmworker's family. But of course, in such a case we already have protection in the clause as it stands, because a court would specifically have to have regard to the comparative hardship as between the sitting tenant and the incoming worker. I hope, therefore, that in all the circumstances the noble Viscount will feel that the qualifications in the clause take into account, and the court when having regard to those qualifications would take into account, the kind of considerations he has set out in his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am concerned with the rogues. They are very few and far between, I know, but they do appear. I have experienced this. I had a man come into the house in the way I described. But I had another man come in, and I think he gave the job up in five days. He burnt all the wood in the house, all the shelves; he filled the gas meter with pieces of gramophone record, and the Gas Board thought that I had done it. The noble Lord has no idea what one has to put up with.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Viscount seems to be in difficulties all round. He would be well advised to go and see his local Member of Parliament. I am sure there are other ways of helping him, rather than by amending the Bill in this way.
I was asked about the number of evictions in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the figures, if any, are not readily available. I can, however, tell the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the position in Norfolk is not quite so bad as he thought. Of the 18 cases of actual eviction, physical eviction, since 1965, there were some 6 in the whole of East Anglia. Norfolk has not therefore the monopoly of the problem, such as it is—I say here again, advisedly, "such as it is". But the point is not how many are evicted; the point is how many are living with the fear that they could be evicted. That is what we are trying to deal with.
It has been suggested that we must have regard to the man coming in for the efficient working of the farm. But

195
if we want to have a good man coming in, if we want to have a good choice, if we want to have the possibility of proper recruitment into this industry, then one of the best things we can do, surely, is to see that when men come in to work in the industry and take a service tenancy of this kind they have at any rate the minimum protection which is laid down in this Bill. I feel that, if it is a matter of the efficiency of the industry, we are doing something which in the longer term will be in the best interests of efficiency.
LORD ROWALLAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately if one has a bad man on the job, and cannot get a good one in, it is a very short time before the cows are giving half, or less than a half, of their potential, and one may lose a large number of them, costing thousands of pounds. It is a serious matter.
LORD BESWICK: I am not trying to ride off the possibility of a serious case. I am suggesting that if the noble Lord has a case such as that, if he looks at the second of the four qualifications he will find that he is covered. On the other hand, the noble Lord has said there are these bad people. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, seemed to indicate that farmworkers were likely to have a larger proportion of difficult people than in other industries. I do not believe that that is true. But, if it is the case, then for goodness' sake! let us improve the conditions of the farmworkers on the land. And one of the ways in which we can improve them is by giving them this extra protection.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who gave a very good description of the worker's extra comfort (I think that was the word he used), from modernisation of the cottages, and putting one, two or even three, he said, into one, with heating and all the rest of it, that that is fine—that is absolutely fine. But how much better is it if the family know that at any rate they cannot be turned out within six months, unless it be that there is a special case of the type which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, indicated! And then the courts would have regard to that.
LORD ROWALLAN: Too late!
LORD BESWICK: If it is as urgent as that, if it is a question of two or three days, or a week or two, then, as the noble Viscount told us, the present position is equally bad and we are not worsening it by the proposed Amendment. This reminds me to tell the noble Viscount that this period of six months is not in addition to the time taken to have court proceedings. I can give him some figures to show this, but it is not an additional six months period.
I put it to the Committee that, although I realise that there are problems, and although I realise that we must have regard to the very real difficulties that face especially the dairy farmer, I believe the Government have adopted a position which is reasonable and fair, and which is a compromise in an area which has given rise to so much bitter controversy over the years. I think we should be well advised to accept the Bill as it now stands and to reject the Amendment.
6.52 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for trying to introduce this reasonable note and asking us to accept a compromise. But I think it is fair to remind him that when his colleagues in another place were putting the 1965 Act on the Statute Book, in the words of the Attorney General, the criterion in our Amendment was put on the Statute Book in a most considered manner, with the Attorney General specifically saying he considered that the Government had achieved the right balance with those words; and this was carefully debated in Committee. That is the reason why noble Lords on this side of the Committee are doubtful whether it is wise to accept a compromise in order to get agreement: because, having made a settlement, as it was thought, to settle everything in 1965, noble Lords now come along and ask us to go one step further. The advice coming from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in that respect does not quite square up with the previous experience, especially when the spokesman for the National Union of Agricultural Workers in another place made it absolutely plain that so far as he was concerned it was not the end of the road and that he was going to ask for much more.

197
Noble Lords really must face the facts of this situation. Farmers would be absolutely delighted if local authorities built sufficient houses so that they could get rid of all their tied houses; they have to carry them simply because there is no other way of housing the farm workers. It is true that to-day there are some 200,000 farm workers in council houses—thank goodness there are!—and there are only 100,000 farm houses left. But if farmers could be relieved of the lot of them, believe me, they would be absolutely delighted.
I do make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick: that it is not wise advice to say "accept this compromise", because if we do we shall be asked in two or three years' time to accept another one. The practical point here does not concern the big farmer with a number of cottages. He can manage for several months, possibly, with one cottage less. Often I have done it on my own farm, and other noble Lords will have done it. I would always be perfectly willing to let a man have six months, or even longer, to make sure that he got out in comfortable circumstances. The man we are talking about is the farmer with a single farmworker—usually a dairy farmer—and he is absolutely "sunk" if he loses his cottage for six months.
In the terms of the criterion of Clause 99(2)(a)(ii), this is now so loosely worded that the court could take the view, "Well, the farmer could carry on if he could get a relief dairyman to milk his cows for him". The criterion has been significantly weakened from what it was in terms of the efficient production of the farm in the 1965 Act. This is the point
to which we are objecting, because we know that it will seriously affect especially the small farmer with a single farmworker. For this reason we must ask noble Lords to look at this more closely.
Let us, however, remove the emotive atmosphere. All of us engaged in farming are perfectly well aware that the problem is not to get fellows to go out of the farm cottages but to get them to go in. With 20,000 or 30,000 farm workers going out into industry every year, the boot is entirely on the other foot to-day. As my noble friend Lord Balerno said, any wise farmer is taking endless trouble nowadays to make his farm cottages as comfortable and attractive as possible, to let them all without any rent at all—indeed to do anything he can to keep his men. So the bargaining position is entirely with the farmworkers. It is not a case of hard-hearted, all-powerful farmers pressing the farm workers: it really is quite the other way round.
We are simply arguing now on the technical point that we think it unwise to make further concessions, at the expense of the efficiency of the farm, in order to please the National Union of Agricultural Workers because we are quite sure that they will simply ask for another one. For that reason, my advice to the Committee is that they should accept this Amendment as being thoroughly reasonable.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Albemarle, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Latymer, L.

Balerno, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Belstead, L.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bethell, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, V.

Forbes, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bourne, L.

Glendevon, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Helens, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Swaythling, L.

Sherfield, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Teynham, L.

Somers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller]

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Boothby, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Platt, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
7.4 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 39A:
After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
Additional case in which court must order possession where dwelling-house subject to regulated tenancy
(".After Case 13 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 there shall be added the following:—
Case 14
Where the dwellinghouse was at any time occupied by a person responsible (whether as owner, tenant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of the agricultural unit of which the dwellinghouse forms a part and

(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this case, and

(b) the court is satisfied either that the dwellinghouse is required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture, or that the dwellinghouse is required for a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of the agricultural unit of which the dwellinghouse forms a part:

and for the purposes of this Case "employed" and "agriculture" have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, and "agricultural unit" has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. This clause concerns a limited point with regard to the recovery of an agricultural
200
farmhouse which has been let off to a private tenant and is wanted back by the farmer for occupancy by a farmworker or farm manager. The 1968 Rent Act provides machinery for a farmer to recover possession of a farm worker's dwelling-house which has been let off to a private tenant and is wanted back by the farmer for occupancy by a farmworker for the working of the farm. But the 1968 Act stopped short of extending this same machinery for recovery to farmhouses, except in the case of an amalgamation of farms as in Case 13 of the 1968 Act. This means, as the law now stands, that there will sometimes be cases where a farmer needs to recover possession of a farmhouse let off to a private tenant and cannot do so, to the detriment of the farm or holding. My new clause would provide the machinery for the farmer to recover possession of the farmhouse when he so needs it, subject to his following the correct procedure and safeguards as in the case of farmworkers' dwellinghouses. The specific safeguard is that the farmer, when letting the farmhouse to the tenant in the first place, must give notice at the beginning of the tenancy that repossession of the farmhouse might be wanted at some time in the future, if he is to qualify for the relief of this machinery.
This qualification of course means that the relief which would be given for recovery of farmhouses would only apply in the future; that is to say, where the farmhouses are already let off this new clause could not affect those tenancies. But in the future when for some reason the farmer has a spare farmhouse and lets it off, and it is not in connection with

201
amalgamation, and he gives notice when he creates the tenancy that he may want it in the future, he would be allowed to use this machinery in the 1968 Act. Obviously it will not affect a very great many cases, but it could be important in this farming industry, where changes are so rapid now, and for all we know there may be more farmhouses becoming vacant in the future. I would think it is a small improvement which I do not think could be emotive or cause difficulty, and I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: May I add a few words in support of this Amendment. It seems to me that sometimes, particularly in the areas in the West, farmhouses built in the old-fashioned days are much too large, and the farmers want to let them off. That is quite useful from the tourists' point of view, but sometimes farmers are reluctant to let them because they fear they will never get them back. I think this Amendment goes some way to making better use of the old, large farmhouses than is made at present.
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment would widen very considerably the provisions of Case 13 of the 1968 Rent Act under which a farmhouse can be let on a regulated tenancy subject to a right of repossession in certain special circumstances. I must say frankly that I think the proposed Case 14 is too wide. Case 13 makes an exception from the general security of tenure provided by the Rent Acts; and this could be justified only in special cases and with proper safeguards. Accordingly, Case 13 is restricted to farmhouses rendered surplus by approved amalgamations. It does not allow possession to be recovered from the ex-farmer, an ex-employee or their widows. It requires the right of repossession to be exercised within a limited period. And finally the house must be required to house a farm worker. None of these conditions would apply under the proposed Case 14, which would simply render Case 13 superfluous. The farmhouse rendered surplus by amalgamation is a special case.
I must say that although the noble Lord moved his Amendment most persuasively, I am a little surprised that he puts forward this proposal to allow repossession
202
from the ex-farmer or his widow, because in the debate on the 1967 Bill the noble Lord then said:
"The new clause … makes special provision for the retiring farmer or his widow to continue to live in the spare farmhouse if they wish to do so. I quite accept that it is both humane and sensible, and the proper thing to do. In fact, unless such was done there probably would not be an amalgamation at all, so it is an entirely sensible thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/3/67, col. 1405.]
That is what he said then, and I really do not see what has happened since that time to persuade the noble Lord to change his mind.
Moreover, the proposal here is to sweep away the time limits within which the right of repossession may be exercised. It is reasonable that the owner should have a period of years in which to make up his mind whether he is going to need the house. But it is not reasonable that he should be able to exercise that right indefinitely. After a period of years an occupant will tend to settle down and regard the house as his for as long as he needs it. He may be getting on in years or his circumstances may have changed. I really do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has taken this category of case into account. Surely, it would be wrong for the occupant to remain indefinitely subject to immediate eviction. The time must come, I am putting to noble Lords, when the house should be treated like any other rural dwelling which is not let to farm workers.
Lastly, the proposal we have before us would allow possession to be recovered so that the house could be sold with vacant possession to an incoming farmer. This would be a greater breach in the security of tenure provided by the Rent Acts than we could justify on agricultural grounds. The general principle is that people who pay the rent for a regulated tenancy should have the corresponding security. We have made exceptions to this rule for the benefit of agricultural landlords in well defined cases. Tied cottages are one, and farmhouses rendered surplus by amalgamation are another. These are cases that can be defined and justified with due safeguards. The proposed Case 14 would bring in a great variety of cases, though they might be few in number.
This matter has been debated at length on previous occasions. Indeed, noble

203
Lords opposite put forward a similar proposal during consideration of the Rent Bill of 1965. We then put forward proposals of our own which became the present law. These proposals were worked out after lengthy discussion both in Parliament and with the interests concerned. They represent a fair and balanced solution to what is a difficult issue. If there are farmers who have the surplus houses to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, surely the right course for those people who are fortunate to have more houses than they need is to make up their minds what they want to do with them. They can sell; they can let the houses at a low rent; or, of course, the house can be let to a worker, thus releasing a cottage straight away which could be let on a Case 12 basis.
I suggest, therefore, that the new clause is not only unsuitable in its present form, but also unnecessary, and frankly I can-not see how any provision of this kind could be drawn up which would not create as many problems as it would solve. I am recommending that we do not accept the proposed new clause.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I am bound to say that it seems a little unbending. I think he was less than fair to me on the question of amalgamations. I think that, subject to superior legal opinion, Case 13 would govern Case 14 if Case 14 was put into the Act: that is to say, that Case 13 which now governs amalgamations would continue to stand. In other words, the position of the ex-farmer and the widow would continue to be protected.
I was surprised that the noble Lord should interpret my Case 14 as superseding Case 13. It did not seem to me entirely fair that he should quote back at me my support for that particular case. Naturally, there is no intention whatsoever to weaken the position of the ex-farmer or the widow, because I specifically made the point in commending my Amendment to the Committee that this does not deal with the case of amalgamations. This arises only where for some reason the farmer has a farmhouse going spare outside the case of amalgamation. Either the noble Lord's brief was not entirely fair, or his argument was not.
204
With regard to the other point that the noble Lord made, that the owner should not have the right indefinitely to recover, this is arguable. Maybe a term should be put to it. But I cannot accept that he considers it to be a solution that the farmer can either sell off the farmhouse or let it to a farm worker. If he sells it off it is lost to farming for good. I do not think that this is necessarily going to be in the interests of agriculture.
However, the noble Lord has cast doubts on the technical soundness of this Amendment. I personally am persuaded that there is a good point here; and all the debates I have read about this matter in another place have convinced me that there is a good point, albeit a small one. I believe that we can perfectly well cater for the position now covered in Case 13, of the ex-farmer and the widow. But I should like to make absolutely sure that this new clause is correctly drafted so that it limits the application to the very narrow field to which I want it to apply; then, if the Committee will allow me to withdraw it now, I should like to put it down on the Report stage. I hope that the noble Lord and his advisers will give this a fair consideration, because I really believe that this Amendment could be made without any damage to anybody but with advantage to the farming industry. In the light of the noble Lord's reply I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 agreed to.
7.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
National Agricultural Advisory Service
".The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may, instead of maintaining the National Agricultural Advisory Service provided for by section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, give effect to the purposes for which that Service was established (which relate to the provision of advice and instruction on agricultural matters) through such other organisation as he may consider appropriate; and accordingly, the said section 1(1) shall be amended by substituting, for the words ' shall, as from the appointed day, establish and maintain a National Agricultural Advisory Service', the words ' shall make provision through such organisation as he considers appropriate'."
The noble Lord said: It will be recalled that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I gave notice that I should be introducing this provision. It is designed to facilitate the proposals announced by the Minister of Agriculture on April 9 for the unification of the Ministry's professional, scientific and technical service. The basis of these proposals is the management consultants' recommendations that unification would make possible a more efficient and more economic service to the farmers. My understanding was that the case commanded approval when it was put on Second Reading, and I therefore leave it at that, although of course if there are questions I shall be glad to answer them. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am not very much wiser from what the noble Lord has told us about this new clause, and I was rather hoping that he would give us some explanation of what is really contemplated in the Ministry of Agriculture. Those noble Lords who are here now are interested in this subject, and I should therefore be grateful if the noble Lord, if he is in a position to do so, would give a few words of explanation about just what changes are contemplated.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry; I thought I was meeting the convenience of the House in keeping my remarks short. The existing services, the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the Agricultural Land Service, the Veterinary Services and the Drainage and Water Supply Service, are the services affected. As noble Lords know, they have earned an excellent reputation for their high standard of service to the farming community, and the efficiency of the industry owes a great deal to them. But, given the change that is taking place in the industry, we decided, on the basis of the advice tendered to us by the consultants, that the organisation of these services ought to change to meet the changing needs of farming.
In particular, we have the changes in farming techniques which make farming to-day increasingly capital intensive. For this reason, farmers cannot afford to consider investment or husbandry problems in isolation. No aspect of the work of the professional and technical services
206
in the advisory or grant field can satisfactorily be tackled except in the context of the development policy of the farm as a whole. Only through a unified service, it is suggested, can we ensure that individual problems—whether on drainage, buildings or husbandry—are examined from this "whole farm" point of view, or that the full range of expertise within the Department can be placed quickly and economically at the farmer's disposal. In addition, by removing unnecessary demarcations between the separate services, unification will enable the number of officials separately visiting farms to be reduced, and requests for advice and applications for grants to be dealt with more promptly.
I should say, however, that one feature will not be changed; the Minister has already given firm assurances, which I now repeat, that it will continue to be the duty of officers engaged in advisory work to give farmers impartial advice. The Minister is therefore proposing, subject to consultation with those concerned, to unify the technical services. The names of the separate services will need to be replaced by a new name for the service as a whole. The name of the "N.A.A.S." is, however, enshrined in Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944. There is no comparable legislative provision involving the names of the other services affected by the proposals for unification. The sole purpose of the amending clause I am now introducing is to remove the name "National Agricultural Advisory Service", without in any way changing the obligation upon the Minister to continue to provide the advisory service. I apologise again to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for trying to curtail my remarks in the beginning. I hope that, with this extension of what is involved, he will feel more able to support my Amendment. Again, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: It is with some hesitation that I venture to interfere in this English and Welsh matter, but I should like to know whether this Amendment would make it possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to move its advisory services more into line with what we in Scotland have adopted, where the advisory services, though paid for by the Government, are channelled through the

207
colleges of agriculture and the university departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, went out of his way to stress the impartiality of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Perhaps one sees things differently from the other side of the Border, but I think there have been occasions when the advice given by the advisers of N.A.A.S. in England has been curiously in consonance with what happens to be the ideas of the Government of the day, whereas in Scotland we have had greater independence in our agricultural advice. My purpose in intervening here is really to point out to the Government of England that they seem to have given themselves an opportunity to improve their agricultural advisory services, and I would strongly advise them to take advantage of it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us these few words of explanation; and also for having endeavoured to study our convenience? I quite understand what he was doing, but I think the noble Lords who remain in the Chamber are here for their intrinsic interest, rather than apprehension of other events that might follow, and therefore their time is well spent.
Personally, I feel a very great interest in what is proposed. In years gone by I have been closely associated with these various services, and I recognise that the change which is now contemplated is a very big one, and will mean very great changes indeed for these technical services. I know them well; I have known their chief officers, and many of their other officers, for many years, and I have a great affection for them. Therefore, being a conservative by nature (with a small "c") I am slightly reluctant to see this change being made. However, I am bound to recognise the cogency of the reason in moving towards a unification of technical services. I entirely accept the noble Lord's point that capital expenditure on the farm to-day, Where more and more capital is required, must be looked at for the farm as a whole, and therefore there is this technical need to unify the services. Provided that it can be done in a happy and harmonious way, so that the many officers concerned
208
are happy in their new relationship in the new structure, I should be the last person to criticise it. In fact, I should like to be the first to commend it, to express my very best wishes to those concerned, and the hope that the new unified service will win for itself as fine a reputation in the future as the single services have had in the past.
It is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Balerno says, that occasionally there have been allegations that there was not impartiality, and that the Scottish structure, based on the universities and colleges, has the appearance of being more independent of Government, and therefore more impartial. However, as I well know, from both inside and outside, the technical advice given by all these specialised services has always been not only highly expert, but also completely impartial. There is no doubt about that at all. Therefore I can assure my noble friend that he need not be anxious for us in England and Wales; we feel that we are very well served. I would conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us this word of explanation; and in thanking these admirable technical officers for their great services of the past, I give them my best wishes for their services in the future under a new name.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I should like to give my support, and that of noble Lords on these Benches, to this Motion.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to say from this side that I appreciate v/hat the noble Lord has said about the services which have been given by N.A.A.S. and the other technical services. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that it is not proposed to move to the Scottish system, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, says, that does not mean that there will be any loss of the impartiality for which the services have been noted in the past. I am glad to think that the new services, the details of which have still to be worked out (consultations are going on), will have the good wishes of both sides of the House.
Clause 101 agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether, before the next Amendment is put, I may

209
put another proposition to the Committee. We have made extremely good progress and we are now coming to a completely different part of the Bill, so far as the subject matter is concerned, although the Amendments are all within Part VII. So I suggest, if it has the general agreement of the Committee, that the House do now resume.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I agree with the noble Lord's proposal that the House should now resume. I think that this would be a convenient moment, as we have reached a natural break. There are some major matters of completely different interest coming in the last part, and I agree with the noble Lord that they could be better dealt with at the beginning of a new day.
LORD BALERNO: Can the noble Lord give us any idea of when the House will again sit in Committee on this Bill?
LORD BESWICK: The proposal has been put, and it has been put down in the documents that have been circulated and discussed through the usual channels, that we should take this Bill again next Monday. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FOOT PATHS AND OPEN SPACES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.31 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small and, I hope your Lordships will agree, a very useful Bill. It aims at solving a practical problem which is causing difficulty in modern developments, particularly housing developments, where pedestrians are segregated from vehicular traffic. Lay-outs designed to achieve this segregation are becoming increasingly preferred by local planning authorities. In physical terms, it means that footpaths in the developments are often quite separate from carriageways. There is no problem where such developments are carried out by local authorities, but where they
210
are undertaken by private developers, which include New Town corporations and Scottish special housing associations as well as private companies, there may be some difficulties. That is because some local authorities have no clear powers to take over or maintain the segregated footpaths, and responsibility for further maintenance must remain with the developers.
In practice, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs because, for example, the private developer may have only a temporary interest in the development and may move on to further projects, or may even have gone bankrupt which, in the light of recent experience of the Scottish building industry, is quite a reasonable possibility. Alternatively, it may fall to individual frontagers to maintain the footpaths, which can be quite a burden for them. The Bill would therefore give permissive powers to county councils and town councils to take over and maintain segregated footpaths in housing or commercial developments. It would also enable them to construct footpaths, thus filling another gap in their powers. In conferring these powers, the Bill would meet the wishes of the local authorities themselves, as expressed through the Association of County Councils; and a number of individual authorities, such as the Renfrewshire County Council, the Dunbartonshire County Council and the Stirlingshire County Council, have expressed interest in supporting this Bill.
The Bill also deals with an associated problem; that is, the lack of clearly defined powers for local authorities to take over and maintain small open spaces which are frequently provided as part of landscaping in modern developments. The Bill would give permissive powers to county councils and town councils to take over and maintain such open spaces. The purposes of the Bill are clearly desirable and practical. I hope that your Lordships' House, at this late hour, will have no hesitation in giving it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
7.35 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the lucid way in which he has explained

211
this little Bill. I think it has everything to recommend it and, although I have tried to find holes to pick in it, I have found none. The powers already exist in a few cases, and in the Kingdom to the South, in England and Wales, these powers have nearly always been held by local authorities. I have known one or two private developments where the footpaths have not been alongside the road, and they have deteriorated into rather unpleasant places on which to walk. Ladies in high heels have caught their feet and anyone walking in the evenings was apt to take a nasty toss. This Bill will help to eradicate that problem by giving the councils power to take over privately-owned spaces. I do not think any private developer can have anything but gratitude that local government is given power to do this, which is all for the public good. With those few words, I beg to support the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the excellent manner in which he has introduced this Bill. For 16 years I served on a local authority in Scotland and we came up against this problem of who was going to look after the footpaths. In our case, the county council were quite clear that they would not touch the footpaths with a barge pole, and anything which had to be done fell upon the district council who had very little reserves and very little power for raising money to cover such needs. We managed to create some footpaths, but it was done with the maximum difficulty and tribulation. This Bill puts the expense upon the county council who can much better afford it, and clears up the rather murky situation which the noble Lord mentioned. Therefore I welcome the Bill.
With some hesitation I should like to make one further point on Clause 5, the interpretation clause. That gives the definition of "carriageway", but I do not see where that word appears in the Bill. I may have given the Bill too cursory an examination, but if the word
212
"carriageway" does not appear in the Bill it seems to me that it does not need to appear in the interpretation clause.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of noble Lords opposite to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe for bringing this very useful Bill before your Lordships. The form in which it has reached us seems so eminently suitable that I hope it not only receives a Second Reading but that it passes through your Lordships' House in future stages and emerges exactly as it is at the present moment.
7.38 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the friendly reception given to this rather simple but important Bill. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who knows from his experience in a local authority how desirable this legislation is. I am afraid I am unable to deal with his particular point regarding the definition of "carriageway" in the interpretation clause but not in the body of the Bill, but the Bill itself clearly explains that what is covered by the proposed legislation is not paths alongside roadways but segregated paths in areas which are closed to vehicular traffic. In these circumstances, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will accept this explanation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 26 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.